Warrants; issuance of arrest warrants against law-enforcement officers. (HB70)

Introduced By

Del. Jackson Miller (R-Manassas)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Issuance of warrants by magistrates. Provides that a magistrate may not issue an arrest warrant for a misdemeanor offense where the accused is a law-enforcement officer and the alleged offense is directly related to the performance of his public duties upon the basis of a complaint by a person other than a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer without prior authorization by the attorney for the Commonwealth or by a law-enforcement agency. The bill also provides that a written complaint shall be required whenever practicable if the complainant is not a law-enforcement officer. Amends § 19.2-71, § 19.2-72, of the Code of Virginia. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
12/07/2015Committee
12/07/2015Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/13/16 16100927D
12/07/2015Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
01/14/2016Assigned to sub: Subcommittee Criminal Law
01/14/2016Assigned App. sub: Subcommittee Criminal Law
01/14/2016Assigned Courts sub:
01/21/2016Impact statement from DPB (HB70)
01/27/2016Subcommittee recommends reporting with amendment(s) (11-Y 0-N)
02/03/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/03/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with amendments (21-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2016Read first time
02/08/2016Read second time
02/08/2016Committee amendments agreed to
02/08/2016Engrossed by House as amended HB70E
02/08/2016Printed as engrossed 16100927D-E
02/09/2016Read third time and passed House BLOCK VOTE (99-Y 0-N)
02/09/2016VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (99-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/10/2016Impact statement from DPB (HB70E)
02/10/2016Constitutional reading dispensed
02/10/2016Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
02/22/2016Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (8-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/22/2016Committee substitute printed 16105663D-S1
02/23/2016Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/24/2016Read third time
02/24/2016Reading of substitute waived
02/24/2016Committee substitute agreed to 16105663D-S1
02/24/2016Engrossed by Senate - committee substitute HB70S1
02/24/2016Passed Senate with substitute (24-Y 16-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2016Placed on Calendar
02/26/2016Senate substitute agreed to by House 16105663D-S1 (70-Y 27-N)
02/26/2016VOTE: ADOPTION (70-Y 27-N) (see vote tally)
02/29/2016Enrolled
02/29/2016Bill text as passed House and Senate (HB70ER)
02/29/2016Impact statement from DPB (HB70ER)
02/29/2016Signed by Speaker
03/03/2016Signed by President
03/04/2016Enrolled Bill communicated to Governor on 3/4/16
03/04/2016G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 11, 2016
03/11/2016G Vetoed by Governor
04/20/2016Placed on Calendar
04/20/2016House sustained Governor's veto (66-Y 34-N)
04/20/2016VOTE: OVERRIDE GOVERNOR'S VETO (66-Y 34-N)
04/20/2016Requires 67 afirmative votes to override Governor's veto

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 2 clips in all, totaling 18 minutes.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Sen. Mamie Locke (D-Hampton): RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPANION ANIMAL CARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES.

[Unknown]: SENATOR STEWART. AS A RESULT OF THE BILL HAVING DIFFICULTY AFTER IT GOT TO THE FLOOR AND AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE PATRON I WOULD ASK THAT WE RECOMMIT THE BILL TO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL HOUSE BILL 1270 BE RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT, THE BILL IS RESUBMITTED. HOUSE BILL 70. A BBILL RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS FOR LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS BY A MAGISTRATE. REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE FOR COURTS OF JUSTICE WITH SUBSTITUTE. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKING HAM. MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THE AYES HAVE IT. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. THIS BILL REQUIRES AN INSTANCE IN WHICH SOMEBODY ASKS A IMAGINE STRAIGHT FOR A WARRANA WARRANT. CONFER WITH THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE THE WARRANT IS ISSUED FOR THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. IT CONTAINS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BAILOUT IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I WOULD MOVE THE BILL PASS. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION? YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: I YIELD.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): HE YIELDS.

