So many things I wish I had when I was a kid. This being one of them.

Please do not limit prosecutors from offering the 4th amendment waiver as a plea agreement. It limits police and probation when they have probable cause to believe that someone that is on probation is not following their terms of the plea agreement. There can be limits put on it, but taking it away completely will make Virginia less safe. Law enforcement will not have an avenue to ensure compliance for someone that may have a gun or a large quantity of drugs. Defendants don't have to accept the plea. They can continue bargaining or take the charge to trial. It's a bad idea and that's not even mentioning that it will limit what an officer can see on the person's phone or social media, where most of the non-compliance happens today. I've seen first hand when I was an officer how not having a 4th waiver can hinder and hurt people. There is no reason to not allow it as a bargaining chip.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

I regularly peacefully pray at an abortion clinic on Jefferson Ave. in Newport News. From Feb. 18, 2026, through March 29, 2026, I will be joining an international pro-life organization called “40 Days for Life,” which will be peacefully praying at abortion facilities around the world every day for 40 days. In order to join “40 Days for Life,” everyone must sign a contract agreeing to the strict rules requiring a peaceful, respectful and compassionate presence, and abiding by all local laws and ordinances. I have never seen any pro-life persons enter the clinic’s property, but instead stand on the public access beside the highway. My faith demands that we love ALL as Christ did, and that is why are prayers are not only for the tiny human beings that will be lost, but also for the women and their safety, the fathers and families of the fetuses, the clinic staff, and the doctor who is performing the abortions and prescribing (dangerous) chemicals that will cause these women to abort at home later with no safety measures in case something goes wrong. If a woman approaches us, (and sometimes it is the father of the baby,) we offer help and refer them to free services at a pregnancy help/medical center that is only a few blocks away–Care Net Peninsula, on Warwick Blvd. Care Net understands that women facing a pregnancy decision need a safe place to process their feelings and learn the truth about abortion. That is why they offer Options Counseling, Pregnancy Tests, Ultrasounds, Community Resources (including adoption, medical services,) Material Needs (including maternity and baby clothing, diapers, etc.,) Parenting Classes, STI Testing, and Past-Abortion Support–all free so that women don’t default to abortion. Their medical facility next door is “Alcove Health–A Women’s Clinic,” which is staffed by certified medical professionals, including a doctor and nurse practitioner. SB 137 could eliminate the chance for many of our local women in crisis to learn about Care Net Peninsula and the other choices and services that are available to them. Thank you for considering my testimony.

I am a member of a combined Respect Life Ministry which includes three different churches in Hampton and Newport News. It appears that “pro-choice” proponents of unrestricted abortion, in fact, are attempting with this bill to eliminate any alternative choices for women in crisis, and to deny these women any educational materials and conversations that might help them to make an informed choice. Some of the women that this bill purports to “protect,” may actually be denied any physical, spiritual or material help that these women may need or be seeking–such as protection from an abusive partner who is forcing abortion on the woman, or a safe place to stay, free medical care, etc. “Reports” of dangerous, vulgar, screaming and trespassing “protesters” who have blocked and accosted patients entering the Falls Church Healthcare center (a facility that offers abortions,) is definitely not verifiable. I personally went online and read every weekly police report posted publicly on the Falls Church Police Dept.’s website, from this month (Feb. 2026) all the way back to August of 2025. There were no reports of disorderly conduct, trespassing, threatening, or assault on S. Washington St., where the Falls Church center is located, except one “drunk in public and disorderly conduct” on Jan. 17, 2026; and an assault on a woman who was assaulted by a man who was driving by, on Nov. 17, 2025.There were NO reports of the police being called to S. Washington St. to investigate disorderly conduct or public disturbances. There have actually been isolated national reports of incidents at abortion clinics that were caused by irate clinic staff exiting the building and attacking the pro-life persons and grabbing and destroying their signs. Pro-Life “protesting” has pretty much changed over from “protests” to prayer vigils several years ago–not to suggest or imply that pro-life protests were ever aggressive or ugly–quite the contrary, with a few exceptions, (mostly by individuals who were not actually members of an organized pro-life group,) and which were widely publicized. Peaceful praying has been very effective in reaching women, many of whom were actually were seeking help to avoid an abortion. I believe this very effective prayer model has made an impact on the abortion industry, and the industry is fighting back politically with laws such as SB 137–laws that are unneeded, unfounded and unworthy by restricting the constitutional freedoms of its opponents. I implore committee members to return to voting your conscience on legislation that is politically motivated to crush political opponents’ constitutional freedoms. I have a pro-life bumper sticker on my car–this bumper sticker is intended to educate and change minds. This bill would actually prevent me from parking in an accessible handicapped spot for my medical appointments! This bill is clearly designed for abortion facilities, but the wording includes all medical facilities. If enacted, this bill could put me in physical pain and in danger from falling and actually be in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is just ONE possible lawsuit that this bill would undoubtedly generate if enacted. Thank you for considering my testimony.

