Comments Document

Enclosed is a letter expressing concerns with HB 1558 and HB 1946 to provide information to the subcommittee on the unintended consequences of tobacco purchase, use and possession (PUP) laws.

Hello my name is Edwin F. Brooks and I handle criminal cases statewide. I have been asked to submit a comment since I am not feeling well today. I am in support of a uniform bill for the provision of discovery. Two years ago, I handled a case in Henry County Circuit Court. The Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney assigned to the case refused to email or even mail discovery. She stated that it was office policy that all attorneys drive to the office and personally pick up discovery. She would not even agree to me sending my client or another intermediary. I had to be the one who picked up and signed fore the discovery. I drove 3 and one half hours there to find that the responsive documents were two pages and a fifteen minute email that could have been transmitted via email. The office staff allowed me to ensure the video worked before I drove the 3 and one half hours back to the Richmond area. This experience was completely absurd and underlines the need for a statewide requirement for electronic discovery.

Imagine a 16 year old boy whose parents lost parental rights when he was an infant. The biological mother, however, maintained a good and productive relationship with him through a post adoption contact agreement. Imagine then, too, that the adoptive parents both pass away and the child, now 16, has to go back into foster care and be told that his biological mother can no longer contact him, nor can she file for custody or restoration of her parental rights despite the fact that she has an ongoing relationship with him and has drastically improved her circumstances. He wants to go home with his mom, but the law won’t allow it. That’s the narrow circumstance this bill is meant to address. If the purpose of our social services is to strengthen families, we need to close this gap. This bill is narrowly focused and will not lead to a flood of re-litigating abuse and neglect cases. In over 30 years of litigating CPS cases, my experience has been that only one has ever seen a parent maintain contact through a post adoption agreement. Under the circumstances described above, a child is being traumatized repeatedly. Losing adoptive parents is bad enough, but then being told that as a result of that you also lose contact with the biological mother who has never stopped loving you is compounding the tragedy. If the biological parent can show by clear and convincing evidence that she (or he) has maintained a positive relationship with the child and can properly care for him/her, we strengthen our communities by allowing the child to return home. This bill won’t allow every parent who has lost parental rights to file for custody. Only those few who’ve shown the grit and determination to maintain a healthy relationship with the child. And only in the rare circumstances that the final adoption is disrupted. Surely, allowing the child to return to a loving family is far superior to forcing a teenager back into foster care. I urge passage of this bill. Respectfully, Michael J. Sobey, Esq.

Mr. Chair and members of the Subcommittee: My name is Rick Dwyer and I am the Executive Director of the Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, an organization that supports the vast military and federal presence in our region. I am also a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and served over 20 years on active duty. Our organization and the communities of Hampton Roads collectively support 18 military installations, all six branches of the military services, 120,000 active duty, reserve and civilian personnel, over 125,000 military dependents, and nearly 220,000 veterans. In 2023, the Department of Defense spent over $68.5 billion in Virginia and directly employed over 247,000 people. Needless to say, supporting the military and our national defense is part of who we are in Hampton Roads and the Commonwealth. I am here today to express our support for House Bill 1882. The military takes incidents of violence, abuse, sexual assault, and harassment seriously and is committed to a timely response regarding reports of violence. With military service members, often both civilian and military authorities are involved in addressing domestic violence cases. The impact of interpersonal violence extends beyond the individual victim, as it can also undermine the mission readiness of military units and compromise national security. A military family’s personal well-being is a critical factor when it comes to their ability to effectively serve the country. This bill ensures civilian authorities treat the issuance of a military protective order (MPO) by a commanding officer as good cause to issue a preliminary protective order. It also ensures coordination between civilian law enforcement and military law enforcement when a civilian law enforcement officer has reason to believe a military member has violated a MPO. This ensures military commanders are made aware if one of their service members has violated an MPO and can take appropriate actions to maintain good order and discipline in their units. This bill sends a clear signal that Virginia values its strong relationship with the military and is willing to continuously support efforts to make the Commonwealth the most military-friendly state in the country. We humbly request your support of HB1882. Thank you.

Comments Document

Enclosed is a letter expressing concerns with HB 1558 and HB 1946 to provide information to the subcommittee on the unintended consequences of tobacco purchase, use and possession (PUP) laws.