[Unknown]: IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WHICH WOULD ORE WISE BE THE PROCESS FOR ARREST. AGREE WITH ME? THE SENATOR FROM IRAQ ROCKING HALL. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN REPEAT HIS QUESTION. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY. I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN ARE WE NOT CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS UNDER WHAT IS THE STAN TARD PROCESS OF ISSUING A WARRANT FOR THE IMAGINE STRAIGHT UNDER THE 19.271 STATUTE. MR. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. WE ARE CONFORMING THE PROCESS FOR ISSUING WARRANTS WITH RESPECT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO PROCESS THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR FELONY WARRANTS AND THIS IS CONFIRMING IT WITH RESPECT TO MISDEMEANORS. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT,. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. I YIELD. WOULD HE NOT AGREE EVERY TIME WE DO THIS WE TEND TO HAVE WHAT I CALL A CHRISTMAS TREE EFFECT OR WHAT EVERYONE CALLS A CHRISTMAS TREE EFFECT THAT EVERYBODY IN THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY OR THE HARBOR MASTER OF HOMEWELL OR COMMONWEALTH TEARS OR EVERYONE ELSE WILL WANT TO BE IN HERE IN THE STATUTE ASKING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO THIS REQUIREMENT FOR ISSUING A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT ARREST? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I AM NOT SURE THAT IN THIS CONTEXT THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE IN. THIS HAS A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC SAFETY REASON FOR ADOPTION OF IT. MANY INSTANCES AND EXAMPLES AROUND THE STATE IN WHICH A POLICE OFFICER HAS TICKED SOMEBODY OFF IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY AND THE AGGRIEVED PERSON WALKED AROUND TO THE MAGISTRATE AND SWEARS OUT A WARRANT AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICER. THIS IS A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR ESTABLISHING A FORMALIZED PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO EXIST BEFORE A POLICE OFFICER IS BE IS CORRECTED TO THE ISSUANCE OF A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT. IT IS A PROCESS THAT IN INFORMALLY FOLLOWED IN MANY JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE STATE. THIS FORMALIZES IT AND SIMPLY REQUIRES A CONFERENCE. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. PRESIDENT. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I YIELD. HE YIELDS, SENATOR. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN AGREET THAT A MAGISTRATE HAS THE DISCRETION TO ADOPT THE PROCESS THAT HE FEELS IS CORRECT BEFORE HE ISSUES A MISDEMEANOR WARRANT? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. MR. PRESIDENT, IN RESPONSE I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE UNFORTUNATELY SOME MAGISTRATES AROUND VIRGINIA WHO LACK THE GOOD JUDGMENT THAT THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY SEEMS TO THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX EXHIBIT. CITY. I'M GLAD I HAVE GOOD JUDGMENT. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. THE QUESTION IS SHOULD HOUSE BILL BASS? BILL PASS? WOULD THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM RENEW. LACY SPRINGS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. YES, I YIELD. HE YIELDS. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. DOES THIS -- DOES THIS BILL DEAL WITH JUST TAKING A WARRANT OUT FENCE AN OFFICER FOR SOMETHING HE DID IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES OR WOULD THIS AFFECT THE SITUATION IF THAT INDIVIDUAL'S WIFE OR INTIMATE PARTNER WERE TO FILE AN ASSAULT COMPLAINT AGAINST THEM? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD DIRECT THE GENTLEMAN'S ATTENTION TO LINE 18 OF THE SUBSTITUTE IN WHICH IT SAYS AND THE OFFENSE ARISES OUT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS PUBLIC DUTIES. THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM ROCKING HAM YIELD FOR ONE MORE QUESTION?

[Unknown]: WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): I HAVEN'T EVEN SAT DOWN. MORE THAN HAPPY.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY. I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN SAID THIS ONLY APPLIES TO MISDEMEANOR OFFENSES AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I AM READING -- NEVER MIND, I THINK I READ IT RIGHT ON LINE 36. HE COULD PERHAPS ENLIGHTEN ME THE FELONY OFFENSE IT SAYS A FELONY OFFENSE OR MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE WHERE THE ACCUSED IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. DOES THAT NOT APPLY TO FELONY OFFENSES ALSO? SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN IS THAT WE ALREADY REQUIRE THIS MEET AND CONFER IF YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO BORROW THAT LABOR TERM, THIS REQUIREMENT THAT A MAGISTRATE CONFER WITH THE ISSUANCE OF FELONY WARRANTS AND THIS EXTENDS TO MISDEMEANOR AND THE LANGUAGE UPDATES THAT SECTION TO ADD THE MISDEMEANOR LANGUAGE THAT N. THERE. THAT SECTION DEALS PRINCIPALLY WITH THE ISSUANCE OF FELONY WARRANTS AND SIMPLY CONFORMING IT AND MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THIS PRACTICE APPLIES TO BOTH THE ISSUANCE OF FELLY AND MISDEMEANOR WARRANTS. I THANK THE GENTLEMAN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX COUNTY, SENATOR SUROVELL.

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: WOULD THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM GREED FOR AN ADDITION ADDITIONAL QUESTION?

Sen. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon): I YIELD.