Please oppose SB 137 on the grounds that it is unjust, unnecessary and unconstitutional. This bill goes beyond attacking our free speech, it interferes with people being able to love and care for one another; to have meaningful conversations about life threatening procedures- which is the aim of abortion to end the life of a unique, unrepeatable human being. We know too that most abortions, well over 60%, are being done through the abortion pill. If a woman changes her mind, she needs truthful information about her options and time is critical. She also needs to know potential life-threatening risks to her health that have occurred in 11% of women who have taken the abortion pill. Making it unlawful for people to be less than 8 feet apart within 40 feet of a "healthcare facility" e.g. an abortion facility would hinder, block and delay real assistance for a woman who has opted to take the abortion pill but has changed her mind and wants help. I have served in the healthcare industry for almost 40 years and have never once seen a need to have a "bubble zone" to keep people from receiving life affirming real healthcare and assistance in any of the places I have worked. I have worked and or volunteered in various healthcare settings including psychiatric hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, dental clinics, and rehabilitation centers. I worked for a decade with children and adults with disabilities. I find it deeply disturbing that supporters of this bill continually call abortion (the intentional killing of a preborn human being) healthcare. When we call "death" healthcare we have certainly lost our way! This bill is intentionally targeting abortion facilities under the guise of "healthcare facilities." I have been a participant of 40 Days for Life, the largest pro-life prayer vigil in the world, for nearly 14 years. I have never seen anyone, especially women going into the abortion facility, treated with anything but respect and love from prayer vigil participants while praying in front of the abortion facility in Newport News. Every participant is aware of and expected to abide by the 40 Days for Life Statement of Peace. Our signs offer help, pregnancy resource information and hope to women who feel they have no other choice except abortion. Women deserve better than abortion and they deserve to know the truth about their developing unborn child before they make the tragic decision to end the life of their child, a decision once done they can never undo. We cannot help mothers while killing their children and we cannot save children without helping their mothers. Why can't we love them both? Over 3000 cars pass by the abortion facility in Newport News every hour. Every day in the United States 3000 children lose their lives to abortion. This unfathomable injustice would be further perpetuated by this law. This law would obstruct help, hope and also post abortion healing for women and men who have been involved in an abortion. Women need to know all of their choices, and this requires truthful conversations not laws that try to keep us from talking to one another.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

I oppose SB 137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically motivated attempt to silence opponents who do not share the sponsors' views on unrestricted abortion. This bill could actually eliminate alternate choices for women in crisis sitiuations--and actually leave women in dangerous situations. This bill, if enacted, will undoubtably generate costly and time-consuming litigation.

League of Women Voters of VA supports passage of SB137. Everyone deserves the right to enter a health care facility without being obstructed, detained, hindered, impeded, blocked or delayed by another person. However, that has not been the case at some reproductive health care centers in Virginia, such as Planned Parenthood, where individuals going to get health care have been harassed/intimidated by protesters. While the federal FACE Act of 1994 was passed to provide protections against such harassment/intimidation, there is currently a bill in Congress (FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025) which would do away with such protections. SB137 would enshrine into Virginia law much needed protections from harassment/intimidation, for individuals attempting to access medical health care including reproductive health care. We urge you to support SB137.

My name is Chrisi West and I'm a longtime abortion clinic escort at Falls Church Healthcare. I'd like to share my comments in the hope of strengthening the federal FACE Act protections currently in place, and to protect access to clinics in Virginia. I've seen patients representing all different nationalities and ethnicities come to our clinic. They are often accompanied by parents, partners, sisters, friends, and occasionally even a police detective or corrections officer. (I've actually witnesses this.) Patients vary widely in age, and their reasons for coming to receive abortion healthcare run the full spectrum of reasons and needs, but one thing is constant. They ALL have to endure the often loud, usually aggressive, and always demeaning protesters who line the sidewalk in front of the building. Even with the property laws in Virginia keeping protesters on the public sidewalks, they hold crass or graphic signs accusing patients of being murderers, racists, and so much more. They lie about the outcomes of abortion and scream obscenities or names and try to guilt trip partners into convincing the patient to change their mind. The protesters in Falls Church (and at the Alexandria clinic near Mount Vernon, too) often break the law by trespassing onto the property in order to talk to a patient or give them religious materials. They pretend they are cutting through the parking lot to access the side streets, or just simply step onto the property for better access as a patient gets out of their car. They purposely block the driveway as cars approach, so they have to stop to avoid hitting the protester, in order for the protester to them yell at them or try to hand them a religious tract. I've escorted patients who were in tears after seeing the protesters, or were so angry at the awful things being yelled at them that I thought I was going to have to break up a fight in the parking lot. And it's not just the patients who are yelled at, guilt tripped, and shamed. Clinic escorts, staff, and volunteers are also subjected to this same abuse every single day. More needs to be done to protect people trying to access a safe and legal healthcare procedure in the Commonwealth. No one deserves to be shamed or verbally abused for getting the healthcare they need. NO ONE. Victims of abuse, patients with fetal anomalies or spontaneous miscarriages, and those who decided to end their pregnancy for myriad reasons all deserve safety, respect, and care. I hope this committee will do their best to protect patients in whatever way they can. They all deserve that.