I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser

I am in opposition to the bill focusing on potential conflicts with existing laws and legal precedents: 1. Conflict with Federal Law - Fair Sentencing Act of 2010: The bill contradicts the current federal framework established by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which set an 18:1 ratio for sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine, reflecting legislative intent to address but not completely eliminate the disparity. 2. Constitutional Concerns - Equal Protection Clause: Changing sentencing guidelines without comprehensive review could potentially violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case McCleskey v. Kemp (1987) showed the Supreme Court's reluctance to overturn laws based solely on statistical disparities without clear evidence of discriminatory intent. 3. Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines incorporate the 18:1 ratio. A change would require an overhaul of the guidelines, potentially leading to judicial confusion and inconsistency, conflicting with the advisory nature of guidelines post-United States v. Booker (2005). 4. State Law Variations: Many states have their own drug laws which might not align with a federal push towards complete parity. Sudden federal alignment could disrupt state legal frameworks. 5. Legal Precedent - Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015): This case reaffirms the principle of stare decisis. Critics might argue that overturning the established sentencing disparity should not be done lightly. 6. Public Policy and Resource Allocation: The current system provides a structured approach to sentencing. Changing this might necessitate significant retraining and budget reallocations. 7. Concerns Over Unintended Consequences: Without nuanced policy, the bill might lead to harsh outcomes in some scenarios, akin to Harmelin v. Michigan (1991). 8. Procedural Due Process - Legal Certainty: A sudden change might violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause by creating uncertainty for those charged under the old laws. Thanks Lisa Fraser

Virginia Poverty Law Center (VPLC) supports Delegate Delaney's HB 1968. It extends the time from one to three years from the occurrence of the crime by which victims of crime may file for compensation from the Virginia Workers' Compensation Commission. It also gives Commission staff leeway to consider the victim's circumstances and whether victims have a full protective order in determining whether the victim is eligible for an award.

Comments Document

Hello, Jacqueline Goad here. I am a labor trafficking survivor and survivor advocate with the Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking. I am writing and hopefully speaking in support of HB1968. My attached statement is a one page 620 word discussion of my attempts to seek help and cooperate with law enforcement only to be ignored and my trafficking facilitated by their tacit approval of my trafficker. It did not matter than I was trafficked nor did it matter that he was a Prince William Co. teacher with a documented history of touching small children while they slept. I could not obtain any cooperation from law enforcement, therefore I believe that victims should be required to cooperate with law enforcement to obtain compensation as the law enforcement they reach out to may very well continue to victimization they would seek compensation for. Thank you for your time, Jacqueline Goad Survivor Advocate Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking National Human Trafficking Hotline case no. 01229107

Comments Document

Thank you, Delegate Watts and members of the committee for taking the time to consider how to improve access to specialized health care for survivors of sexual assault. As you may be aware, RAINN is the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization. Founded in 1994, RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE and hotline.rainn.org). RAINN also carries out programs to support victims, educate the public, and improve public policy. Virginia faces a challenge: how to collect evidence of a sexual assault when there are not enough trained nurses to come to every survivor. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANEs) undergo specialized training in the collection of forensic evidence, which has been shown to improve successful outcomes in sexual assault prosecutions. Further, trained SANEs provide trauma-informed support to victims during the invasive, often hours-long, forensic examination. These specialized nurses greatly influence the justice process for survivors of sexual assault and provide sensitive medical care in a moment of crisis for their patients. There are simply not enough Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners in the state. This means not just that survivors of sexual assault who want medical care have to wait for a SANE to become available, it also means that the SANEs themselves are working tremendous hours and for court are having to drive hours to reach all the places that need their services (mileage they often have to cover themselves). We applaud the efforts undertaken by Virginia to support survivors of sexual violence. In fact, under § 32.1-162.15:3 Virginia requires all hospitals to provide rape victims with forensic medical treatment or transfer to a facility capable of such treatment when they present for a sexual assault examination. This means each of the more than 150 hospitals in the commonwealth should have access to a trained SANE. However, not every facility has a SANE on staff. In 2019, the legislature’s Joint Commission on Healthcare released a study that showed only 200 trained SANEs in Virginia out of 93,902 licensed registered nurses. With such a shortage of trained SANEs, a solution is needed to ensure survivors in rural and underserved areas can access the care they need. HB2088 creates an option so that in facilities where a SANE cannot be present, medical professionals can access knowledgeable SANEs through telecommunications who can guide them through these difficult, often hours-long examinations. The bill also ensures that the court will accept evidence collected through these telemedicine exams. The same Commission study recommended establishing training standards for SANEs in Virginia. This is accomplished in HB 2088 by establishing the Virginia Forensic Nursing Advisory Council. Furthermore, this bill will help address the costs posed by travel for SANEs. HB 2088 ensures that thousands of victims of sexual assault get the medical assistance they need while providing law enforcement with evidence to resolve investigations. This bill would expand access to forensic medical exams and accomplish recommendations made by the Joint Commission on Healthcare. We ask for your support in favor of this legislation. Thank you for your continued leadership and for supporting victims of sexual violence in Virginia. If we can provide insight or offer resources, please let us know.

