• Home
• In The News
• Bulletin Board

2010 General Assembly Bills

HB 23 Children; Prohibited Photography, Penalty
12/17/09, Sponsor- Joseph P. Johnson Jr. D-Abingdon
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb23

Prohibited photographs of children. Provides that any person previously convicted of a "crime prohibiting proximity to children" who takes a photograph of a child of another at a prohibited location ((i) a primary, secondary, or high school, (ii) any place owned or operated by a locality that the person knows or should know is a playground, athletic field or facility, or gymnasium, (iii) any place the person knows or has reason to know is a child day program as defined in § 63.2-100, or (iv) a public park that is owned and operated by a county, city or town) or without the express permission of the parent or guardian of the child, when the child is the only individual or primary individual depicted in the photograph, is guilty of a Class 6 felony. 

Update:

• As of Friday February 12 HB23 had not been scheduled on a sub-committee docket to be discussed.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB23 has “died on the vine” because no action was taken by the 2010 General Assembly.

HB 172 Sex Offenses; Prohibiting Proximity to Children.
01/06/10, Sponsor- Brenda Pogge R-Williamsburg
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb172&Submit2=Go

Offenses prohibiting proximity to children.  Removes the language "when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2000" from the language of the statute prohibiting proximity to children that specifically prohibits loitering within 100 feet of the premises of any place he knows or has reason to know is a primary, secondary or high school.

Update:

• As of Friday February 12 HB172 had not been scheduled on a sub-committee docket to be discussed.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB172 has “died on the vine” because no action was taken by the 2010 General Assembly

HB 227 Sex Offenses Prohibiting Entry onto School Property.
01/11/10, Sponsor- Vivian Watts D-Annandale
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb227

Sex offenses prohibiting entry onto school property.  Provides that for every adult who is prohibited from entering upon school or child day center property by reason of his status as a violent sex offender, the court may consider objections to his petition for entry onto school property made by the attorney for the Commonwealth and either (i) the proprietor of the child day center, (ii) the superintendent of public instruction of the school division in which the school is located, or (iii) the chief administrator of the school, all of whom receive notice, under current law, of the petition. The bill also limits such a petition to the circuit court of the locality, whereas under current law the petition may also be made to the district court. The bill also specifically provides for the court to consider the duration of the attendance of the child of an offender at the school or child day center when issuing an order allowing the offender to enter such property.

Update:

• On January 18, 2010 HB227 was added to the House sub-committee docket with less than 3 hours notice, so we were not able to make a statement against it. An amendment was made.

The Original Bill (HB227) stated:
B. Every adult who is prohibited from entering upon school or child day center property pursuant to subsection A may after notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth and either (i) the proprietor of the child day center, (ii) the superintendent of public instruction of the school division in which the school is located, or (iii) the chief administrator of the school if such school is not a public school, petition the juvenile and domestic relations district court or the circuit court in the county or city where the school or child day center is located for permission to enter such property. For good cause shown, and upon consideration of any objection made by any person who received notice of the hearing on the petition as required herein, the court may issue an order permitting the petitioner to enter and be present on such property, subject to whatever restrictions of area, reasons for being present, or time limits the court deems appropriate. Time limits encompassing the duration of the attendance of a child or ward of the petitioner at a child day center or school may be taken into consideration by the court.

The Amendment (HB227H1) States:
B. Every adult who is prohibited from entering upon school or child day center property pursuant to subsection A may after notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth and either (i) the proprietor of the child day center, (ii) the superintendent of public instruction of the school division in which the school is located, or (iii) the chief administrator of the school if such school is not a public school, petition the juvenile and domestic relations district court or the circuit court in the county or city where the school or child day center is located for permission to enter such property. For good cause shown [ , and upon consideration of any objection made by any person who received notice of the hearing on the petition as required herein ] , the court may issue an order permitting the petitioner to enter and be present on such property, subject to whatever restrictions of area, reasons for being present, or time limits the court deems appropriate. [Time limits encompassing the duration of the attendance of a child or ward of the petitioner at a child day center or school may be taken into consideration by the court. ]

The RSOL of Virginia no longer opposes HB227 with the new amendment

• On January 22, 2010 HB227 was block voted* by the House full-committee to be sent to the House floor.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• On January 26, 2010 HB227 was read on the House floor for first time.
• On January 27, 2010 HB227 was passed by for the day.
• On January 28, 2010 HB227 was passed by for the day.
• On January 29, 2010 HB227 was passed by for the day.
• On February 1, 2010 HB227 was passed by for the day.
• On February 2, 2010 HB227 was read on the House floor for the second time and the amendment was agreed to and engrossed by the House.
• On February 3, 2010 HB227H1 was read for the third time and passed the House 98 to 0.
• On February 4, 2010 HB227H1 was referred to the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice.
• On March 3, 2010 HB227 was reported by the Senate Courts of Justice with a substitute 13 to 0.