Please vote to oppose SB 137. This bill is unjust and directly attacks our freedom of speech in the public way. Telling people who they can and can't talk to, how they may talk to them and how far away they must stand in order to have a discussion with women and men in need in front of a "health care facility" e.g. abortion facility, is unconstitutional at the very least and heartless at best. Peacefully praying and providing lifesaving information, and free assistance to women in need is something we need more of not less of. Why would you want to hinder true health care and life affirming choices and assistance? stance to women in need alternatives to abortion be from another person entering a "health care" facility is a direct attack

This legislation is a violation of the first amendment. We all as human beings have an obligation to warn people when their health is in danger, or if there’s danger to the health of their child. Clearly, this legislation is aimed at silencing people who uphold the dignity and respect of all human life by offering alternatives, further information, support, and help to people when they’re making a possibly life-threatening decision at an abortion mill. Please oppose this legislation as it is clearly politically biased and does not defend the dignity of every human life.

Summary: I oppose SB137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically-motivated attempt to silence others who do not share the sponsors’ views on abortion with no restrictions. This bill appears to be designed to actually eliminate any alternative choices to women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy or find themselves in a crisis situation. The women whom this bill appears to protect from unwanted harassment, are actually being denied a possibly welcomed conversation with a caring and compassionate person who can actually give them physical and material help and true alternate personal choices.

Summary: I oppose SB137 on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional attack on my right to free speech and my right to practice my religious faith without governmental interference or coercion. I believe it is a politically-motivated attempt to silence others who do not share the sponsors’ views on abortion with no restrictions. This bill appears to be designed to actually eliminate any alternative choices to women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy or find themselves in a crisis situation. The women whom this bill appears to protect from unwanted harassment, are actually being denied a possibly welcomed conversation with a caring and compassionate person who can actually give them physical and material help and true alternate personal choices.

Bill 137 It’s obvious that your intention is to shield abortion facilities from any pro-life messaging but disguising the language as “health care facilities” opens the door to abusing the law and restricting constitutional rights. If someone goes to a doctor’s appointment or the hospital, both “health care facilities,” with a pro-life message on a bumper sticker or tee shirt, some unreasonable person will use this law to promote their own political point of view. Please consider the consequences this could cause citizens and the court system before ramming through an unnecessary law.

Please oppose SB137. SB 137 limits the ability to peacefully voice opposition to abortion in the public space which is an infringement the right to free speech. Thank you.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

Consumer advocates voicing support for both SB189 and SB 227.

