We are in support of this bill instituting Counsel at First Appearance. This is working in James City County and is highly effective!

The problem with this and all of the other proposed statutory changes to the criminal code such as pregnant women not serving jail or prison time, the continued falling and failing sentencing guidelines for egregious criminal actions, forbidding plea agreements to include signing over 4th amendment rights, etc. is that none of you have actually been to jail or prison, arrested for a crime, or had a felony or prison sentence looming in your future or sat in a jail or prison cell when that door goes CLINK and locks behind you. So, you look at this as a two sided coin. Here in lies the fallacy, It is and never has been as simple as "lock them up" or "set them free" which is why after decades and decades of this debate- we are no better, no worse, just stagnate ....while millions of people and families suffer and two parties think they know best. How can I say this? As a drug addict who has been clean for 17 years, a mother, a wife and a powerfully intelligent woman who has made herself into a productive member of society and a force in the political arena- WITHOUT the program of intense cognitive rehabilitation COMBINED WITH jail accountability (break a rule- off you go back to Riverside) this program also once known as Chesterfield county Drug Court; which has now been minimized to "recovery court" where you have to use drugs 3-4 times before you get sent back to jail (so people are now dying in this once amazing program). My point being, you, me, none of us are looking at a two sided coin. We are looking at a multidimensional box, all on different sides of the room seeing a different side of the box (perspective and feelings) and without the ability to move where you are standing to see a different side of the box and change that perspective or accept it is even there and valid- you can never see that we are ALL looking at the same thing (the same box). And thus, you can never see that what has been and what you are attempting to do here will HELP NOONE, especially people caught in riptide and undercurrent of the generational criminal justice system. I am sure you have never had a once felon, now reformed, who will tell you and the public how GREATFUL they are to have been blessed with people who taught me accountability for my actions without fluff or threats, but actual black and white consequences for my actions that always ended in a day in jail or even weeks in jail -while at the same time supporting me with intensive therapy to overcome abuse and other contributing factors plus cognitive therapy treating the underlying problem no matter the offense- which is the behavior. I beg you to move your spot in the room to see a different side of the box, and recognize that the two sided coin has failed the public, families, offenders and the Commonwealth as a whole far too long

Chair Watts and Members of the Courts of Justice - Criminal Subcommittee: My name is Erin George and I am the National Director of Policy at The Bail Project. I write to the subcommittee today in support of HB 127. The Bail Project is a national nonprofit organization that provides cash bail assistance and court return support like transportation and court date reminders to low-income people across the country. Since 2017, we have supported nearly 40,000 people who return to 92% of their court appearances. Working directly with our clients and their families, we have seen first hand the difference that access to counsel at the earliest stages can make in an individual’s case, and in their ability to secure pretrial freedom. In Virginia, people detained pretrial can sit in jail for days, and in some places a week or more, before they speak to a lawyer. When they do appear in court, they often face a complex and technical hearing alone, making them more likely to be detained pretrial or face an unaffordable bail amount. HB 127 is a vital step towards guaranteeing Virginians’ constitutional right to counsel and upholding due process. Appointing defense counsel as soon as an individual's liberty is at stake increases procedural justice and efficiency, improves court appearance rates, and reduces the amount of time people spend in jail while awaiting trial. By mandating counsel at first appearance in jurisdictions with a public defender’s office, HB 127 builds upon progress already underway in the Commonwealth. Several jurisdictions across the Commonwealth are already implementing counsel at first appearance (CAFA). In Fairfax County, a CAFA pilot program limited the negative consequences of pretrial detention, reduced racial disparities in who is appointed counsel, and reduced the number of overall bond motions – alleviating stress on the judicial system. HB 127 will support these jurisdictions and encourage others to adopt the practice. Evidence from across the country also points to the success of counsel at first appearance. In Maryland, individuals provided counsel at bail hearings were 2.5 times more likely to be released on their own recognizance, 4 times more likely to have their bail amount reduced, and 2 times more likely to be released on the day of arrest. In Michigan, three county pilot programs reduced the amount of time a defendant spends in jail between arraignment and release, reduced the number of hearings, and resulted in more cases resolved at the first appearance. [1] CAFA improves not only pretrial fairness, it makes courts more efficient. Passing HB 127 is in the best interest of pretrial justice and public safety. People detained pretrial simply because they cannot afford bail and have no one to advocate for their release are at an increased risk of losing their jobs, their homes, and custody of their children, and are more likely to become justice-involved again in the future. Counsel at first appearance reduces these harms, upholds efficiency and fairness in the pretrial system, and promotes safer communities. I urge you to vote yes on HB 127. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Erin George [1] See National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Access to Counsel at First Appearance: A Key Component of Pretrial Justice, prepared by Michael Mrozinski and Claire Buetow (Washington, DC: NLADA, 2020), 5, https://www.nlada.org/sites/default/files/NLADA%20CAFA.pdf.

Comments Document

I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, and I am writing to express Prison Fellowship’s support for HB127. At its core, HB127 reflects a fundamental constitutional principle: liberty must be safeguarded through fair and timely due process whenever it is at risk. Virginia’s Patrick Henry, a leading champion of the Bill of Rights, believed that individual liberties must be protected through clear constitutional safeguards, especially in criminal proceedings where the state's power weighs heavily against the individual. That enduring commitment to liberty through due process continues to guide our understanding of justice today. HB127 honors Virginia’s constitutional tradition by reinforcing the protections that secure liberty through fair and timely due process. By strengthening access to counsel at the earliest stage of a criminal case, the bill upholds the presumption of innocence, advances due process, and reflects the principles that inspired the adoption of the Bill of Rights itself. For these reasons, Prison Fellowship respectfully urges your support of HB127.