The Senate Substitute HB227S1 States:
A. Every adult who is convicted of a sexually violent offense, as defined in § 9.1-902, shall be prohibited from entering and being present, during school hours and during school-related and school-sponsored activities, upon any property he knows or has reason to know is a public or private elementary or secondary school or child day center property, unless (i) he is a lawfully registered and qualified voter, and is coming upon such property solely for purposes of casting his vote; (ii) he is a student enrolled at the school; or (iii) he has obtained a court order allowing him to enter and be present upon such property, has obtained the permission of the school board or of the owner of the private school or child day center or their designee for entry within all or part of the scope of the lifted ban, and is in compliance with such school board's, school's or center's terms and conditions and those of the court order. A violation of this section is punishable as a Class 6 felony.
B. Every adult who is prohibited from entering upon school or child day center property pursuant to subsection A may after notice to the attorney for the Commonwealth and either (i) the proprietor of the child day center, (ii) the superintendent of public instruction of the school division in which the school is located, or (iii) the chief administrator of the school if such school is not a public school, petition the juvenile and domestic relations district court or the circuit court in the county or city where the school or child day center is located for permission to enter such property. For good cause shown, the court may issue an order permitting the petitioner to enter and be present on such property, subject to whatever restrictions of area, reasons for being present, or time limits the court deems appropriate.

• The school system can still refuse entry even if the courts have allowed it.
• These latest changes to HB227 by the Senate do not change our position on the bill.

• On March 5, 2010 the Constitutional reading was dispensed by the Senate 39 to 0.
• On March 8, 2010 HB227S1 was read for the third time on the Senate floor, substitute waived and engrossed.HB227S1 passed the Senate 40 to 0.
• On March 10, 2010 HB227S1 was agreed to by the House 97 to 0.
• HB227S1 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

HB 685 Child Pornography; Solicitation, Possession, or Production Thereof by a Minor; Penalty.
01/12/10, Sponsor- Jackson Miller R-Manassas
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb685

Solicitation, possession or production of child pornography by a minor.  Provides that a minor who, upon the facts, could be found guilty of a first offense of possession, production, publication or solicitation of child pornography, may have his case deferred and dismissed by the court. The offense is separate and distinct; if the acts or activities violating this law also violate another provision of law, a prosecution under this law shall not prohibit or bar any prosecution or proceeding under such other provision. The penalty for violation is a Class 3 misdemeanor.

• This is a “Sexting” Bill even though the term is never used.
• HB938 was a better bill than HB685

Update:

On February 10, 2010 HB685, House Courts of Justice Constitutional Law Sub-Committee recommended continuing to 2011 by voice vote.

HB 706 General Assembly Deadlines; Computation of Time
01/12/10, Sponsor- Christopher Peace R-Mechanicsville
Co-Sponsors- John A. Cox R-Ashland and H. Morgan Griffith R-Salem
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb706

General Assembly deadlines; computation of time.  Provides that when an act of the General Assembly requires an action to be completed or taken on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or any day or part of a day on which the clerk's office is closed, the act may be performed on the next business day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or day when the clerk's office is closed.

• In Virginia, today on a Friday if a judge instructs someone to register in 3 days and Monday is an observed holiday then by Tuesday the first possible chance for that person to register they would already be out of compliance and facing a Class 6 misdemeanor.
• We think…….. if this bill were to pass Saturdays, Sundays and observed holidays when the Virginia State Police barracks are NOT open to accept new registration or re-registration information you would no longer be out of compliance and facing new charges.

If this is in fact the case then the RSOL of VA will not have to wait until the 2011 General Assembly to file for an amendment to the current statute for registration that allows this problem to exist today.