Comments Document

Thank you, Delegate Sickles and members of the committee for taking the time to consider how to improve access to specialized health care for survivors of sexual assault. As you may be aware, RAINN is the nation’s largest anti-sexual assault organization. Founded in 1994, RAINN created and operates the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE and hotline.rainn.org). RAINN also carries out programs to support victims, educate the public, and improve public policy. Virginia faces a challenge: how to collect evidence of a sexual assault when there are not enough trained nurses to come to every survivor. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANEs) undergo specialized training in the collection of forensic evidence, which has been shown to improve successful outcomes in sexual assault prosecutions. Further, trained SANEs provide trauma-informed support to victims during the invasive, often hours-long, forensic examination. These specialized nurses greatly influence the justice process for survivors of sexual assault and provide sensitive medical care in a moment of crisis for their patients. There are simply not enough Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners in the state. This means not just that survivors of sexual assault who want medical care have to wait for a SANE to become available, it also means that the SANEs themselves are working tremendous hours and for court are having to drive hours to reach all the places that need their services (mileage they often have to cover themselves). We applaud the efforts undertaken by Virginia to support survivors of sexual violence. In fact, under § 32.1-162.15:3 Virginia requires all hospitals to provide rape victims with forensic medical treatment or transfer to a facility capable of such treatment when they present for a sexual assault examination. This means each of the more than 150 hospitals in the commonwealth should have access to a trained SANE. However, not every facility has a SANE on staff. In 2019, the legislature’s Joint Commission on Healthcare released a study that showed only 200 trained SANEs in Virginia out of 93,902 licensed registered nurses. With such a shortage of trained SANEs, a solution is needed to ensure survivors in rural and underserved areas can access the care they need. HB2088 creates an option so that in facilities where a SANE cannot be present, medical professionals can access knowledgeable SANEs through telecommunications who can guide them through these difficult, often hours-long examinations. The bill also ensures that the court will accept evidence collected through these telemedicine exams. The same Commission study recommended establishing training standards for SANEs in Virginia. This is accomplished in HB 2088 by establishing the Virginia Forensic Nursing Advisory Council. Furthermore, this bill will help address the costs posed by travel for SANEs. HB 2088 ensures that thousands of victims of sexual assault get the medical assistance they need while providing law enforcement with evidence to resolve investigations. This bill would expand access to forensic medical exams and accomplish recommendations made by the Joint Commission on Healthcare. We ask for your support in favor of this legislation. Thank you for your continued leadership and for supporting victims of sexual violence in Virginia. If we can provide insight or offer resources, please let us know.

I am against this bill which allows for the issuance of summonses to juveniles in custody, visitation, and support proceedings. Here's why: Lack of Child Protection: This bill might not adequately protect the interests of juveniles by involving them directly in legal proceedings where they might not have the maturity or understanding to participate effectively, potentially conflicting with the child welfare principles established in Santosky v. Kramer (1982). Potential for Coercion: Allowing courts or parties to summon juveniles could lead to situations where children are coerced into taking sides or being involved in adult disputes, which could be psychologically harmful, echoing concerns about child welfare in In re Gault (1967). Judicial Overreach: By giving courts the power to issue summonses on their own motion, this legislation might extend judicial overreach into family matters, potentially undermining parental authority and the best interest of the child standard, similar to issues raised in Troxel v. Granville (2000). Increased Legal Burden: Involving juveniles in these proceedings could increase the legal and emotional burden on them, which might not be in their best interest, especially without clear guidelines on how their involvement should be managed, reflecting concerns about the impact of legal proceedings on minors as in Parham v. J.R. (1979). Privacy Concerns: Summoning juveniles into court proceedings could infringe on their privacy, exposing them to public scrutiny at a young age, which is contrary to privacy protections discussed in cases like Ginsberg v. New York (1968) regarding minors. Complexity in Proceedings: The inclusion of juveniles could complicate custody, visitation, and support proceedings, potentially leading to delays or confusion in what should be straightforward family law matters, similar to the procedural concerns in Lassiter v. Department of Social Services (1981). Legal Representation: There's a risk that juveniles might not have adequate legal representation or understanding of their rights, which could lead to unfair outcomes, paralleling the need for representation highlighted in In re Gault. I oppose this legislation due to concerns over the protection of juvenile interests, the risk of coercion, judicial overreach, the increased legal burden on children, privacy issues, potential complexity in legal proceedings, and the lack of guaranteed legal representation, advocating for a system that prioritizes the well-being and minimal involvement of juveniles in such legal disputes.