[Unknown]: HE YIELDS. THANK YOU. WE HAD ISSUES IN MY PART OF THE STATE WHERE THE PEOPLE REVIEW THE OFFICE WITH BEING A LITTLE TIGHT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE -- MY QUESTION IS IF -- TWO QUESTIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION IS GIVEN THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OFTEN EXISTS BETWEEN THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DID THE COMMITTEE HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY FOR THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT PERSON TO BE MAKING A CHARGING DECISION FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN ALL THEIR CASES ON A DAILY BASIS AND MAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. MR. PRESIDENT, WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN IS I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COMMITTEE BUT I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF. WE TRY TO ADDRESS THIS AND THE PATRON TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN BY INCLUDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUIREMENTS AND IN THE EVENT THAT THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY HAS EITHER AN INABILITY TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OR TOO CLOSE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A PARTICULAR OFFICER AT ISSUE, THE PROCEDURE UNDER 19.2-155 IS AVAILABLE FOR A SUBSTITUTE FOR AN ATTORNEY FROM A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION TO STEP IN AND MAKE THE DETERMINATION. MOREOVER, IT ALSO PROVIDES THE KICKOUT THAT ALLOWS THE CONFERRENCE WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AS WELL. AND THIS ATTEMPTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONFLICTS ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED. THE SENATOR FROM EASTERN FAIRFAX. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR A FINAL QUESTION. WOULD THE SENATOR YIELD FOR A FINAL QUESTION? SURE. ONE FINAL TWO PART QUESTION. COULD THE GENTLEMAN EYE DIDN'TIFY WHICH RETURNS THIS PROBLEM EXISTS IN. IF IT HAPPENS TO BE SOME WHERE CLOSE WHO MY JURISDICTION I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I KNOW WE SWITCHED CONTROL OF THE MAGISTRATE OFFICE OVER FROM THE LOCAL COURTS TO THE SUPREME COURT ABOUT I THINK IT WAS FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO AND SEEMS IF WE HAVE PROBLEM MAGISTRATES PERHAPS WHY DIDN'T -- WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY THE ISSUE WASN'T TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM MAGISTRATES INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE LAW FOR THE ENTIRE STATE? THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM. I AM RELUCTANT TO SHARE ANECDOTES JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THIRD OR FOURTH HAND ON MY PART AND I AM NOT SURE THAT I CAN ACCURATELY RECITED THE JURISDICTIONS. THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ISSUE OF PROBLEM MAGISTRATES AS MUCH AS TWO MINDS ARE BETTER THAN ONE AND TALKING ABOUT ISSUING WARRANTS FOR MISDEMEANORS AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IT SEEMS LIKE GOOD PRACTICE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MAGISTRATES TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT OF THAT IS ISSUED. YOU WILL EITHER LIKE THIS OR YOU WON'T LIKE IT. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. RISE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): I BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN BE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS I HAVE IS THAT WE PASS LEGISLATION TO GIVE CITIZENS THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY THERE ARE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE EXEMPTIONS OR EXCEPTIONS FROM WHAT ARE OTHERWISE UNIFORMLY APPLICABLE LAWS AND YOU WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME FINDING SOMEBODY WHO HAS MORE APPRECIATION FOR THE LOCAL POLICE THAN I DO E EX-LY IN MY HOMETOWN OR WHEREVER ARE RUN IN TO THEM. THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. THEY JUST AREN'T ISSUING ARREST WARRANTS FOR OFFICERS OF THE PEACE. WE GIVE PEOPLE THE FALSE IMPRESSION THAT POLICE SOMEHOW HAVE FRANKLY MORE PROTECTION FROM THIS TYPE OF SITUATION THAN THE ORDINARY CITIZEN AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. I THINK BY REJECTING THIS LAW WE ARE SENDING AN IMPORTANT SIGNAL THE LAW APPLIES UNIFORMLY TO EVERYBODY WHETHER OR NOT THEY WEAR A BLUE UNIFORM. I HOPE WE VOTE IT DOWN. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM STAFFORD, SENATOR STUART.

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): MR. PRESIDENT, SPEAKING TO THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR.

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): JUST BRIEFLY. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE ANYBODY ANY EXTRA PROTECTION. THE PROBLEM IS THE MAGISTRATES ISSUED THE WARRANTS BASED UPON NOTHING MORE THAN A VERBAL COMPLAINT. WHEN AN OFFICER MAKES AN ARREST IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY AND IF SOMEBODY IS UP SET WITH THE WAY HE HAS DONE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL NEED ONLY GO TO THE MAGISTRATE HIM OR HERSELF AND SAY THAT THE OFFICER DID SOMETHING AND HAVE A WARRANT ISSUED AGAINST THE OFFICER WHICH BECOMES VERY VERY, PROBLEMMATTIC. IT SAYS CALL THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY OR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY AND SEEKS TO HAVE AN INVESTIGATION DONE REGARDING THE COMPLAINT BEFORE IT IS ISSUED. IT IS A MINOR MEASURE TO AVOID THESE OFFICERS FROM HAVING A FIELD THESE WARRANTS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ISSUED.