Update:

• On January 26, 2010 HB706 was passed 15 to 0 by the House Committee on Rules.
  We never received a response to our request to change the wording from 3 days to 3 business days.
• On January 26, 2010 An amendment was made so the bill is now HB706H1

The Amendment (HB706H1) States:
E. When an act of the General Assembly or local governing body, order of the court, or administrative regulation or order requires, either by specification of a date or by a prescribed period of time, that an act be performed or an action be filed on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday or on any day or part of a day on which the state or local government office where the act to be performed or the action to be filed is closed, the act may be performed or the action may be filed on the next business day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, or day on which the state or local government office is closed.

• On January 28, 2010 HB706H1 was read on the House floor for the first time.
• On January 29, 2010 HB706H1 was read on the House floor for second time and engrossed by the House.
• On February 1, 2010 HB706H1 was read for the third time and passed the House 97 to 0 as a block vote*.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• On February 2, 2010 HB706H1 was referred to the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology.
• On February 17, 2010 HB706H1 passed the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology 14 to 0.
• On February 19, 2010 HB706H1 the Constitutional reading was dispensed 40 to 0.
• On February 22, 2010 HB706H1 was read for the third time on the Senate floor and passed 39 to 0. Then reconsidered and passed 40 to 0.
• HB706H1 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

HB 855 Internet Sex Offender Registry Information.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Charles Poindexter R-Glade Hill
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb855

Internet sex offender registry information.  Allows the Internet sex offender registry information system to include a "wanted" notation for a person who is wanted for any crime. Currently, the "wanted" notation is only posted for a person who is wanted for failing to register.  

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose HB855

Update:

• On January 28, 2010 HB855 was “tabled” by the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Sub-Committee. Which means it’s dead for 2010.

We found an article from WPCVA.com titled Del. Charles Poindexter's Report, February 3, 2010:
http://www.wpcva.com/articles/2010/02/03/chatham/opinion/opinion08.txt
It stated, “Another bill I submitted, HB 855, relates to the Sex Offender Registry website. This bill would require that entries on the website include an indicator if a registered offender is wanted for any other criminal offense.
We were able to reach an agreement with the Virginia State Police on this issue and, in the future, the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry website will also include this indicator.
As this matter was resolved administratively with the State Police, I removed that bill from consideration. I appreciate the State Police willingness to work with us on this improvement”.

• The RSOL of Virginia finds it very interesting that the 2010 Bill HB855 has been approved without an actual Bill rolling through the Legislative process.
• When the 2009 version (HB2274) of Delegate Poindexter’s request was ejected from the 2009 General Assembly to be reviewed by the Virginia Crime Commission last summer and autumn and the VCC practically ignored it.

HB 912 Definition of Residence for the Purposes of the Sex Offender Registry.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Robert Bell R-Charlottesville
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb912&Submit2=Go

Definition of residence for the purposes of the sex offender registry.  Provides that "residence" means, for any sex offender who declares himself homeless and has no permanent physical address, any single location described by him, which can be located with reasonable specificity, where he routinely spends the night.

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose HB912

Update:

• On January 28, 2010 HB912 was passed 4 to 0 by the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Sub-Committee. An amendment was made but it has not be published yet.
• On January 28, 2010 HB912 was heard by the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee and an amendment was made.
• The amended bill has been redirected to the House Courts of Justice Committee.

The Original Bill (HB912) stated:
J. For purposes of this chapter, "residence" means, for any person who declares himself homeless and has no permanent physical address, any single location described by him, which can be located with reasonable specificity, where he routinely spends the night.

The Amendment (HB912H1) States:
J. If a person required to register does not have a legal residence because he is homeless, such person shall designate a location that can be located with reasonable specificity where he will spend the night. For the purposes of this section, "residence" may be such a designated location. If the person wishes to change such residence, he shall do it pursuant to the terms of this section.

