I am in favor of the bill, incorporating references to existing laws and cases, because supporting this bill is a logical extension of our commitment to public health and justice, reflecting principles akin to Good Samaritan laws that have proven effective across various jurisdictions. This legislation parallels the intent of laws like the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act in several states, which has saved countless lives by encouraging the reporting of overdoses without fear of arrest for drug possession. By offering immunity, we align with the spirit of the federal 21st Century Cures Act, which emphasizes the need for swift medical intervention in overdose situations. This proposal also resonates with the legal protections provided in cases like Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California (1976), where the court established a duty to warn and protect, highlighting the societal benefit of encouraging help-seeking behavior. By ensuring individuals are not penalized for seeking assistance, we're addressing a critical barrier to justice and health care access, much like the protections offered by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which encourages reporting of sexual violence. Furthermore, this bill supports the ethos behind Estelle v. Gamble (1976), where the Supreme Court recognized that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, suggesting a broader application of compassion and action in emergency situations. By preventing revocation of bail, probation, or parole for those seeking help, we're aligning with the rehabilitative rather than punitive aspects of the criminal justice system, fostering an environment where individuals can act responsibly without fear of further legal consequences, ultimately promoting a safer society where health and justice prevail. Thanks Lisa Fraser

The bill is for people that were sentenced after June 9th2000 to be able to receive the same rights as other also truth in sentencing

I fully support Virginia House Bill 2220, which seeks to provide parole eligibility for individuals who were sentenced by a jury after the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000). This bill addresses a critical gap in our justice system, ensuring that those who were not properly informed during their sentencing receive a fair opportunity for parole consideration. By supporting HB2220, we uphold the principles of justice and fairness, acknowledging the importance of informed jury instructions in sentencing decisions.  

I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed justice bill which aims to ensure fairness in jury trials, particularly when the question of parole is involved. It is imperative that our legal system upholds the highest standards of impartiality and justice, providing every defendant with a fair trial. This bill will help to eliminate biases and ensure that juries are fully informed and equipped to make just decisions, thereby strengthening the integrity of our judicial process.

Bill HB2220 will constitute a fair and balanced sentencing system. As a supporter of the nonprofit organization RIHD, I strongly recommend the passage of bill HB2220 to rectify fairness in sentencing. Thank you

VSC NAACP Supports this bill.

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

"I am in favor of this bill, because This proposed legislation aligns with the foundational principles of due process and efficient justice administration, as underscored by the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. By mandating that probation and parole officers act within 24 hours to three business days to report violations and request judicial action, this bill echoes the urgency for prompt legal proceedings established in cases like Barker v. Wingo (1972), where the Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Moreover, this bill would enhance compliance with Virginia's Code § 53.1-149, which outlines the duties of probation officers, by adding clarity and accountability to the process. It also resonates with the spirit of Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), where the Supreme Court set forth the minimum requirements for due process in parole revocation hearings, emphasizing timely notification and action. By ensuring swift reporting and judicial requests, this legislation mitigates the risk of individuals remaining in a legal limbo, as seen in cases like United States v. Salerno (1987), where the Court discussed the implications of pretrial detention. It also supports the principles laid out in Virginia's Parole Board procedures, which demand a review of parole violations within a reasonable timeframe to prevent undue delays in legal proceedings. In practice, this bill could lead to more efficient use of judicial resources, as highlighted in United States v. Booker (2005), where the advisory nature of sentencing guidelines was affirmed, suggesting that timely and clear procedures can aid judicial discretion and system efficiency. This proposal not only strengthens public safety by ensuring quick responses to violations but also upholds the rights of the accused to fair treatment under the law, aligning with numerous state and federal precedents that champion efficiency, transparency, and justice in our legal system." Thanks Lisa Fraser

I agree with this bill which outlines a procedure for the arrest of probationers, parolees, or felons on postrelease supervision without a warrant, specifying a timeframe for service of process. Here's why: Timely Notification: By requiring probation or parole officers to notify the local attorney for the Commonwealth and the clerk of court within 24 hours but no later than three business days, this bill ensures prompt communication, which is critical for maintaining the integrity of the supervision process, similar to the emphasis on timely judicial proceedings in Barker v. Wingo (1972). Accountability: This legislation increases accountability by mandating that officers provide documentation of violations, like the PB-15 or major violation report, ensuring that there is a paper trail for review, aligning with transparency principles upheld in Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) regarding due process in probation and parole revocation. Legal Efficiency: The requirement to request a capias or bench warrant from the circuit court within this timeframe helps streamline the legal process, reducing delays in addressing violations, which reflects the efficiency concerns in legal proceedings discussed in Strickland v. Washington (1984). Protection of Rights: Ensuring that the process is initiated quickly helps protect the rights of the probationer, parolee, or felon by avoiding prolonged detention without formal legal action, resonating with the protections against unreasonable detention in Gerstein v. Pugh (1975). Judicial Oversight: The involvement of the circuit court in issuing warrants ensures judicial oversight, preventing arbitrary or prolonged detentions, and upholding the principles of judicial review as seen in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972). Clarity in Procedure: This bill provides clear procedures for handling violations, reducing confusion and ensuring consistency in how these cases are managed across different jurisdictions, which is in line with the need for procedural clarity in United States v. Salerno (1987). Public Safety: By setting a prompt timeline for legal action, the bill contributes to public safety by ensuring that violations are dealt with swiftly, potentially reducing the risk of further criminal activity, similar to the public safety considerations in United States v. Montalvo-Murillo (1990). I support this legislation for its emphasis on timely notification, increased accountability, legal efficiency, protection of individual rights, judicial oversight, procedural clarity, and contributions to public safety, all of which enhance the fairness and effectiveness of the supervision system for probationers, parolees, and those on postrelease supervision.

