Adult Qualified Mental Health Professionals (QMHP-As Masters level, licensed and licensed eligible and above) new hires who are certified as 988 crisis co-responders under the Governor's "Right Help Right Now" Crisis Now Initiative should be required to undergo the same Virginia Criminal Justice Academy approved CIT training as law enforcement officers undergoing the same or equivalent training. This is the practice in other state jurisdictions which employ the evidence-based "Memphis Model" (see attached) and should be the case in Virginia. In Virginia, non-custodial Department of Corrections personnel who were "new hires" in major state correctional facilities, as I was early in my career as a licensed clinical psychologist, were required to go through the same basic training as correction officer "new hires" which was viewed at the time as means of enhancing teamwork and a shared sense of the importance of security. The same should be the case for those who work as a team in doing this kind of crisis work. That is in my professional opinion as someone who has done crisis work for years and worked in both the criminal and civil judicial systems and in the private sector for many years as well. Edmund W. Creekmore, Jr., Ph.D., LCP, Independent Forensic Examiner

This bill would be considerably strengthened by requiring that Qualified Mental Health Professionals (QMHP-A Masters Level and above, licensed or licensed eligible) who qualify to assist CIT trained law enforcement officers as crisis "co-responders" be required under Virginia law to undergo the same CIT training that is required of LEOs under this bill. Many years ago, I worked as an intake psychologist in a major Virginia correctional facility, and all non-custodial new hires were required to undergo the same basic training as new officer recruits. New Jersey has such a legal requirement for its crisis co-responders who are required by New Jersey law to undergo the same basic CIT training together. The Commonwealth of Virginia should have a similar such requirement...

Do not criminalized pro-Palestine speech, demonstrations and written material.

Comments Document

This bill would be considerably strengthened by requiring that Qualified Mental Health Professionals (QMHP-A Masters Level and above, licensed or licensed eligible) who qualify to assist CIT trained law enforcement officers as crisis "co-responders" be required under Virginia law to undergo the same CIT training that is required of LEOs under this bill. Many years ago, I worked as an intake psychologist in a major Virginia correctional facility. All non-custodial new hires were then required to undergo the same basic training as new officer recruits. New Jersey has such a legal requirement for its crisis co-responders who are required by New Jersey law to undergo the same basic CIT training together. The Commonwealth of Virginia should have a similar such requirement... Edmund W. Creekmore, Jr., Ph.D., LCP, Independent Forensic Examiner

VALA opposes HB1730 as it creates a strict liability bill that penalizes an assisted living facility that has done its due diligence in abiding by the requirements of the law, including background checks on every employee. If the business failed to abide by the law or was negligent in its actions, then we could understand the allocation of liability; however, an employer that had no warning of a future criminal act of an employee that passed the background required by law should not be punished for the act of the employee that was unpredictable. This bill will create significant liability on an already strained industry. HB1730 unfairly targets industries that must rely on direct interactions with individuals in order to provide services. By increasing the liability of such industries, then the associated cost of insurance will increase, which will then increase the cost of care by the consumers. We ask you to oppose HB1730.

Do not criminalized pro-Palestine speech, demonstrations and written material.

I would recommend support for this bill for many of these reasons: I must say thank you for your willingness to put this forward. Let me say first, those lawyers in non-PD areas who get the court appointed cases are as a whole, good solid dedicated lawyers. Not paid enough for sure (thank you for increasing the pay in this bill). Sometimes that court appointed work is an important, crucial part of their private practice. I was one of them in Woodbridge from 1986 to 1996 when I left to take the Appellate Defender job in Richmond. I know many of them from my work at Lantagne Legal Printing helping them file their appeals. I share their concern about the future of their practice. But there are key institutional differences between the individual court appointed lawyers and the public defender office. The mentoring, training, encouraging (As the Bible says: Iron sharpens iron!), and the specialized personnel such as investigators, sentencing specialists, juvenile specialists, and now the appellate cohort being assembled in Richmond under the leadership of Catherine French Zagurskie, all this cannot help but be better for indigents. The present system verges on unequal justice under law. Few if any of the most dedicated court appointed lawyers can meet or exceed what a PD office can do for clients. Yes the PD system needs solid funding and always watch for caseloads and stress and burnout but it is necessary to go statewide. Many of those dedicated court appointed lawyers can enter the PD service. So, I recommend this bill should become law PROVIDED there is sufficient funding for the new offices and positions. Elwood Earl "Sandy" Sanders, Jr., Esq. (VSB 25007) Appellate Defender 1996 to 2000