I support this bill. As a person who used a PD, I had very limited access to them - why? Their case load was too big. I had a case that could give me a life sentence and I had 1 meeting with my PD. The only time we talked was 5-10 minutes before we went into the courtroom. Now ask yourself if you were literally fighting for your life with no knowledge of the legal system or your rights, would that be enough time to put a real defense together? For me, it wasn’t.

I support this bill because it will allow those charged with a crime to know more about their case. The court appearance will also allow defendants to see their lawyers and speak with them about elements in their case.

I support HB357. HB357 represents a necessary and responsible step toward restoring balance in Virginia’s pretrial justice system by ensuring that public safety is meaningfully considered when individuals are arrested for felony offenses. While the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system, it must be balanced against the Commonwealth’s obligation to protect communities from preventable harm. In recent years, Virginians have witnessed an increase in serious crime and repeat offending, including instances where individuals charged with felonies were released on unsecured bond and later committed additional crimes while awaiting trial. These outcomes undermine public confidence in the justice system and place innocent residents at unnecessary risk.

OPPOSE HB 567 PROVIDING LAWYERS WITH DATA ON ACCOUNT OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION/SYMPATHIZERS/LAWYERS WITNESS_TAMPERING/INTIMIDATION OF GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION/VOTING INFORMATION COMPARABLE/COMPARATIVE-LAW.

Please VOTE NO on HB1159 -We have concerns about HB1159 which would make an oral threat to kill or to do bodily harm to a social service worker a Class 1 misdemeanor. While we all value the work of social workers and people in call centers, this is a redundant bill and not necessary. People who are working with social workers or who are calling a call center- are in distress and are frequently in crisis. They may make statements that would not be seen by a reasonable person to be threatening but under this bill, could be considered a misdemeanor. Someone calling a call center cannot carry out a threat like this over the phone. But this bill overcriminalizes statements made during a period of stress, fear or desperation. Additionally, there are times when a social service worker may insist upon a meeting face to face to be able to check a box for state-required meetings within a certain time period. If the individual is having a bad day, that might not be a good time for the meeting. However the meeting is insisted upon and required by the regulations- if the individual makes a statement that is viewed as threatening, that will criminalize conduct that they are not able to control. This overcriminalizes vulnerable populations and is not necessary since there are laws that cover conduct that would be criminal in nature and this is bill is redundant and unnecessary.

This legislation will allow Drone as a First Responder (DFR) Programs Definition: Drone as a First Responder (DFR) is a public safety drone program in which drones are strategically stationed, often on rooftops, and remotely launched immediately upon receipt of certain 911 calls. DFR missions are limited to specific incident types where aerial information can enhance safety, decision making, and operational outcomes. Overview and Impact: DFR programs across the United States have demonstrated that real time aerial information, provided before ground units arrive, saves lives, improves responder safety, reduces unnecessary deployments, and helps prevent tragic outcomes. DFR has become one of the most effective de escalation tools in modern public safety. The first DFR program launched in Chula Vista, California in 2018. Since then, the program has conducted tens of thousands of missions and publicly shares flight activity and outcomes through an online dashboard. Prior to launch, Chula Vista conducted extensive community outreach, engaged elected officials, published operational policies, and emphasized transparency. DFR is not used for random surveillance. Nationwide, DFR programs consistently return ground units to service before arrival in approximately twenty five percent of responses. This allows agencies to prioritize higher risk calls, improve response efficiency, and better manage staffing shortages. Key Benefits: DFR enhances life safety for the public and responders, provides real time situational awareness, improves decision making with verified information, de escalates incidents involving reported weapons, reduces unnecessary patrol responses, and serves as a force multiplier for understaffed agencies. DFR supports locating suspects and missing persons, assessing fires and hazardous materials incidents, improving safety at large gatherings, and delivering life saving equipment such as AEDs, Narcan, tourniquets, flotation devices, and blood products. Privacy and Civil Rights Protections: DFR programs operate with strong safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. These include community engagement, transparent policies, mission limitations, and strict data handling requirements. Recording does not begin until arrival on scene unless operationally necessary. Data retention follows applicable state law and body worn camera standards. DFR is not used for random surveillance, intelligence gathering, or monitoring protected speech. Required Guard Rails Prohibited Uses: DFR aircraft may not be weaponized, used for unauthorized surveillance, discriminatory data collection, personal use, wildlife harassment, or any activity that violates constitutional protections or applicable law. Search warrants are required where legally applicable. Commitment: DFR programs operate in compliance with federal, state, and local law and are designed to balance effective emergency response with the protection of individual privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. DFR programs also emphasize training, supervision, auditing, and accountability to ensure responsible use of unmanned aircraft systems. Agencies establish written procedures, conduct regular reviews, and provide ongoing education for operators and supervisors. These measures reinforce public trust, support transparency, and ensure that DFR remains focused on life safety, emergency response, and community benefit.