[Unknown]: ON A POLICE OFFICER WHO DID HIS JOB BY ARRESTING. THOSE CASES WERE ALL VERY QUICKLY THROWN OUT IN COURT AND L PROBLEM IS THAT WITH THAT ARREST RECORD ON A CAREER CAN DAMAGE THE GROWTH, AND PROMOTION OF THAT OFFICER AND HIS CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT. SHOWING HE'S BEEN ARRESTED WILL BE A NEGATIVE MARK. NOW, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AGAIN, I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU VOTED FOR THIS. AND THIS IS A THEIR NUMBER ONE ISSUE. IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, DPA. THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE THINGS THE GOVERNOR SAID IS A MINORITY SAID TODAY IS ONE OF THOSE SOCIAL ISSUES. THIS IS A BIPARTISAN ISSUE AND I HOPE YOU'LL JOIN ME IN OVERRIDING THE VETO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM FAIRFAX, MR. SULLIVAN.

Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Arlington): THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER, SPEAKING TO THE VETO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN HAS THE FLOOR.

Del. Rip Sullivan (D-Arlington): MR. SPEAKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE, GOVERNOR'S VETO INTENDS NO DISRESPECT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO PROTECT US AND SERVE AS LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE VETO IS NOT SO MUCH ABOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT THAN THE INITIAL SYSTEM FOR MOST, MANY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMON WEALTH. THIS IS A SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM. THERE IS INDICATION THERE IS A RASH OF CITIZEN APPEARANCES BEFORE MAGISTRATES FILLING OUT COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS. ARE THERE EXAMPLES? SURE. AS IT'S BEEN SAID. BAD CASES MAKE BAD LAW. A COUPLE BAD EXAMPLES DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULD BE CHANGING THE CODE. WHAT THIS DID JUST SEVERAL YEARS AGO IS THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CODE WHICH ADDRESSES THIS SITUATION. IT'S 19.2-76.1 WHICH SAID IF A COMMON WEALTH'S ATTORNEY WANTS TO DEEP SIX THIS, HE, OR SHE CAN, INSTANTLY. NEVER GETS TO COURT. SO WE'VE EMPOWERED ATTORNEYS TO DO WHAT THIS BILL SUPPOSEDLY DOES. OUR MAGISTRATES ARE TRAINED AND VERY EXPERIENCED IN DETERMINING WHAT IS REASONABLE OR PROBABLE CAUSE. THEY KNOW TWO PEOPLE MEETING ON THE STREETS, VERY DIFFERENT, PERHAPS, THAN IN ANOTHER SITUATION. IT IS NOT AS IF THEY DO NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCES. NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT I KNOW OF THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGES ARE NOT DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB HERE IN VIRGINIA. THIS BILL APPEARS TO BE BASED ON ASSUMPTION THAT OUR JUDGES WILL DO THEIR JOBS LESS WELL IF RECEIVING A COMPLAINT. THERE IS NO REASON TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION. THE POINT IS THE MESSAGE THAT PASSAGE OF THE BILL WILL SEND TO THE CITIZENS OF VIRGINIA. IT WILL SEND A MESSAGE THAT OUR MAGISTRATES IS NOT NEUTRAL. THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE GET SPECIAL RULES AND IT'S NOT BROKEN AND NEEDS NO FIXING. THE COMMON WEALTH'S ATTORNEY HAS POWER TO DO THAT ALREADY. WE SHOULD TRUST VIRGINIA'S MAGISTRATES TO DO THEIR JOBS AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS TO ISSUE A WARRANT IN CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. I URGE THE BODY TO SUSTAIN THE VETO, MR. SPEAKER.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): GENTLEMAN FROM STANTON, MR. BELL. SHALL THE HOUSE OVERRIDE THE

Comments

ACLU-VA Criminal Justice, tracking this bill in Photosynthesis, notes:

The ACLU of Virginia opposes this bill.

MARSHA MAINES writes:

"law enforcement officer" is a JOB TITLE.
"law" ENFORCEMENT is a JURY of one's peers AFTER a VALIDATED/AUTHENTICATED CHARGING INSTRUMENT is filed in a court of LAW with proper VENUE and Jurisdiction, Witnesses are Deposed and/or Cross Examined, and Admissible Evidence (not HEARSAY) is accepted into THE RECORD.

"law enforcement officers" are just People doing a job - and IF - they fail to self-educate their role is merely as a Public SERVANT - their lives may be endangered due to POOR TRAINING by their Employer.

Hopefully this bill sent a CLEAR MESSAGE.