Support for HOUSE BILL NO. 2187 Strengthening Child Welfare Oversight in Virginia HOUSE BILL NO. 2187, introduced by Delegate Freitas, seeks to enhance the role of Virginia's Children's Ombudsman in safeguarding the welfare of children involved in child welfare services. Here’s why this bill is a commendable step forward: Constitutional and State Law Support: Constitutional Basis for Child Protection: The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process and equal protection under the law, which can be extended to argue for the state’s obligation to protect children's rights and welfare. This amendment supports the state's intervention in cases where children's rights might be at risk due to abuse, neglect, or inadequate care. Virginia State Law: Virginia Code § 2.2-442 already establishes the Children's Ombudsman, but this bill expands its scope, aligning with the state's commitment to child welfare as outlined in various statutes, including the Virginia Children's Services Act, which emphasizes providing services to at-risk children in a family-focused, community-based environment. Parental Rights and Child Welfare: While the bill enhances the Ombudsman's powers, it does not negate parental rights but rather aims to ensure these rights are exercised in a manner that truly benefits the child. The Virginia Supreme Court in Stanley v. Illinois (1972) emphasized that while parental rights are fundamental, they are not absolute when the welfare of the child is at stake. Child and Parental Rights Cases: Santosky v. Kramer (1982) - The U.S. Supreme Court held that in proceedings to terminate parental rights, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the state to support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. This bill's focus on thorough investigation and advocacy aligns with ensuring that decisions affecting parental rights are well-founded and fair. In re J.W. (2009) - A Virginia case where the court emphasized the importance of considering the best interest of the child when making decisions about custody and parental rights. The bill's advocacy for child welfare aligns with this judicial direction. In summary, HOUSE BILL NO. 2187 represents a significant step forward in ensuring that Virginia's child welfare system operates with the highest level of accountability, transparency, and advocacy for those it serves. It aligns with both constitutional principles and state law, offering a robust framework for protecting and advocating for children's rights while respecting the legal framework governing parental rights.

As a domestic violence survivor whose children have been abused their entire lives, we need more oversight and accountability for DSS. This bill helps to establish that, especially in situations where CPS ignores repeated reports by mandatory reporters. I have lost all rights to my children because CPS does not investigate constant reports, therefore the court deemed me malicious, despite outside reporters reporting sometimes on a weekly basis. Without this bill, CPS will continue to run amok, which increases mental health issues, delinquency, drop out rates, poverty levels and burdens on the system. The long term affects of these policies on women and children are extreme.

The Virginia Victim Assistance Network supports this bill.

Do not criminalized pro-Palestine speech, demonstrations and written material.

Children subject to CHINS petitions are often children with disabilities with significant needs. The appointment of a GAL for these children is an important safeguard that ensures that an attorney with knowledge of the judicial process and the available systems of support, and whose sole responsibility is to identify and advocate for the best interests of the child are part of the process.

Normally I despise bills that fuel guardians and conservators especially in light of the damage it did to folks like Britney Spears. But because it specifically says competent when referring to guardians I will make quite the exception! Well done Del Rasoul!

Do not criminalized pro-Palestine speech, demonstrations and written material.