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

VSC NAACP Supports this bill.

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

I am an attorney and the Director of the Center for Global Justice at Regent Law School. We run a Clinic representing human trafficking survivors in submitting vacatur and expungement petitions. Our Clinic represented the first survivor to have part of her record cleared pursuant to the current vacatur law. Note that only PART of her record was eligible even though all convictions were the direct result of being trafficked in our Commonwealth of Virginia. That continues to be the case with most of our Clinic clients - they were forced to not only sell their bodies for sex (and give the money to their exploiter), but also forced under threat and intense coercion to steal, to lie, and to hold or use drugs (provided by their trafficker). Vacatur is only effective in helping survivors move forward with life - finding housing, reasonable employment, gaining custody, going back to school - if more offenses are eligible. National statistics support this move, showing most traffickers force upon victims a broader array of criminal activity - primarily theft, fraud, and drug use. As a former Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, I recognize the varied viewpoints on the finality of criminal records. I also know, as someone who has represented the Commonwealth in court countless times, that we must acknowledge the true nature and intensity of the force, fraud, and coercion exhibited by traffickers. We uphold justice by allowing survivors this pathway to relief and meaningful rehabilitation. Thank you Margaret "Meg" Kelsey mkelsey@regent.edu

Dear House Courts of Justice - Criminal Committee, My name is Dr. Megan Gerbracht and I am a clinical psychologist who works with survivors of sex-trafficking in Virginia. I am a member of the Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking and Board Member of Reset180, a Virginia based non-profit organization that serves human trafficking survivors. I am writing today in support of HB2227. Most individuals who have experienced sex-trafficking in particular do not ultimately survive the experience. Because of murder, suicide, overdoses, and other violence they endure, the average life expectancy of a sex-trafficking victim is seven years. The individuals I have served in therapy, those we support in our non-profit, and the incredible survivor-advocates I am privileged to work alongside have all beaten those odds. Once a survivor manages get out of the life of trafficking, they face not only unbelievable Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder including symptoms like flashbacks, nightmares, and panic attacks, but other complex medical and economic challenges as well. The barriers to reenter society are many for these individuals who have already suffered so much. Because of the domination and intimidation tactics traffickers use, victims are often forced to commit various other crimes by their traffickers leading them to have a host of misdemeanor and felony charges on their records even once they are free from their trafficker. Trauma Coerced Attachment also occurs between a trafficker and the victim because of the systematic behavioral control traffickers exert, leaving some victims with an experience like Stockholm Syndrome. Leaving one's trafficker and that way of life is not only unlikely but it is unbelievably difficult. Staying out is another significant challenge, as evidenced by high recidivism rates. Trying to rebuild a life for yourself and your children is infinitely more difficult with a criminal record that precludes attaining many forms of employment or finding stable and affordable housing. The legal definition of human trafficking involves force, fraud, or coercion. It is well documented that the kinds of labor and sexual acts victims are forced to commit are often illegal and varied. If a trafficker can force someone to be sexually violated for a fee , it is not difficult to imagine that they can and do force victims to commit all manner of other crimes as well. Prostitution charges have been able to be expunged in Virginia since 2021, and there is a crucial need to expand this to include a wider range of crimes that traffickers frequently force victims to commit by using that same force, fraud and coercion. The people responsible for these crimes should be held accountable and should make restitution for the damage and loss that is caused, but that should rest on the shoulders of the traffickers and not the human trafficking victims they exploit. Thank you in advance for your consideration. The passage of this bill could be truly life changing for the survivors in our Commonwealth who have already survived incredible odds and deserve to have a real chance to heal. Passing this bill will communicate that our government does not blame these victims for the abuse they have endured, but that we are committed to clearing a path for them to fully rejoin our communities. Sincerely, Megan F. Gerbracht. Psy.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist Virginia License # 0810003894

"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.

