Line of Duty Act; definition, and funding for Line of Duty Death and Health Benefits Trust Fund. (SB329)

Introduced By

Sen. Fred Quayle (R-Suffolk) with support from 26 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:

Those copatrons are Del. Kris Amundson (D-Mount Vernon), Del. Bob Brink (D-Arlington), Del. Chuck Caputo (D-Oak Hill), Del. Al Eisenberg (D-Arlington), Del. Bobby Mathieson (D-Virginia Beach), Del. Brian Moran (D-Alexandria), Del. Paul Nichols (D-Woodbridge), Del. Ken Plum (D-Reston), Del. Jim Scott (D-Merrifield), Del. Steve Shannon (D-Vienna), Del. Shannon Valentine (D-Lynchburg), Del. Margi Vanderhye (D-McLean), Del. Vivian Watts (D-Annandale), Sen. Kenneth Alexander (D-Norfolk), Sen. George Barker (D-Alexandria), Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), Sen. John Edwards (D-Roanoke), Sen. Mark Herring (D-Leesburg), Sen. Dave Marsden (D-Burke), Sen. Jennifer McClellan (D-Richmond), Sen. Ralph Northam (D-Norfolk), Sen. Toddy Puller (D-Mount Vernon), Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Springfield), Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland), Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (D-Arlington)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Line of Duty Act; definitions; funding for Line of Duty Health Benefits Trust Fund. Includes local employees disabled on or after January 1, 1966, in the definition of disabled employee. The bill also provides for a $1 fee to be collected from alarm company operators for each alarm system monitored and a $5 fee to be collected for processes and services in civil proceedings to provide funding to the Line of Duty Health Benefits Trust Fund. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/08/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087024308
01/08/2008Referred to Committee on Finance
01/21/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB329)
01/30/2008Reported from Finance with amendments (16-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/30/2008Rereferred to Courts of Justice
01/31/2008Assigned Courts sub: Civil
02/04/2008Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2008Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/06/2008Read second time
02/06/2008Committee amendments from Finance agreed to
02/06/2008Reading of amendments waived
02/06/2008Committee amendments from Courts of Justice agreed to
02/06/2008Engrossed by Senate as amended SB329E
02/06/2008Printed as engrossed 087024308-E
02/07/2008Passed by for the day
02/08/2008Read third time and passed Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2008Reconsideration of passage agreed to by Senate (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2008Passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2008Communicated to House
02/13/2008Placed on Calendar
02/13/2008Read first time
02/13/2008Referred to Committee on Appropriations
02/19/2008Assigned App. sub: Compensation and Retirement (Jones, S.C.)
02/25/2008Impact statement from DPB (SB329E)
03/03/2008Left in Appropriations


Loudoun Dulles Lodge 69 FOP writes:

Hopefully the 900 of so firefighters, police officers and deputies, injured in the Line of Duty will finally get the same health insurance now afforded to all state officers and local officers since 2001. I noticed a vote AGAINST giving these officers the same health insurance as the majority of officers. I can only hope that came from an alarm company that wants to make sure the profits keep rolling in. But, as it is the local police who answer your alarm calls it is only fair that when we get hurt we are duly compensated for the risks we take. It is patently UNJUST, UNETHICAL and IMMORAL to treat the 900 local officers differently and DENY them Line of Duty benefits when they are injured. How is that supporting the Thin Blue Line? Is this how Virginia treats her wounded in action?

Marty writes:

To those of you voting "NO" in the poll on this page. Do you profit from the alarm industry? Doe sit make your Lexus payments for you? Why are you against providing health insurance to the last law enforcement officers excluded from the Lien of Duty Act? Why? I imagine you would support the rationale that Vietnam Vets should have their benefits canceled as that war is over and done with! With all the wasteful spending Richmond has made over the years why suddenly deny benefits to the few officers cut out? If you have the courage post your convictions and rationale for permitting state officers to collect Line of Duty Act benefits but denying local officers. While you are at it, recall who answers YOUR 911 calls when you or your family are in dire need of help or WHO responds to your home's alarm system.