• On January 29, 2010 HB912 reported by the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee with substitute 22 to 0. Referred to House Courts of Justice Criminal Sub-Committee.
• On February 8, 2010 HB912 the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee approves 8 to 0.
• On February 10, 2010 HB912 the House Courts of Justice Full-Committee approves 22 to 0.
• On February 12, 2010 HB912H1 was read on the House floor for the first time.
• On February 15, 2010 HB912H1 was read on the House floor for second time, substitute agreed to and engrossed.
• On February 16, 2010 HB912H1 was read on the House floor for third time and passed 99 to 0.
• On March 8, 2010 HB912 passed the Senate Courts of Justice Full-Committee with an amendment 14 to 0.
• On March 9, 2010 the Constitutional reading was dispensed 39 to 0.
• On March 10, 2010 some how HB912 was read for the third time, the amendment waived, engrossed and passed by the Senate 40 to 0.
• On March 11, 2010 HB912S1 was agreed to by the House 98 to 0.
• HB912S1 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

HB 919 Offenses Prohibiting Proximity to Children; Children's Museums; Penalty. 
01/13/10, Sponsor- Robert Bell R-Charlottesville
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb919

Offenses prohibiting proximity to children; children's museums; penalty.  Provides that every adult who is convicted of an offense prohibiting proximity to children, when the offense occurred on or after July 1, 2010, shall as part of his sentence be forever prohibited from going, for the purpose of having any contact whatsoever with children who are not in his custody, within 100 feet of the premises of any children's museum. Virginia children's museums are named in the bill.

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose HB919, because it would still allow parents who are RSO’s to visit museums with their own children

Update:

• As of Friday February 12 HB919 had not been scheduled on a sub-committee docket to be discussed.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB919 has “died on the vine” because no action was taken by the 2010 General Assembly

HB 938 Child Pornography; Penalty for Possession or Reproduction Thereof by a Minor.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Bill Janis R-Glen Allen
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb938

Penalty for possession or reproduction of child pornography by a minor. Provides that a minor who, upon the facts, could be found guilty of a first offense of possession or reproduction of child pornography, may have his case deferred and dismissed by the court, upon conditions including limitation of access to the Internet, computers, and electronic communication devices.

• This is a “Sexting” Bill even though the term is never used.
• HB938 was a better bill than HB685

Update:

• On January 22, 2010 HB938 was killed without even being heard by the House Sub-committee.

HB 967 Residential Facility; Meaning to Include Assisted Living Facility and Group Homes.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Chris Peace R-Mechanicsville
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb967

Assisted living facilities; zoning. Expands certain provisions that currently apply to the Counties of Arlington and York statewide. The existing provisions declare that zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight aged, infirm, or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons as residential occupancy by a single family.

Until this bill was amended on January 29 and became HB967H1, we would not have given it a second though.

• HB967H1 is extremely troubling in that it would ban ANYONE listed on the Sex Offender Registry from receiving the care and services they might need to live, recoup or age with dignity.
• While we believe that the homes and facilities in which care is given should be apprised of the individuals status as being listed on the Sex Offender Registry, this type of care is a right we should extend to all citizens within a civilized society. Caring for the sick, the injured, and the elderly is a responsibility not a luxury.  
• Anyone who has been in an auto accident, suffered a sports injury, a brain injury, a stroke, had a hip or knee replaced, paralysis, lost a limb or even received an organ transplant would be ejected by their healthcare provider from their hospital and into a rehabilitation or assisted care facility near their home. 
• What about those who are aging in their 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. They shouldn’t be in an apartment or home alone or perhaps their spouse is unable to care for them. That citizen should be able to move into an assisted living facility alone or with their spouse to live out their last years with dignity. This bill has just outlawed any married Registered Offender from entering such a facility with their spouse. Now the spouse will have to make the decision do they get the care they need or do they stay with their spouse.
• This bill virtually ensures that some elderly or mentally handicapped person will be left to die in the streets of Virginia if he/she has no family to look after them in their old age.

Update:

• On January 28, 2010 HB967 was amended and passed 10 to 0 by the House Counties, Cities and Towns Sub-Committee.
• On February 3, 2010 the RSOL of Virginia met with a Delegate who is a member of the House Sub-committee on Counties, Cities and Towns that allowed the amendment. We asked the Delegate if anyone questioned the amendment when it was proposed. He responded, "No, when the amendment was proposed to add sex offenders, we all said that sounds reasonable and it passed". We then asked the Delegate, now that he understood what the amendment actually would do, would he have still voted for it, he replied "No, I would not have". He also informed us that since the Bill was being read for the third time later that afternoon, that it was too late to be stopped by the House. It would be up to the Senate to stop this terrible bill from being passed.
• On the afternoon of February 3, 2010 HB967H1 was read for the third time and passed the House 98 to 0 as a block vote*.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• On February 4, 2010 HB967H1 was referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government.