Please support and vote FOR this bill. SB 198 Thank you

Thank you to the Committee for allowing me to offer my input regarding SB198. I am a licensed clinical psychologist in Virginia with a graduate certificate in Developmental Disabilities and a board-certification in the forensic specialty from the American Board of Professional Psychology. I have worked with individuals with developmental disabilities for about 28 years. I regularly conduct trainings for mental health professionals and legal professionals on issues related to developmental disabilities and forensic psychology. One of the most significant challenges for people with developmental disabilities is communication barriers and related misunderstandings. Their verbal and nonverbal behavior are frequently misinterpreted by people without developmental disabilities, resulting in health disparities, segregation in education and the community, victimization/exploitation, and in some cases incarceration. Conversations with law enforcement and other authority figures can introduce severe stress, and evoke compliance (rather than useful and factual communication), in ways that may not necessarily be obvious to the law enforcement officers, leading to misunderstandings. These miscommunications can cause law enforcement and other public safety authorities to act on insufficient or incorrect information that can jeopardize public safety as well as the rights of the individuals with disabilities. It is not reasonable to expect law enforcement officers, even very well-trained law enforcement professionals, to immediately detect the presence of developmental disabilities in the individuals they question; it is not always obvious. This law provides an excellent and efficient starting point for addressing this problem. Not all individuals with developmental disabilities will have these marked challenges in their interactions with law enforcement, and this proposed language in SB198 creates a process for identifying the people who will be most vulnerable to miscommunication and coercion. The integration of formal testing, in the form of adaptive functioning assessment, provides a more sound basis for inquiry into the accuracy and voluntariness of a statement than the mere presence of a developmental disability. Adaptive functioning is how well a person can care for themselves independently in the community, in light of their age and culture. There are facets of adaptive functioning, particularly in the Social domain, that would directly relate to a person's capacity for social-emotional comprehension and expression, which is relevant to their ability to understand the context for and meaning of their conversations with law enforcement. Adaptive functioning assessment is a common feature of psychological evaluations of people with developmental disabilities, and adaptive functioning assessment has been scrutinized relatively thoroughly by the courts in the context of Atkins claims (i.e., in death penalty cases involving individuals with possible intellectual disability). This history of review and scrutiny by the courts will assist prosecutors in discerning good quality assessments from poor quality work, resulting in greater accountability and transparency. I am supportive of SB198, and believe that it will move the Commonwealth in a positive direction with regard to a fair process and good quality evidence collection in cases involving individuals with developmental disabilities.

I am a forensic psychologist (licensed in Virginia) and attorney (licensed in Pennsylvania, voluntary inactive status) with over 20 years of practical and scholarly experience regarding individuals making statements to law enforcement and individuals’ waivers of their Miranda rights. To help inform the members' consideration, the attached 1-page letter affirms the significance of the problem that Senate Bill 198 addresses and highlights the decades of research demonstrating how individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities are particularly vulnerable to misunderstanding key conceptual and social aspects of interactions with law enforcement, waiving their rights, and making statements.

I’m writing in support of SB198, which limits the use of evidence obtained during law enforcement interviews of intellectually and developmentally disabled persons. I know firsthand how autistic individuals may be eager to over-confess when questioned by the police. People on the autism spectrum are naive, trusting, and want to please authority. Please support SB198 to protect developmentally disabled people who undergo law enforcement interrogations.

SB198 provides safeguards for people with ID/DD. People with ID/DD have a higher risk of unreliable or involuntary statements: Autistic and developmentally disabled individuals are significantly more likely to give inaccurate statements because they often try to comply with authority, guess answers, or “please” interrogators, even when they do not fully understand the questions. People with ID/DD often have communication and processing challenges. Many individuals experience delays in processing language, difficulty understanding rights, or trouble expressing themselves clearly and have communication skills below biological age-based expectations. This can easily produce false admissions. People with ID/DD experience suggestibility, anxiety, and sensory overload. Interrogation environments can trigger extreme stress, sensory overwhelm, or confusion. These conditions increase the chances that someone with ID/DD can easily be swayed or influenced, and can lead to statements that can be incriminating but are not accurate or voluntary. SB198 can help prevent wrongful convictions. Families and those in the court system want to prevent courts from using statements obtained under conditions that undermine a person with ID/DD’s understanding or voluntariness. This protects against false confessions, which lead to wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions are horrible outcomes for defendants and a burden to the criminal justice system.

As a court appointed defense attorney and guardian ad litem for children and occasionally for adults, I support this bill. These comments come from almost forty years of experience in criminal matters. It is hard to overstate the sense of fear and intimidation an encounter with the police can raise in many people, including the innocent. Simply being approached and questioned by an officer or detective can cause such a response, even if the person involved did nothing wrong. But this problem is exacerbated when the individual under investigation suffers from an intellectual disability and/or neurodivergence or a diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. People with intellectual disabilities may respond by telling police what they think the police want to hear rather than the unvarnished truth. They seek hints in the comments and demeanor of their interviewers and conform their responses to the ones which they believe will most please them. People with autism can respond in ways which may be misinterpreted by the officers investigating a situation. The stress of being questioned can result in stimming, repetitive statements, loud vocal outbursts, refusal to look the interviewer in the eye, and focus on irrelevant things which may be misread by investigators as either a callous lack of remorse or as intentional dishonesty or even as an admission of wrongdoing. People with a history of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder may retreat into delusions, offering explanations of events which may not reflect reality. Their perceptions of reality can be seriously skewed, so what to police may appear to be an admission or statement of responsibility is in fact false because their perception is false. It is important that police be trained to recognize the possibility that their questioning of such individuals may result in a misunderstanding of the facts and of the accused's role in them. I strongly support SB 198 and urge legislators to pass it. Carla F. Ward Attorney at Law

Vote “YES” on support of SB198

Please vote YES to protect disabled people in our community!

Please vote yes to SN 198 and protect the vulnerable.

