Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act; add to list of offenses requiring registration. (HB1862)

Introduced By

Del. Beverly Sherwood (R-Winchester) with support from co-patron Del. Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act; offenses requiring registration. Adds to the list of offenses that require a person to register on the Sex Offender Registry any similar offense under the common law or codified law in effect at the time of the person's offense to those offenses that already require registration.


Bill Has Passed


01/08/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/13 13101615D
01/08/2013Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/10/2013Impact statement from VCSC (HB1862)
01/21/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1862)
01/22/2013Assigned Courts sub: #1 Criminal
01/23/2013Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (7-Y 0-N)
01/23/2013Subcommittee recommends referring to Committee on Appropriations
01/25/2013Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (17-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/25/2013Committee substitute printed 13104452D-H1
01/25/2013Referred to Committee on Appropriations
01/29/2013Impact statement from VCSC (HB1862H1)
01/29/2013Assigned App. sub: Public Safety
01/31/2013Subcommittee recommends reporting (7-Y 0-N)
02/01/2013Reported from Appropriations (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/02/2013Read first time
02/04/2013Read second time
02/04/2013Committee substitute agreed to 13104452D-H1
02/04/2013Engrossed by House - committee substitute HB1862H1
02/05/2013Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (100-Y 0-N)
02/05/2013VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (100-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/06/2013Constitutional reading dispensed
02/06/2013Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/08/2013Constitutional reading dispensed
02/08/2013Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/13/2013Reported from Courts of Justice with amendment (14-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2013Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/18/2013Read third time
02/18/2013Reading of amendment waived
02/18/2013Committee amendment agreed to
02/18/2013Engrossed by Senate as amended
02/18/2013Passed Senate with amendment (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/19/2013Placed on Calendar
02/19/2013Senate amendment agreed to by House (98-Y 0-N)
02/19/2013VOTE: ADOPTION (98-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/22/2013Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1862ER)
02/23/2013Signed by Speaker
02/23/2013Signed by President
02/25/2013Impact statement from VCSC (HB1862ER)
02/27/2013Impact statement from DPB (HB1862ER)
03/25/2013Governor's recommendation received by House
04/02/2013Placed on Calendar
04/03/2013G Approved by Governor-Chapter 750 (effective 7/1/13)
04/03/2013House concurred in Governor's recommendation (96-Y 0-N)
04/03/2013VOTE: ADOPTION (96-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/03/2013Senate concurred in Governor's recommendation (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
04/03/2013G Governor's recommendation adopted
04/03/2013Reenrolled bill text (HB1862ER2)
04/03/2013Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/03/2013Signed by President as reenrolled
04/03/2013Enacted, Chapter 750 (effective 7/1/13)
04/03/2013G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0750)
04/08/2013Impact statement from VCSC (HB1862ER2)


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 3 clips in all, totaling 3 minutes.


stephen writes:

Not one single word or Bill from Del.Sherwood to protect kids from Drug dealers by Making a public registry of Drug dealers. One would have to wonder why she protects drug dealers rights to remain in the shadows, instead of parents rights to protect their kids from Drug dealers. I would never ever Vote for this type of person if I had kids.

Mary Devoy writes:

No, no, no, no to HB1862. I’ll say it again, no!

I’ve spoken to two legislative services members and I’ve done a ton of reading on common law v statutory law. There is much more to this bill than the patron’s office is willing to share.

Plus it’s retroactive so citizens would become lifetime registered sex offenders with no due process 5, 10, 15, 20 years since the “offense”. Plus no opportunity to petition to be removed after the fact. Delegate Sherwood’s legislative history has other retroactive bills when due process was denied to citizen’s of the Commonwealth and sadly they probably went unopposed.

It’s pretty obvious this bill and its companion came from the Administration.

Merging past common law decisions into current statutory law because they are “similar” AND retroactively is shameful.

The word "similar" should NEVER be part of a legal statute! You can’t get more vague than “similar”.

Mary Devoy writes:

This bill and its companion (SB1032) are an attempt to gather up those citizens convicted under 18 and 18.1 of the code because they were reorganized and recodified. But yet the text of this bill doesn’t refer to those sections of code and if that is the goal of these bills the vague verbiage “similar offense” should be removed and the specific offense numbers inserted.