Support for the Amendment: Prevents Misdiagnosis Due to Lack of Training: Family service workers who are not adequately trained to interpret drug and alcohol screens can lead to wrongful assessments of child abuse or neglect. This amendment ensures that children are not labeled as abused or neglected based solely on the presence of substances that are legally prescribed by a physician or other medical personnel authorized to diagnose health issues and prescribe legal medications. Reduces Bias and Misinterpretation: There's a risk that untrained personnel might misinterpret the presence of legally prescribed substances as signs of abuse or neglect. This amendment clarifies that the legal use of medications prescribed by authorized medical professionals should not automatically lead to such a determination, safeguarding against bias or misinterpretation. Protects Parental Rights: The amendment upholds the constitutional right to privacy and the fundamental right to parent, as established in cases like Stanley v. Illinois (1972). It ensures that custody or visitation rights aren't denied solely based on the use of medications legally prescribed by healthcare providers, emphasizing that treatment for health conditions should not equate to loss of parental rights. Addresses Potential Conflicts of Interest: By highlighting the issue with outside contractors potentially benefiting from finding positive tests, this amendment could lead to more impartial evaluations. It encourages a system where the focus is genuinely on the well-being of the child rather than on maintaining contracts or funding, especially when substances are legally prescribed. Promotes Fairness in Child Welfare Investigations: The directive for the Board of Social Services to amend its materials ensures that policy and practice align with the law, promoting consistency and fairness across all local departments. This can lead to more standardized and just approaches in child welfare cases, particularly when dealing with legally prescribed medications. Encourages Proper Substance Use Treatment: By not penalizing the use of legally prescribed substances, the amendment supports a health-focused approach rather than a punitive one. This can encourage parents to seek and adhere to medical treatment without fear of losing custody, ultimately benefiting the child's environment and the family's health. Legal and Policy Clarity: This amendment clarifies the law, reducing ambiguity in how child abuse or neglect is defined in relation to substance use. It aligns with public health approaches that distinguish between the responsible use of legal medications and actual neglect or abuse, ensuring decisions are made based on the actual impact on parenting and child safety. In summary, this amendment is a commendable effort to ensure that child welfare decisions are based on factual assessments of harm rather than on the mere presence of legally prescribed medications. It supports a more nuanced approach to child protection, respecting parental rights while aiming to protect children from genuine neglect or abuse, with the stipulation that proper medical oversight and use are maintained.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of HB2613, which seeks to ensure that parents and guardians are not unjustly penalized or at risk of losing custody or parental rights solely for the lawful use of cannabis. As cannabis legalization expands across the country, it is vital to update policies to reflect this shift and prevent unintended consequences for responsible individuals. The use of legal cannabis—whether for medical or recreational purposes—should not be grounds for questioning a parent’s ability to care for their children, particularly when cannabis use has been shown to have less societal harm than substances like alcohol, which is legally accepted. This bill protects families by ensuring that the focus of any parental rights or custody proceedings remains on the best interests of the child, as it should. Parents should be evaluated based on their actual caregiving abilities, the safety and well-being of their children, and the broader context of their household, rather than outdated stigmas about cannabis use. Furthermore, legal cannabis is often used for legitimate medical purposes, including chronic pain management, mental health conditions, and other serious health issues. Penalizing parents for accessing a legal and therapeutic substance discriminates against those who rely on cannabis as part of their healthcare. This is particularly unjust when there is no evidence of harm or neglect caused by its use. Passing this bill would align family law with the principles of equity and fairness while safeguarding children from being unnecessarily separated from loving and capable parents. It also sends a clear message that the state supports science-based, compassionate, and just policies. I urge you to vote in favor of HB2613 and protect the rights of parents who responsibly and legally use cannabis. Thank you for considering this important measure to strengthen and protect families. Sincerely,
 Jessee Perry

Thanks to Delegate Thomas for bringing this bill. As everyone knows, fentanyl is the deadliest drug to hit our nation and Virginia. My niece, Paula, passed away at age 18 from a pill that she thought was a Percocet. We must protect our youth by holding the drug traffickers accountable and elevating charges for those calloused enough to sell what they know are deadly drugs. In the last year, about 1,800 more Virginians have been poisoned and died from Fentanyl. Involuntary manslaughter elevates the charges at least to recognize that the trafficker caused someone’s death. In many cases felony homicide would be more appropriate but the way things stand now, very few cases are prosecuted. Why can’t we hold these killers accountable and stop the killing? >13,000 deaths in Va the last 7 years and very few prosecuted for causing a death. Thousands of Virginians have been impacted.