I agree with this bill which sets out criteria for reducing a defendant's supervised probation period in Virginia. Here are my reasons: Incentivizes Positive Behavior: By offering probation reduction for completing educational activities, maintaining employment, and complying with treatment programs, this bill incentivizes defendants to engage in positive, constructive behaviors, aligning with rehabilitation goals similar to those discussed in Morrissey v. Brewer (1972). Promotes Rehabilitation: The criteria like completing mental health or substance abuse treatment support the rehabilitative aspect of probation, which is crucial for reducing recidivism, reflecting principles from United States v. Booker (2005) where individualized sentencing was emphasized. Encourages Stability: Securing housing, health insurance, or a healthcare plan promotes stability in the lives of defendants, which is beneficial for their reintegration into society, supporting the community-based approach to corrections seen in Griffin v. Wisconsin (1987). Judicial Discretion: Allowing courts to decrease probation periods without a hearing if it's in the interest of justice provides judicial flexibility, ensuring decisions can be tailored to individual circumstances, much like the discretion discussed in Koon v. United States (1996). Efficiency in Legal Process: The ability to reduce probation without mandatory hearings could streamline the judicial process, reducing court backlogs and administrative costs, echoing the efficiency concerns in Felker v. Turpin (1996). Reduces Overcrowding: By incentivizing early termination of probation through positive actions, this bill could help reduce the probation population, addressing issues related to supervision overload, similar to the prison population concerns in Brown v. Plata (2011). Supports Social Integration: Criteria like obtaining housing and maintaining employment directly support the social integration of individuals on probation, fostering a more productive return to community life, which aligns with the reintegration focus of Pell v. Procunier (1974). I support this legislation for its focus on rehabilitation, encouraging positive behavior, promoting stability, judicial discretion, process efficiency, reducing probation population, and supporting social reintegration, all of which contribute to a more effective and humane criminal justice system.

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

Good afternoon, Delegates. Thank you for allowing me to appear before you today. I am here to advocate for the passage of vacatur bills HB 2227 and HB 2393. My name is Desiree Trail, and I first want to express my gratitude to Delegate Mundon King, Delegate Cherry, and Delegate Delaney for sponsoring these bills, as well as to all members who have been supportive. I am a 54-year-old disabled single mother and a survivor of human trafficking. I serve as a survivor leader, public speaker, and consultant with Global Centurion, the Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking, the PD16 Human Trafficking Task Force, and the Central Virginia Justice Initiative here in Fredericksburg, Virginia. I have conducted training for federal and local law enforcement, and my survivor story can be found on the Department of Justice website at [DOJ Survivor Story](https://ctip.defense.gov). Several years ago, I came to testify for vacatur, but it was tabled at the last minute. This was heartbreaking, but I was encouraged by several Delegates not to give up, and I am grateful for their support. Last year, I testified for HB 1426, which Delegate Anne Ferrell Tata kindly sponsored, and SB 1147, sponsored by Senator Jennifer Boysko. I am thankful for their efforts, as we successfully passed the Virginia Human Trafficking Healthcare Training Bill. I take pride in being part of that life-saving legislation. When I say "we," I mean not only myself and members of the General Assembly but also my colleagues, survivor sisters and brothers, and advocates across Virginia who worked tirelessly on those bills. We are now asking the House Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee to vote yes for vacatur, which is urgently needed in Virginia, especially in marginalized communities. Virginia has received an F from Shared Hope International for its lack of support in improving the lives of human trafficking survivors and prevention. I believe we can do better this year, and I hope you agree. My charges include drug possession, grand larceny, and prostitution, as listed in this bill, as well as a child neglect charge—all accrued while I was trafficked by various drug dealers who were never prosecuted. At that time, I did not recognize myself as a victim and was trafficked on and off for years. I understand the complexities regarding the neglect charge; however, in my case, it was unintentional, and I have paid the price for over 20 years. I can attest to the pain of being denied the right to be free from the bondage of my past. I have sought vacatur status or a pardon since 2016, and it has been a great hardship for me, especially with my health issues, including Complex PTSD, depression, bipolar disorder, fibromyalgia, and neuropathy. Despite these challenges, I continue to mentor other survivors, help draft bills, and testify at the General Assembly each year for the past three years. Finding adequate safe housing has been even more difficult. The low-income community I live in is plagued by constant shootings and drug activity, which triggers my CPTSD regularly. Each time I seek better housing, I must share my story with strangers and face constant denials due to my record, which is over 20 years old. This is humiliating, and all I want is to raise my 15-year-old daughter in a safer environment.