It is also my understanding that with these retroactive bills approximately 143 citizens would be swept up; from common law convictions dating all the way back to 1994. Of those 143 individuals 25-50 of them are currently incarcerated. That means 93 to 118 of them reentered society years ago successfully and have not re-offended. This retroactive lifetime mandate to register denies them due process.

In essence the State wants a “do over” in convicting these people while ignoring their right to due process. The Administration wants to get a second chance at applying a public scarlet letter to these 143 citizens’ subjecting them to a Class 6 Felony if they ever “slip up” in the confusing and ever changing list of restrictions and regulations.

A few years back a current House member who is an attorney publically stated in reference to another retroactive bill that “if he had made a plea agreement that did not include registering as a sex offender and then months or years later the State re-interpreted the law mandating him to register, he would fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court”. How does his stance not apply in this case of these two bills?

You can change laws, but you cannot change the past.

Only the law that existed at the time of conviction can be applied judiciously, attempting otherwise violates the public trust and the solemn integrity of our legal system.

Mary Devoy writes:

It’s interesting that Delegate Rob Bell is now a Co-Patron on this bill.

In 2011 Delegate Bell made an interesting public comment/statement in response to HB2412 (companion bill was SB1208) - States that any court order or plea agreement that provides that a person is not required to register with the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry is invalid and void ab initio if such provision is in conflict with the provisions of the Registry Act.

Delegate Bell said, “If he had made a plea agreement that did not include registering as a sex offender and then months or years later the State re-interpreted the law mandating him to register, he would fight it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court”. In 2011 Delegate Bell was correct, the state can not impose a new law years later or revoke a plea deal years later, it’s a contract with the state and by doing so the state would be in breach of said contract.

How does Delegate Bell’s 2011 stance/statement not apply in the case of this 2013 bill, HB1862 (and its companion SB1032)? Did you forget you said this Delegate Bell? I referenced your statement when I spoke against this bill in sub-committee on 01/23, I just didn’t name you publically. I suppose your Co-Patroning of this bill is your way of denying your 2011 statement ever happened. Perhaps because you would like to be the next Virginia Attorney General?

For 5 years I’ve witnessed numerous House Courts of Justice Committee members cherry pick stances and arguments. When it supports their current goal it’s relevant. When it’s in opposition with their current goal they ignore or deny their earlier stance. What is that? Hypocrisy? Insincerity? Deception? Fraudulent? Self-Righteous? Flip-Flopper? Or Double Standard?

A double standard can be described as a sort of biased, morally unfair suspension (toward a certain group) of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards.

Yep, double standard!

If HB1862 or SB1032 were being retroactively applied to ANYONE other than those convicted of a sex offense these bills would have both been stopped in their sub-committees.

But because they are against those previously convicted of a sex offense due process and ex post facto does not apply to them. When the State of Virginia starts cherry-picking what citizens our Constitution applies to and to those whom have can have any right stripped away at any time then we’ve ALL lost our freedoms and rights not just those who are included in these two bills. Who will be next? What right will be lost and under what claim will the Commonwealth do it?

The patrons of HB1862 and SB1032 have claimed to the House and Senate that only citizens who are still incarcerated will be affected, but when specifically asked they can not say how many that will be. Neither bill states only those incarcerated today will be included so that means anyone for as far back as 1996 or earlier will be captured. Someone who has re-entered society successfully by not re-offending in 10, 15 or 20 years will now be mandated to register as a lifetime Violent offender which will affect their current and future employment options not to mention how they are allowed to participate in their families lives all with the threat of a Class 6 Felony. The stress of a never ending felony threat in addition to the stigma is more than most spouses and families can take resulting in a fractured family and an offender with no support system. Hopefully if these bills do in fact capture someone not currently incarcerated one of them will have the resources and the strength to challenge the new mandate in court. If they win then the law will be overturned for everyone it captured.

It’s sad that private citizens must fund and fight laws that were not properly written, vetted and passed. Why should we bear the cost, the time and the publicity to fix our elected lawmakers mistakes?

HB1862 and SB1032 are both violations of the Constitution but it looks like they are on their way to becoming law.