Vote yes

Hi, I like this bill because I have autism and a lot of people call me slow. To be questioned without an attorney as a american citizen would be very unfair to me as sometimes it takes 2 or 3 tries to really understand people who do not have autism. I get extra tries at school for speaking to answer questions by teachers because my brain just is not able to remember all the time the beginning of a question to the end and what is in between. People like me need support before being questioned if there has been a problem somewhere because i might not completely under stand or be understood. disabled american citizens do need extra help. thank You

Please do everything you can to protect this vulnerable population from wrongful imprisonment and conviction. My own son, a person with autism and several other mental health diagnoses, who is very sweet and gentle, has a tendency to blame himself and feel guilty for things that are not even remotely his fault and will take the blame and punish himself. It is a nightmare to know he could be imprisoned or convicted for things he never did, and suffer consequences from law enforcement and perhaps harm at the hands of other inmates because he is unable to advocate for or exonerate himself due to his disabilities. There are so many in this position today. Please work with parents and others to find ways to safeguard the innocent and vulnerable.

Dear Members of the House Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee, I am writing to express my strong support for SB198, which provides critical safeguards for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities during law enforcement interviews and interrogations. Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities face a significantly higher risk of providing unreliable or involuntary statements. Many individuals are highly motivated to comply with authority figures, may guess answers when they do not fully understand questions, or may attempt to please interrogators even when they are confused. Communication differences, slower processing speed, and difficulty understanding legal rights can further increase the likelihood of inaccurate statements. In addition, interrogation environments can create intense stress, anxiety, and sensory overload for people with disabilities. These conditions can heighten suggestibility and make it difficult for individuals to fully comprehend the situation or advocate for themselves. Without appropriate protections, this can lead to statements that do not reflect a person’s true understanding or intent. SB198 helps ensure that statements made under circumstances where disability may have influenced communication are carefully considered, reducing the risk of false confessions and wrongful convictions. This legislation supports fairness in the justice system while recognizing the unique vulnerabilities that some individuals experience. Protecting the rights of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities is essential to maintaining the integrity of our legal system and ensuring equitable treatment under the law. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB198. Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to protecting vulnerable members of our community. Sincerely, Staci Carr

Dear Members of the House Courts of Justice, Criminal Subcommittee, Please Vote yes on SB198 which will provide safeguards for people with ID/DD when they are interviewed or interrogated by law enforcement. This is important to me because I am the parent or caregiver an loved one with ID/DD. Many individuals experience delays in processing language, difficulty understanding rights, or trouble expressing themselves clearly and have communication skills below biological age-based expectations. This can easily produce false admissions. Please vote yes for SB198.

Please vote YES on SB198!!! SB198 provides safeguards for people with ID/DD. People with ID/DD have a higher risk of unreliable or involuntary statements: Autistic and developmentally disabled individuals are significantly more likely to give inaccurate statements because they often try to comply with authority, guess answers, or “please” interrogators, even when they do not fully understand the questions. People with ID/DD often have communication and processing challenges. Many individuals experience delays in processing language, difficulty understanding rights, or trouble expressing themselves clearly and have communication skills below biological age-based expectations. This can easily produce false admissions. People with ID/DD experience suggestibility, anxiety, and sensory overload. Interrogation environments can trigger extreme stress, sensory overwhelm, or confusion. These conditions increase the chances that someone with ID/DD can easily be swayed or influenced, and can lead to statements that can be incriminating but are not accurate or voluntary. SB198 can help prevent wrongful convictions. Families and those in the court system want to prevent courts from using statements obtained under conditions that undermine a person with ID/DD’s understanding or voluntariness. This protects against false confessions, which lead to wrongful convictions. Wrongful convictions are horrible outcomes for defendants and a burden to the criminal justice system.

I am respectfully asking that you vote yes on this bill. SB198 provides safeguards for people with ID/DD. People with ID/DD have a higher risk of unreliable or involuntary statements. Autistic and developmentally disabled individuals are significantly more likely to give inaccurate statements because they often try to comply with authority, guess answers, or “please” interrogators, even when they do not fully understand the questions. As a behavior consultant here in Virginia, I have witnessed young men with Autism provide blanket answers while talking with law enforcement during a crisis. If we are going to provide an inclusive space for people with ID/DD, we cannot ignore areas that are more likely to show challenges and need our support. People with ID/DD experience suggestibility, anxiety, and sensory overload. Interrogation environments can trigger extreme stress, sensory overwhelm, or confusion. These conditions increase the chances that someone with ID/DD can easily be swayed or influenced, and can lead to statements that can be incriminating but are not accurate or voluntary. Again, I respectfully ask that you vote YES on SB198.

