Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry; VSP to establish supplement (Robby's Rule). (HB195)

Introduced By

Del. David Ramadan (R-South Riding)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Supplement to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry (Robby's Rule). Requires the Superintendent of State Police to establish and maintain a supplement to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry that would include the names of persons who have committed offenses that would require registration if the offense occurred today, but who are not otherwise required to register. Any attorney for the Commonwealth or law-enforcement officer may submit a request to the Department of State Police to include a person on the supplement to the Registry. Upon receipt of a request, the Department of State Police must confirm whether the person should be included on the supplement to the Registry. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


12/24/2013Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/14 14100923D
12/24/2013Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/10/2014Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
01/13/2014Impact statement from DPB (HB195)
01/30/2014Fiscal impact review from JLARC (HB195)
02/12/2014Left in Courts of Justice


Mary Devoy writes:

First off bills in Virginia should never be named to memorialize or honor anyone!

History has shown that State and Federal bills tagged as such have a much greater chance at being passed into law even when they are riddled with flaws, violations, are vague / left open to interpretation or promote prejudice and myths about “those” people that “we” are allowed to routinely banish and shame. Why? Because no lawmakers wants to be the heartless “nay” vote appearing to be unsupportive of victims of crime and supportive of offenders. Naming laws after victims reinforces the idea that justice is a personal matter, a settling of scores between the victim and the offender, justice is supposed to be blind.

Second, after watching the NBC Washington's January 4, 2014 story we know Robby reported his abuse/crime to authorities in 2007, the abuse occurred "3 decades ago" and the perpetrator was his T-Ball coach. Three decades ago was 1984 even though it appears Robby’s abuse was in 1978 per past articles I found on-line about his case.

In 1984 there was no Virginia Sex Offender Registry (created in 1994). In 1984 background checks were not required for coaches. In 2007 when Robby came forward both of those issues had been corrected years before. Anyone who had been convicted of a sex offense from the early 1990’s or earlier would be listed on the Virginia Registry and would never be able to become a coach. The T-Ball coach that abused Robby was convicted of another sex crime before the 1994 Registry existed, but AFTER Robby’s abuse that had not yet been reported.

Robby’s Rule is proposing that sex crimes from the 1980’s and I’m guessing the 1970’s and 60’s (I don’t know since the patron won't return my messages) would be added to the Virginia Sex Offender Registry. The abusive T-Ball coach is listed on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry because of Robby’s case. So my third point on this proposal is obvious, this proposal would not have prevented Robby’s abuse from occurring in 1978, this proposal to add additional/ separate convictions from 3 to 4 decade’s ago to his abusers registry posting is purely vindictive and personal. It adds NO additional protection or security to Virginia’s citizens.

So now I have a big question that must be answered about this proposal before it can move forward.

Will HB195 add anyone new to the Virginia Registry or will in just add very old conviction information to those already listed?

The answer to the above question must be known ahead of time because if it adds people who are not currently listed on the Registry there would be:
•Due process issues
•Ex post facto issues
•Serious barriers for Virginians who reentered society decades ago, successfully
•The additional cost for the VSP to monitor and manage additional RSO's every year for the rest of their life

But because of this verbiage within the text "but who are not otherwise required to register" I believe additional people would be added to the Virginia Registry and if that is the case then the following collateral issues arise.

These “New” Registered Sex Offenders (RSO’s) would now be required to abide by the ever changing and expanding restrictions and regulations imposed upon Virginia’s RSO’s and any slip up no matter how minor or unintended carries a Felony charge.

The “New” RSO’s would need the same monitoring as all the current RSO’s. So how many of these “New” RSO’s who have not committed a new crime in years or even decades would now receive a certified letter to register every 90 days, would now need a VSP Compliance Officer to visit their residence twice a year and confirm their employment every time it changes, to take their photo every two years plus all the address, phone number, vehicle and email additions and subtractions over then next 20, 30 or 40 years?

How many Virginians if this bill passes would not be permitted to drop off or pick up their own children or grandchildren from daycare or school? How many would now loose a job or a career they’ve held for years because their current employer won’t want to be listed on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry. Without a job these Virginians will not be able to provide for themselves or their family.

How many Virginians that would now be RSO’s will be evicted from their rental property or not be allowed to renew their lease because no landlord wants to deal with the tenants complaining about an RSO living next door. Without a home for themselves or their families many spouses and significant others of these new RSO’s will crack under the stress and leave. The support system and family dynamic for most of these Virginians will disappear as soon as this bill becomes law.

Citizens of the Commonwealth who have not committed a new crime in years, who have the second lowest recidivism rate of all crimes, who are living their lives, supporting and raising their families will be arbitrarily penalized by this bill. The collateral consequences trickle down to their spouses, their parents, their significant others, their roommates, their children, their employers and their landlords.

Finally this proposal if it does in fact add additional citizens to the Virginia Registry runs contrary to the Governors Prisoner Re-Entry Commission, removing barriers that hinder former felons from becoming successful, productive citizens.

This proposal is costly to the state and to the people being swept up by it. This bill is based on myth, hype, fear, hate and vengeance not on any facts.

Rick Sincere writes:

Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."