Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act; limitation on collection. (HB1673)

Introduced By

Del. Rich Anderson (R-Woodbridge) with support from 6 copatrons, whose average partisan position is:

Those copatrons are Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond), Del. Tag Greason (R-Potomac Falls), Del. Tim Hugo (R-Centreville), Del. Dave LaRock (R-Loudoun), Del. Sam Rasoul (D-Roanoke), Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg)


Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law


Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act; limitation on collection and use of personal information by law enforcement. Limits the ability of law-enforcement and regulatory agencies to use technology to collect and maintain personal information on individuals and organizations where a warrant has not been issued and there is no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by the individual or organization. The bill codifies an opinion of the Attorney General regarding the Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act. The bill also allows a law-enforcement agency to collect information from a license plate reader, provided that any information collected shall only be retained for seven days and shall only be used for the investigation of a crime or a report of a missing person. Read the Bill »


Bill Has Failed


01/09/2015Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/14/15 15102702D
01/09/2015Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/15/2015Assigned Courts sub: Criminal Law
01/21/2015Referred from Courts of Justice
01/21/2015Referred to Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety
01/30/2015Assigned MPPS sub: #2
02/06/2015Reported from Militia, Police and Public Safety with amendments (17-Y 4-N) (see vote tally)
02/07/2015Read first time
02/09/2015Read second time
02/09/2015Committee amendments agreed to
02/09/2015Pending question ordered
02/09/2015Amendment #1 by Delegate Miller rejected
02/09/2015Amendment #2 by Delegate Miller agreed to
02/09/2015Engrossed by House as amended HB1673E
02/09/2015Printed as engrossed 15102702D-E
02/10/2015Read third time and passed House (89-Y 11-N)
02/10/2015VOTE: PASSAGE (89-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
02/11/2015Constitutional reading dispensed
02/11/2015Referred to Committee on General Laws and Technology
02/16/2015Reported from General Laws and Technology with substitute (13-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/16/2015Committee substitute printed 15105129D-S1
02/18/2015Constitutional reading dispensed (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/19/2015Read third time
02/19/2015Reading of substitute waived
02/19/2015Committee substitute agreed to 15105129D-S1
02/19/2015Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB1673S1
02/19/2015Passed Senate with substitute (38-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/20/2015Placed on Calendar
02/23/2015Senate substitute rejected by House 15105129D-S1 (2-Y 95-N)
02/23/2015VOTE: REJECTED (2-Y 95-N) (see vote tally)
02/23/2015Impact statement from DPB (HB1673S1)
02/24/2015Senate insisted on substitute (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2015Senate requested conference committee
02/25/2015House acceded to request
02/25/2015Conferees appointed by House
02/25/2015Delegates: Anderson, Cline, Rasoul
02/25/2015Conferees appointed by Senate
02/25/2015Senators: Petersen, Garrett, Stuart
02/26/2015C Amended by conference committee
02/26/2015Conference substitute printed 15105626D-H1
02/26/2015Conference report agreed to by House (94-Y 2-N)
02/26/2015VOTE: ADOPTION (94-Y 2-N) (see vote tally)
02/27/2015Impact statement from DPB (HB1673H1)
02/27/2015Conference report agreed to by Senate (37-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
03/06/2015Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB1673ER)
03/06/2015Impact statement from DPB (HB1673ER)
03/06/2015Signed by Speaker
03/07/2015Signed by President
03/10/2015Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 3/10/15
03/10/2015G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, Sunday, March 29, 2015
03/27/2015Governor's recommendation received by House
04/14/2015Placed on Calendar
04/15/2015Pending question ordered
04/15/2015House concurred in Governor's recommendation #1 (54-Y 44-N)
04/15/2015VOTE: ADOPTION (54-Y 44-N) (see vote tally)
04/15/2015House concurred in Governor's recommendation #2 and #8 (86-Y 11-N)
04/15/2015VOTE: ADOPTION (86-Y 11-N) (see vote tally)
04/15/2015House rejected Governor's recommendation #'s 3, 4 ,5, 6 and 7 (27-Y 71-N)
04/15/2015VOTE: REJECTED (27-Y 71-N) (see vote tally)
04/15/2015Passed by temporarily
04/15/2015Senate concurred in Governor's recommendations #1, #2, #8 (38-Y 1-N) (see vote tally)
04/15/2015G Governor's recommendation adopted in-part
04/15/2015Reenrolled bill text (HB1673ER2)
04/15/2015Signed by Speaker as reenrolled
04/15/2015Signed by President as reenrolled
04/15/2015Communicated to Governor
04/30/2015G Vetoed by Governor


This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 5 clips in all, totaling 17 minutes.


ACLU-VA Privacy Rights, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia believes that current law prohibits passive collection of personal information by police but supports legislation, such as HB 1673, which would clarify the limitations on use of ALPR’s by government agencies in accordance with former Attorney General Cuccinelli’s February 2013 opinion that concluded that the “passive” use of ALPRs to create massive databases violates Virginia’s Government Data Collection and Dissemination Practices Act. The ACLU of Virginia supports passage of legislation that would rein in the surveillance of Virginians not suspected of any criminal activity, but opposes allowing maintenance of data from ALPR's not related to an active criminal investigation for longer than 24 hours.

Editor’s Pick
Roger Richman writes:

ISSUE: Inclusion of Administrative Warrants in the Bill

The text includes the following: "Unless a criminal or administrative warrant has been issued, law-enforcement and regulatory agencies shall not use any technology to collect or maintain personal information in a passive manner..."

Including "administrative warrants" opens a wide gap in the intended purpose of this bill. Such warrants, generally employed by regulatory agencies but also used by law enforcement, dispense with the formal requirements of search warrants (probable cause, etc.) and take the form of administrative decisions lacking independent judicial review and oversight. In Massachusetts there currently are cases involving administrative subpoenas for cell phone metadata issued by prosecutors in non-consensual searches by simply filing a form, no formal warrant required. Should administrative warrants be included in the Bill, a municipal department in Virginia under an administrative warrant authorizing code enforcement by drone surveillance could, as an example, ignore the express intent and requirements of the statute.