My name is Yukiko, and I am a special education teacher who works with students with autism and intellectual disabilities. I support this bill because it addresses a very real issue that affects many individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. People with intellectual or developmental disabilities often have difficulty understanding complex questions, processing language quickly, or communicating clearly under pressure. In an interrogation setting, these challenges become even greater. Many individuals try to comply with authority figures or give answers they think the person wants to hear, even when they do not fully understand what is being asked. Because of these communication differences, individuals with ID/DD are at a higher risk of giving statements that may be inaccurate or misunderstood. Stress, anxiety, and sensory overload in interview environments can make this even more difficult. When someone is overwhelmed or confused, they may agree to things or make statements that are not truly voluntary or accurate. This bill is important because it allows courts to evaluate whether a person’s disability affected their ability to understand questions, communicate effectively, or participate meaningfully during questioning. This is a reasonable safeguard that helps ensure fairness in the legal process. These protections help prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that statements used in court are reliable and truly voluntary. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities deserve the same fairness and protection under the law as everyone else. I strongly support this bill and encourage you to pass it. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Please vote yes to support SB198 which will provide interrogation protections for individuals with ID/DD when being interviewed by law enforcement. This is a very important bill for the ID/DD community since it is common for a vulnerable individual being interviewed or interrogated by law enforcement to easily be swayed or influenced. This can lead to statements by someone with ID/DD that are incriminating but are inaccurate and involuntary. Many individuals with ID/DD experience delays in processing language, whether verbal or written. They have difficulty understanding their legal rights and they have trouble expressing themselves clearly. They may have cognitive or comprehension abilities that are substantially below the expectations for someone of their biological age. This can easily produce false admissions of guilt. Please REMOVE the reenactment clause on this bill and pass it to be implemented in 2026. Please VOTE YES on SB198 and provide protections for vulnerable individuals with ID/DD being interrogated or interviewed by law enforcement.

Without proper protections, people with intellectual and developmental disabilities can be easily confused or intimidated during police interrogations. They may say things simply to please an authority figure, because they do not understand their rights or they are just nervous and not thinking clearly. SB198 is important because it recognizes this vulnerability and ensures that disability-influenced statements are not used against them in court. This bill helps prevent miscarriages of justice and protects some of the most vulnerable members of our community. I support SB198 and urge the committee to advance it.

Please vote yes for SB 198. I am a mom of two autistic sons. It is extremely important to me to know that our laws will protect my vulnerable sons. Autistic people will often try to please authority figures and can inadvertently say things that could be used against them in order to put a quick end to a stressful situation. They need to be protected by fair laws.

Chair Hope and Members of the Courts of Justice Committee: The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) appreciates this opportunity to submit written testimony on Senate Bill 227 (SB 227), the Arbitration Fairness Act. FINRA is a 501(c)(6) not-for-profit regulator of the securities industry that operates under authority granted under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the 1934 Act). FINRA is registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as a national securities association and is a self-regulatory organization of member broker-dealer firms under the 1934 Act. FINRA writes rules, examines for and enforces compliance with both FINRA rules and federal securities laws and regulations. Additionally, FINRA regularly communicates with the Virginia Division of Securities and Retail Franchising (Division) about the broker-dealer firms and their associated persons, including agents, who fall under the jurisdiction of both FINRA and the Division. FINRA rules, including the FINRA Arbitration Codes, are filed with and approved by the SEC, after a comment process and a finding by the SEC that such rules are in the public interest. The SEC regularly examines FINRA’s arbitration forum (Forum). As part of our mission to protect investors and ensure market integrity, FINRA administers the largest securities arbitration forum in the United States to assist in the resolution of disputes involving investors and broker-dealer firms and their registered employees. In its capacity as a neutral administrator of the Forum, FINRA does not have any input into the outcome of arbitrations. The Forum has 69 hearing locations across the country, including Norfolk and Richmond. We are concerned that the requirements set forth in SB 227 could potentially create a conflict between state and federal law concerning the Forum’s uniform investor protection practices. This conflict has been recognized by other states, which have exempted FINRA from arbitration-related proposals. The Forum does not qualify as a “high-volume arbitration service provider” currently. However, should that change, we are concerned about the conflict created by SB 227. For this reason, FINRA respectfully urges you to consider adding the following language to § 8.01-581.017 after line 56: “High-volume arbitration service provider” does not include an arbitration forum administered by a self-regulatory organization as defined in Section 3(a)(26) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78a, et seq., as amended) and the rules and implementing regulations promulgated thereunder. If you have any questions, or if there is further information we can provide, please reach out to me at kristen.standifer@finra.org or (415) 217-1126. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kristen Standifer Senior Director, State Government Affairs

Consumer advocates voicing support for both SB189 and SB 227.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

On behalf of the property owners that I and my firm represent in eminent domain cases, we appreciate Senator Perry's willingness to work with us on SB 342 and include amended language clarifying the procedure should an eminent domain case involving property subject to an open space or conservation easement. With the amendment ensuring that a locality or the Commonwealth would not be offering evidence of tax abatement in the same trial at which a property owner offers evidence of property value, we support SB 342 and believe it helps protect and preserve private property rights, especially for those owners who have chosen to devote their properties to uses which promote environmental conservation and the preservation of open spaces.