 

The Amendment (HB967H1) States:
A. Zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight individuals with mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental disabilities reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. For the purposes of this subsection, mental illness and developmental disability shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401or any offense for which a sex offender is listed on the registry pursuant to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act (§ 9.1-900 et seq.). No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or other residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.

B. Zoning ordinances in the Counties of Arlington and York for all purposes shall consider a residential facility which no more than eight aged elderly, infirm or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home assisted living facility or residential facility in which aged, infirm or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code in. For purposes of this subsection, disabled persons shall not include those currently engaged in the illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401 or a registered sex offender pursuant to the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act (§ 9.1-900 et seq.).

• On January 29, 2010 HB967H1 was passed 21 to 0 by the House Counties, Cities and Towns Full-Committee.
• On February 1, 2010 HB967H1 was read on the House floor for the first time.
• On February 2, 2010 HB967H1 was read on the House floor for second time and engrossed by the House.
• On March 2, 2010 HB967H1 was heard by the Senate Full Committee on Local Government skipping the Sub-Committee. The RSOL of Virginia was prepared to speak against HB967, but there was no need to.
• Delegate Peace submitted a substitute, totally re-writing HB967 to be identical to a bill by Senator Hanger SB338.

SB338 States:
1.  That § 15.2-2291 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
§ 15.2-2291. Assisted living facilities and group homes of eight or fewer single-family residence.

A. Zoning ordinances for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight individuals with mental illness, mental retardation, or developmental disabilities reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. For the purposes of this subsection, mental illness and developmental disability shall not include current illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance as defined in § 54.1-3401. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or other residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.

B. Zoning ordinances in the Counties of Arlington and York for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than eight  [ aged, infirm elderly  ]  or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home assisted living facility or residential facility in which  [ aged, infirm elderly  ]  or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.

C. Zoning ordinances in the Cities of Lynchburg and Suffolk for all purposes shall consider a residential facility in which no more than four aged, infirm or disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons, as residential occupancy by a single family. No conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage or adoption shall be imposed on such facility. For purposes of this subsection, "residential facility" means any group home or residential facility in which aged, infirm or disabled persons reside with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons and for which the Department of Social Services is the licensing authority pursuant to this Code.

All of your phone calls and e-mail’s in opposition to HB967’s amendment adding registered sex offenders resulted in the bill being rewritten. Great job everybody!

HB 1004 Sex Offenses Prohibiting Residing in Proximity to Children; Penalty.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Clay Athey R-Front Royal
Co-Sponsors- Dave Albo R-Springfield and Jill Holtzman Vogel R-Winchester
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb1004

Sex offenses prohibiting residing in proximity to children; penalty.  Prohibits an adult who is convicted of an offense requiring registration where the victim was a minor from residing within 500 feet of the premises of a child day center, or a public, private, parochial, or Christian primary, secondary, or high school. A violation is a Class 6 felony; however, this section does not apply where the facility is established subsequent to the person's conviction.

• This bill would have changed the current statute from only the 4 crimes worst crimes against a minor involving the Highest risk “Sex Offenders” to include ANYONE whose crime was against a minor, violent or non-violent, felony or misdemeanor to be included in the 500 ft. residency restriction no matter how long ago it was.
• This bill also ADDED bus stops, community centers, recreation centers, public parks/playgrounds, and public swimming pools where the current statute only includes schools and daycare facilities. Although we know that no current map is in existence, we suggested one be created for the entire state. A dot representing EVERY school, day care facility, bus stop, community center, recreation center, Public Park and playground, and public swimming pool. Then a 500 ft. Circle around EACH one of them, we believe that the circles could easily cover the majority of the state.
• This bill; if passed, would have been retroactive which means thousands of RSO's who currently lived less than 500 ft. from a day care, school, bus stop, community center, recreation center,  public park/playground, and public pool WOULD HAVE BEEN FORCED TO MOVE, no matter how long they've lived there!
• This bill would have caused widespread homelessness which would result in families being torn apart, unemployment and people not-registering.
  Obviously, if passed this Bill would result in unimaginable lawsuits against the Commonwealth.
  This would include anyone who agreed to a plea agreement not knowing that this would eventually include the dissolution of their family, forcing their hand to sell their home in a down economy and the sentencing to remain a vagrant for life. Simply put this is a ‘Breach of Contract’ on the part of Virginia. Who would accept a plea agreement if this were included upon it. Obviously ‘Cruel and Unusual Punishment’ would come into play in addition to any ‘Ex Post Facto’ laws.
• The more frightening of the scenarios is that HB1004, if passed would have undone any possible benefit that the Registry has thus offered the citizens of Virginia. Those listed would become untraceable. Those listed would become desperate. Those listed would by necessity continually relocate within the State. This Bill would have created the worst possible scenario and place all Virginians at greater risk of crime.