I am an attorney and the Director of the Center for Global Justice at Regent Law School. We run a Clinic representing human trafficking survivors in submitting vacatur and expungement petitions. Our Clinic represented the first survivor to have part of her record cleared pursuant to the current vacatur law. Note that only PART of her record was eligible even though all convictions were the direct result of being trafficked in our Commonwealth of Virginia. That continues to be the case with most of our Clinic clients - they were forced to not only sell their bodies for sex (and give the money to their exploiter), but also forced under threat and intense coercion to steal, to lie, and to hold or use drugs (provided by their trafficker). Vacatur is only effective in helping survivors move forward with life - finding housing, reasonable employment, gaining custody, going back to school - if more offenses are eligible. National statistics support this move, showing most traffickers force upon victims a broader array of criminal activity - primarily theft, fraud, and drug use. As a former Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, I recognize the varied viewpoints on the finality of criminal records. I also know, as someone who has represented the Commonwealth in court countless times, that we must acknowledge the true nature and intensity of the force, fraud, and coercion exhibited by traffickers. We uphold justice by allowing survivors this pathway to relief and meaningful rehabilitation. Thank you Margaret "Meg" Kelsey mkelsey@regent.edu

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.

I am in favor of this bill which expands the ability to challenge an attorney-issued subpoena duces tecum in Virginia. Here's why: Broader Protection: By allowing any person affected by or subject to a subpoena duces tecum to file a motion to quash or modify it, this bill broadens the protective scope of legal proceedings, ensuring that individuals indirectly impacted also have a voice, aligning with principles of due process as upheld in Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). Increased Fairness: This change promotes fairness in legal proceedings by giving standing to more parties, reducing the potential for abuse of subpoena power, which echoes the fairness considerations in Goldberg v. Kelly (1970) regarding procedural protections. Efficiency in Legal Process: Allowing affected parties to directly address subpoenas can streamline legal processes by reducing the need for third-party interventions or appeals, potentially speeding up case resolutions, similar to the efficiency arguments in Felker v. Turpin (1996). Privacy and Burden Reduction: This legislation helps protect the privacy of individuals and reduces unnecessary burdens by ensuring that only relevant documents or information are subpoenaed, reflecting privacy concerns akin to those in Carpenter v. United States (2018). Judicial Oversight: Directing the Supreme Court of Virginia to amend its rules ensures that this legislative change is integrated seamlessly into the judicial framework, promoting consistency and clarity in legal practice, much like the judicial rule-making authority discussed in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co. (1941). Prevents Overreach: By providing a mechanism for anyone affected to challenge a subpoena, it helps prevent overreach by attorneys, ensuring subpoenas are not used as tools of harassment or undue pressure, addressing concerns similar to those in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) about abusive legal tactics. Enhances Access to Justice: This bill enhances access to justice by making the legal process more inclusive, allowing more stakeholders to participate actively in defending their rights, which supports the broader access to justice principles from Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). I support this legislation for its enhancement of procedural fairness, efficiency, privacy protection, judicial oversight, prevention of legal overreach, and for improving access to justice, ensuring that the legal system in Virginia operates with greater equity and responsiveness to all parties involved.

Part 2: oppose this bill modifying the power of magistrates to issue arrest warrants, here are several legal and case-based arguments you might consider: Legal and Constitutional Concerns - Due Process: The bill could be scrutinized under due process clauses (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments), where immediate access to justice might be seen as a fundamental right, as implied in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) regarding liberty interests. Misuse of Power - Checks and Balances: The potential for misuse of prosecutorial or law enforcement discretion might invoke the principles of checks and balances, a cornerstone of American government, as discussed in numerous cases, including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), where the Supreme Court invalidated an executive action for overstepping constitutional bounds. Thanks again Lis Fraser