ALPRs Help Stop Kidnappings: ALPRs work by utilizing public safety resources like the FBI’s National Crime Information Center, federal and state hotlists, and AMBER alerts to send real-time notifications to nearby law enforcement officials when a wanted or stolen vehicle is detected. ALPRs Remove Human Bias From Suspecting: As eyewitness testimony has been proven to be vulnerable to personal bias, the use of this technology serves as a tool to eliminate prejudices in identifying crime suspects. By removing human-bias from the equation, ALPRs help officers execute the law more efficiently and fairly. ALPRs Are A Force Multiplier For Law Enforcement: In a time when law enforcement agencies are stretched thin and officer recruitment is trending down, crime-solving technology can serve as a force multiplier for police departments. Many Virginia localities including Alexandria, Virginia Beach, Richmond, and Staunton are already utilizing automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras to assist in investigations. Vehicle Data Is Only Stored For 30 Days: ALPRs work by accessing publicly available vehicle information, specifically license place data, to help officers make arrests and recover stolen property. Proposed regulation in Virginia would ensure data gathered by license plate readers is only stored for 30 days – ample time for officers to catch criminals while still maintaining critical privacy protections for Virginians.

This bill on surveillance is absolutely unacceptable. We are already living in a surveilled police state and we don’t need to go any further. Everyone deserves a right to privacy and no good could possible come from this. Surveillance will always target Black and brown and queer people more than anyone else and no one should stand for this, especially not ‘progressives.’ I urge everyone to not support this bill.

Good afternoon, I am a citizen of Loudoun County and wanted to express my serious concerns with HB2724 sponsored by Delegate Herring. When it comes to technology we are at a very very dangerous time when we need to deeply consider ALL possible ramifications of tech surveillance and potential uses of AI. We truly do not know yet what the consequences of widespread use of this technology could be, and many many AI models have already been shown to display racial and other biases. Privacy is also a concern, what guarantee do we have that local law enforcement wouldn't abuse the power given to them with this mandate? Especially with changes happening on a federal level, and the fear many community members across Virginia have that state and local law enforcement organizations may be asked to violate constitutional rights. Many organizations, including the Legal Aid Justice Center, New Virginia Majority, the Virginia Grassroots Coalition, ACLU of Virginia and more have expressed grave concerns about this bill and the way it could potentially be interpreted. Please err on the side of caution and protection for our communities by voting no on HB 2724.

Harrisonburg is a cautionary tale on Cameras. In May of 2023, the current Vice Mayor moved to approve camera technology, dismissing privacy concerns in favor of a quantitatively dubious appeal to safety. In September, HPD received an award for using license plate readers to defeat a "spike" in car thefts (already near the bottom nationally, they dipped during COVID and partially rebounded-- statistical noise, not a "spike") . Less than a year later, 25,000 tickets had been issued to a population of 55,000 and hundred dollar speed camera tickets had become the city's fastest growing source of revenue. In April of 2024, the CEO of the camera company defied a council member when he pressed her about the company's profit motives when they had to come before council to answer customer service complaints, made excuses about no one being "flawless," and derided aggrieved residents as "one of the 13 who had a problem." On May 31, WHSV ran a story on the Chief resigning to move to a community of 8,000 and on June 1st, on 1400 tickets being invalidated and refunded after an apparent pro se challenge. Trust in law enforcement is vital. Legislators should provide guardrails on complex issues to protect that trust. In this case, please say no to mass surveillance.

The Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police supports HB 2724, the bill to regulate law enforcement use of license plate readers. The police chiefs worked closely with the Crime Commission to address public and law enforcement concerns about the use of LPRs. This bill addresses uniform use of LPRs, record-keeping, data protection and appropriate use in criminal investigations, It provides for transparency and guardrails to ensure proper and limited use of LPRs. We thank Delegate Herring and the Crime Commission for the hard work to develop very responsible and practicable license plate reader legislation.

Mass surveillance hurts low income communities the worse. Vote no to this bill.

This bill will allow law enforcement to use photos from ALPRs for any “active criminal investigation”. “Active criminal investigation” is not a term defined in Virginia law. The bill will connect the surveillance to a nationwide database accessible to other states and the Federal Government. Such surveillance is a glaring violation of our privacy and absolutely unacceptable to provide such broad powers to law enforcement. Further, this information would likely be provided to private companies and contractors. Law-abiding citizens should be able to go about their day without fear of draconian surveillance of their private lives. Unless and until the term “active criminal investigation” is defined with narrow and specific intent, this bill must not be passed into law.