I am commenting as a co-chair of the Public Policy Committee of the Virginia Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (VAELA), a professional association of more than 200 members, many of whom represent parties or serve as guardian ad litem in cases involving alleged incapacitated adults. We suggest alternative wording for the Senate substitute amendment to Sec. 64.2-2006 of the Code. We do not support the proposed changes to Sec. 64.2-2007. Section 64.2-2006 addresses appointment of counsel for an adult alleged to be incapacitated (the “respondent”). If this section is to be amended to allow others to speak for the respondent, we suggest that it simply allow any party to the proceeding to ask the court to appoint counsel for the respondent. The existing statute, with our proposed change in brackets [] would be: 64.2-2006. Counsel for respondent. The respondent has the right to be represented by counsel of the respondent's choice. If the respondent is not represented by counsel, the court may appoint legal counsel upon the filing of the petition or at any time prior to the entry of the order upon request of the respondent, the guardian ad litem, [or a party], if the court determines that counsel is needed to protect the respondent's interest. Counsel appointed by the court shall be paid a fee that is fixed by the court to be taxed as part of the costs of the proceeding. A health care provider shall disclose or make available to the attorney, upon request, any information, records, and reports concerning the respondent that the attorney determines necessary to perform his duties under this section, including a copy of the evaluation report required under § 64.2-2005. Section 64.2-2007 addresses the right to a jury trial. This right is personal to the respondent and the demand for a jury trial should be made, or forgone, only as decided by the respondent and their counsel. We do not support any change to allow others to speak for the respondent in this regard.

On behalf of the National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (NCCRC), I write to provide input on VA SB 345. While we support the bill’s appointment of counsel provisions, we urge the Committee to do more, as the right to counsel underpins all the substantive rights at stake for vulnerable adults in such proceedings. The NCCRC, organized and funded by the Public Justice Center, is an association of individuals and organizations committed to ensuring meaningful access to the courts for all. Founded in 2003, our mission is to encourage, support, and coordinate advocacy to expand recognition and implementation of a right to counsel for low-income people in civil cases that involve basic human needs, such as mental and physical health. At present, the NCCRC has over 1,000 participants and partners in 47 states, a number of whom are in Virginia. Currently, the majority of states provide a right to counsel for unrepresented protected persons in guardianship cases, so Virginia is in the minority in making such appointment discretionary. VA SB 345 would take a small step towards addressing this deficiency, but we are concerned there still be many situations where counsel is not appointed for the respondent despite being greatly needed. We therefore urge the Committee to require appointment of counsel in all cases where counsel has not been retained for the following reasons. First, virtually every fundamental right is at stake in guardianship: liberty, association, bodily integrity, and so on. In such a scenario, it is imperative that the protected person have an attorney who represents and advocates for their desired wishes so that such fundamental rights are fully protected. Second, both existing Virginia law and SB 345 will only lead to counsel being appointed if the court perceives the need, but the court is not in the best position to evaluate that need without hearing from the protected person. Without access to legal counsel and that confidential relationship, there is a risk that respondents will either (a) not understand matters sufficiently to know to object to or contest the petition so as to trigger the appointment of counsel; or (b) fear to disclose their reasons for objecting to someone with whom they do not enjoy attorney-client privilege. Third, the categorical appointment of counsel approach is widely and increasingly used across the country. Recently, California abandoned the approach currently used in Virginia and requires the court to appoint counsel in any conservatorship where the proposed conservatee “has not retained legal counsel and does not plan to retain legal counsel, whether or not that person lacks or appears to lack legal capacity.” In 2017 Nevada followed suit by removing the requirement that a protected person request counsel and instead requires the appointment of counsel. Finally, the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act comments, “Mandatory appointment has been strongly urged by the A.B.A. Commission on Law and Aging (formerly known as the A.B.A. Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly) and helps ensure that the respondent’s rights are fully represented and protected in the proceeding.” We greatly appreciate that Virginia is taking a close look at its guardianship code in order to protect the rights of particularly vulnerable adults and are happy to answer questions about our recommendation if any arise.