Comments Document

Good afternoon. My name is Dave Briggman and I'm a citizen of Rockingham County. While it appears that this legislation may be pulled at the Patron's request, I wanted to speak in support of it. In 2017, I resigned from the employment by an Augusta County company after discovering the company was committing large numbers of state and federal crimes. That company was Nexus Services. Literally within hours, the owners, employees, and agents of the company began drawing legally baseless criminal charges against me which ranged from stealing four (4) paper towels while I was an employee to an allegation that I was able to pull a sealed court document out of OCRA and posting that document on the internet — which is technically impossible. From 2017 to 2022, 19 such warrants were obtained, including a large number from Stephen Poff, the Regional Magistrate overseeing much of Western Virginia, and all of which resulted in findings of either not guilty, but mostly were outright dismissed. FOUR MONTHS after the complaint I sent to the Director of Magistrate Services, I received a weak response from Jonathan Green, who decided he would take no action against any of the EIGHT Magistrates who issued these warrants to my former employer like candy, but declined to even entertain the issuance of process against the same folks. Clearly, Virginia's Magistrate system needs an overhaul, at least when it comes to Citizen-obtained criminal process. One of those who sought warrants against me lied to obtain the warrant and served 9 months for perjury. Not the fault of the Magistrate when they are lied to but this same Magistrate issued a number of other bogus criminal process against me. The Commonwealth Attorney in a pleading filed with the Court to nolle prosequi a number of the charges used phrases like "such behavior is insufficient to charge a crime", "plainly retaliatory", "fail to allege criminal conduct", "fails to allege a violation of a protective order", "appears retaliatory in nature", "fails to allege criminal behavior", and "clearly retaliatory". For these reasons, I would hope the Patron reconsiders pulling the legislation, or perhaps amending the legislation to permit issuance of such process, making it "live" only after the Commonwealth Attorney, their Deputy, or Assistants actually "sign off" on the warrants. This is the current state of the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and would largely eliminate one's ability to "weaponize" the criminal justice system as my former employer has done to me. I have attached the weak response of Jonathan Green to the Complaint I filed with him...which took him four months to create. Dave Briggman Rockingham County

PART 1: I oppose this bill modifying the power of magistrates to issue arrest warrants, here are several legal and case-based arguments you might consider: Access to Justice and the Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including the issuance of warrants. By requiring law enforcement or prosecutorial approval for warrants based on citizen complaints, this bill could be seen as creating an unnecessary barrier to justice, potentially contravening the spirit of direct access to the courts as articulated in cases like Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), where the Supreme Court emphasized the right to legal recourse. Community Policing and Legal Precedents: Community involvement in policing is often encouraged as part of community-oriented policing strategies. The bill could undermine this approach, akin to the concerns raised in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) about the rights of individuals to interact with the legal system without unnecessary intermediaries. Moreover, this could be seen as conflicting with the ethos of Terry v. Ohio (1968), where the Supreme Court upheld the right of police to act on reasonable suspicion but also underscored the importance of community vigilance. Potential for Bias - Legal Implications: The discretion given to law enforcement or prosecutors could lead to selective enforcement, reminiscent of issues discussed in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), where the Supreme Court ruled against discriminatory law enforcement practices. Such a system might not only introduce bias but could also violate equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Bureaucratic Delays and Legal Efficiency: Introducing an additional layer of authorization echoes concerns about judicial efficiency seen in cases like Barker v. Wingo (1972), where the Supreme Court evaluated the right to a speedy trial. Delays in issuing warrants could impede the timely administration of justice, potentially compromising public safety or evidence preservation. Overburdening Law Enforcement - Resource Allocation: Much like the issues of resource allocation discussed in Brady v. Maryland (1963), where the Supreme Court ruled on the prosecution's duty to disclose evidence, this bill could stretch law enforcement resources thin, leading to inefficiencies similar to those criticized in criminal justice system analyses. Chilling Effect on Reporting - Legal Rights: This could parallel the chilling effect on free speech from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), where the fear of litigation could deter citizens from exercising their rights. Here, the fear of inaction or retaliation might discourage crime reporting, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights to petition for redress of grievances. Excessive Control - Separation of Powers: This legislation might be viewed as an overreach into the judicial branch's role, challenging the separation of powers doctrine established by the U.S. Constitution and highlighted in cases like Marbury v. Madison (1803), where judicial independence was affirmed. Public Accountability - Legal Oversight: Reducing direct citizen access to magistrates might decrease accountability, similar to concerns addressed in United States v. Leon (1984) regarding the exclusionary rule and police accountability. This could lead to a less transparent judicial process. There is a second comment finishing my comment due to limited characters. Thanks Lisa Fraser