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

I am writing as a citizen of Loudoun County, a parent of two children with disabilities, and as a special education attorney serving other families of children with disabilities in Virginia for the past 15 years. I am writing in support of HB 2416. It’s important to understand that students with disabilities often miss school for medical or mental health reasons. School staff can be slow to inform parents of the option for Homebound/Home-based services. Even after a parent learns of these options, it may be a week or two before an IEP team can convene to determine the hours of educational and related services the student will receive, and then it can take weeks for a Homebound/Home-based teacher to be identified and begin meeting with the student. There is also little understanding for school refusal/avoidance behavior (see Dr. Dalton’s website: https://changeanxiety.com/what-we-treat/school-refusal-avoidance/). School staff forget that “behavior is communication” and fail to do the work to understand the “why” behind the behavior, so that appropriate interventions can be put in place (e.g., conducting an FBA). There are so many disability-related reasons why our students accumulate significant absences. Referrals to J&DR Court for truancy that must be prosecuted despite the context of those absences does nothing to ensure that the student’s needs are being addressed. If the school feels the family needs additional wrap-around services from the community, then it should be making a referral to CSB, not the criminal justice system. These families already have enough physical (it is unimaginably difficult to physically remove a 150 pound student from bed, physically dress him/her, and force them into a car or onto a bus), emotional (the manifestations of our children’s disabilities are already so difficult and stressful to manage), and financial difficulties (parents must often miss work with no pay or quit their job to stay home with a disabled child). To add to a parent’s burdens the financial cost of hiring a defense attorney who understands disability and missing more work to deal with the charges, as well as the emotional toll and humiliation of facing criminal charges when they are dealing with so much already due to their child’s disability is frankly cruel. Prosecutors should clearly have the discretion to dismiss these kinds of truancy cases quickly. In addition, schools should not be referring these disability-related truancy actions to the criminal justice system in the first place. We consider whether a child's behavior in breaking a school rule is a manifestation of their disability when punishing, so why are we mandating punishment for parents for the same manifestations? It makes no sense. VA regulations already impose a mandatory disenrollment from school if a student misses more than 15 consecutive days—-even if excused due to mental or physical disability (there is no exception for disability in the 15-day regulation). 8 VAC 20-110-130. While the GA should address this problem in the regulations, to prohibit prosecutors from having the discretion to prosecute these truancy cases just adds injury to insult for these families. Please vote for HB 2416 and consider an amendment to provide an exception to the 15-day rule for disability-related absences and amend Va Code Sec 22.1-258 to ensure after 5 absences due to disability, or before a court referral, parents are told of Homebound/Home-based services.

Distinguished Members of the Courts of Justice - Criminal Committee, Good afternoon. My name is Chris Perkins, retired Roanoke Police Chief and current Chief Operations Officer for Roanoke City Public Schools. I am here to urge you to support HB 2546, which allows law enforcement to compel social media and internet providers to provide real-time information in exigent circumstances involving threats of violence against schools, churches, daycares, or hospitals. First and foremost, the safety of our citizens, especially our most vulnerable populations, is paramount. In today's digital age, threats often emerge online. By providing law enforcement with real-time access to crucial information, we can prevent these threats from becoming tragic events. Current processes for obtaining information are too slow. In situations where every second counts, delays can lead to dire consequences. Recent threats have led to school closures and widespread panic among parents, further highlighting the need for swift action. This legislation includes constitutional safeguards to balance public safety and individual privacy rights. With judicial oversight, we ensure responsible use of this authority in genuine exigent circumstances. As an example, consider the fear and panic of staff, students, and parents during an actual event in February 2024. A series of social media threats targeting several schools were reported, leading to an investigation by the Roanoke Police Department (RPD) and Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS), and the closing of all schools for two days. The first threat was reported at 5:15 PM on February 21, 2024, followed by a request for information to social media companies at 6:21 PM. Subsequent threats were reported throughout the evening, prompting further requests for user data from social media companies. Additional threats to rape and murder a specific teacher and the mass murder of students were reported on social media on February 22 and 23, 2024, with RCPS receiving numerous notifications. RPD eventually tracked the threats to a student, who was taken into custody and charged on February 23, 2024, a full two days after the original social media threat. In conclusion, by supporting HB 2546, we empower our law enforcement agencies to protect our communities more effectively. I urge you to prioritize the safety of our citizens and support this critical measure. Thank you for your time and consideration.