The Prince William Chamber of Commerce strongly supports Senator Carroll Foy’s legislation to establish a business and complex litigation docket in Virginia. More than 30 other states have established a docket similar to the one proposed, which would assist circuit courts with actions involving specialized business law issues such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and derivative actions that can be challenging and time consuming in the court system. Assigning complex business cases to specialized judges with appropriate experience and training would improve efficiency in case management, resulting in faster resolutions and more consistent decisions while freeing up judicial resources and reducing delays for all Virginians. This modernization of commercial law would provide predictability in our court system and signal a stable legal environment to attract corporate investments. We believe passing this legislation would be an important step in enhancing Virginia’s reputation as a premier state to do business.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

My name is Lori DiGiosia. I have been a resident of Fairfax County since 1966 and a prosecutor since 1994, except for a couple of years in private practice. I have concerns with SB 764 in its original form, and even more so in its expanded version. I will focus primarily on the original DUI provision, because the broader Senate floor amendment has already drawn objection, and I share those concerns. That expanded version is extraordinarily broad, lacks meaningful limits, and threatens public safety because it would apply to all offenses, including violent crimes, firearm offenses, and child pornography offenses. I am not opposed to deferred dispositions for DUI if there are appropriate limits and guardrails. The starting point is this: a deferred disposition applies to a person who is guilty of the offense. This bill would allow a person proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid a conviction and ultimately erase the offense. DUI remains one of the most preventable crimes on the books, yet it continues to cause tragic and devastating harm. If a person can afford alcohol or drugs, and can afford a car and gas, that person can afford Uber or Lyft. The choice to drive impaired has taken innocent lives. This body can adopt policies that reduce the risk of another family being devastated in an instant. My concern with the bill in its original form is that it does not contain sufficient guardrails. Most importantly, it does not cap the number of times a person can receive this type of disposition. That means repeat offenders could continue to benefit from a deferral, undermining accountability and deterrence. I urge you to follow the recommendations of MADD, WRAP, and Responsibility.org. If SB 764 is to move forward, at a minimum it should be limited to a first offense only; treated as a predicate offense if there is a later DUI; permit objection by the Court, Commonwealth, or VASAP; and exclude cases involving injury, property damage, children in the vehicle, no valid license, prior prison sentences, or accompanying felony or drug charges. It should also require six months of ignition interlock, payment of fines, costs, and fees, completion of a victim impact panel, and full compliance with VASAP. That is the responsible approach this body already took in Code § 18.2-57.3 for domestic violence: first offense only, used as a predicate, treatment, and court monitoring. If a DUI deferral is to exist, it should be placed in the DUI chapter under § 18.2-266. As to the broader Senate floor amendment, it is not accurate to say this was universally accepted law before Starrs in 2014. For 20 years before that decision, many prosecutors argued courts did not have authority to reduce or dismiss a proven charge, and many judges agreed. Starrs and later cases made clear there is no judicial nullification or judicial clemency once guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that SB 764 be passed by for the year so that proper language can be developed with meaningful guardrails, accountability, and public-safety protections.

While we appreciate what this bill is trying to do, and in many circumstances do support creating policy that allows for robust judicial discretion, we oppose this bill as it is currently written. If this bill were to pass, then victims, without the commonwealth’s agreement, in practical effect, would not have a voice in the determination of whether a defendant receives a deferred disposition. This would leave victims of sexual and domestic violence vulnerable and at risk of further and potentially escalating abuse. Again, we ask that, in its present form, you not pass this bill.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html

I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, the nation’s largest Christian nonprofit equipping the Church to serve currently and formerly incarcerated people and their families. Prison Fellowship serves men and women in six Virginia prisons through values-based programming like the Prison Fellowship Academy.  We are asking for your support of SB776 in subcommittee on Wednesday! I served as a probation and parole officer for nearly a decade in Louisiana, and I witnessed firsthand the value of community supervision. Probation officers play a vital role in protecting public safety, and effective supervision helps restore men and women back into their communities as productive, contributing neighbors. SB 776 preserves judicial discretion, holds individuals accountable when nonpayment is willful, and reflects a fair and proportional approach to supervision. It ensures incarceration is reserved for behavior that warrants it, not for circumstances driven by economic hardship. Please see attached testimony in support of SB776.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/02/23/when-the-law-is-optional-you-have-tyranny-n2671687 This article is completely correct.

This guest’s comments are so true and the whole world knows it. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/25/voter_on_sotu_democrats_gave_a_middle_finger_to_the_oath_of_office_they_took_their_new_oath_of_office_is_oppose_trump.html