Update:

• As of Friday February 12, HB1004 had not been scheduled on a sub-committee docket to be discussed.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB1004 has “died on the vine” because no action was taken by the 2010 General Assembly
• Back in 2007 the same bill (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+sum+HB2404) from Delegate Athey not only passed through the House Sub-Committee AND Full Committee but it passed the House Floor with a vote of 98 to 0. It was ONLY killed when it was heard by the Senate Sub-Committee.
  All of YOUR e-mail’s, phone calls and letters in opposition of HB1004 stopped it from even proceeding to the Sub-Committee. Great job everybody!

HB 1113 Abduction or Pandering; Forfeiture of Vehicle when Involving a Minor.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Adam Ebbin D-Arlington
Co-Sponsors- Robin Abbott D-Newport News, David Englin D-Alexandria, Charniele Herring D-Alexandria , Jennifer McClellan D-Richmond, Jeion Ward D-Hampton
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb1113

Forfeiture of vehicles used in abduction or pandering involving a minor. Provides that the motor vehicle of any person who engages in pandering when the prostitute is a minor or commits a felony violation of abduction when the victim is a minor is subject to forfeiture.

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose HB1113, BUT we are concerned that if passed HB1113 could lead to many more “seizure” type bills in the future for a state with budget shortfalls.
These property seizures by states leave spouses, children and parents without homes, vehicles or bank accounts. Not to mention the convicted person returning to society after they’ve served their court ordered sentence without the means to support themselves because the government took it all from them.

Update:

• On February 3, 2010 HB1113 was passed by the House Criminal Courts of Justice Sub-Committee 7 to 0 with an amendment.

The Original Bill (HB1113) Stated:
1.  That §§ 18.2-355 and 18.2-357 of the Code of Virginia are amended and reenacted and that the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered § 18.2-49.2.as follows: 18.2-49.2. Forfeiture of motor vehicle for felony violations of this chapter.

The motor vehicle of any person who uses his vehicle in the commission of a felony violation of this article is subject to forfeiture.
§ 18.2-355. Taking, detaining, etc., person for prostitution, etc., or consenting thereto.

A. Any person who:
(1) For purposes of prostitution or unlawful sexual intercourse, takes any person into, or persuades, encourages or causes any person to enter, a bawdy place, or takes or causes such person to be taken to any place against his or her will for such purposes; or,
(2) Takes or detains a person against his or her will with the intent to compel such person, by force, threats, persuasions, menace or duress, to marry him or her or to marry any other person, or to be defiled; or,
(3) Being parent, guardian, legal custodian or one standing in loco parentis of a person, consents to such person being taken or detained by any person for the purpose of prostitution or unlawful sexual intercourse; is guilty of pandering, and shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.

B. The motor vehicle of any person who uses his vehicle in the commission of a violation of this section against a minor is subject to forfeiture.
§ 18.2-357. Receiving money from earnings of male or female prostitute.
Any person who shall knowingly receive any money or other valuable thing from the earnings of any male or female engaged in prostitution, except for a consideration deemed good and valuable in law, shall be guilty of pandering, punishable as a Class 4 felony. The motor vehicle of any person who uses his vehicle in the commission of a violation of this section against a minor is subject to forfeiture.

The Amendment (HB1113) States:
B. Any vehicle knowingly used by the owner thereof or used by another with his knowledge of and during the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a felony violation of (i) Article 3, Chapter 4 of Title 18.2 (§§ 18.2-47 et seq.), or (ii) § 18.2-357 where the prostitute is a minor, shall be forfeited to the Commonwealth. The vehicle shall be seized by any law-enforcement officer arresting the operator of such vehicle for the criminal offense, and delivered to the sheriff of the county or city in which the offense occurred. The officer shall take a receipt therefor.

C. Forfeiture of such vehicle shall be enforced as is provided in §§ 4.1-339 through 4.1-348 as to vehicles used for the transportation of illegally acquired alcoholic beverages, and the provisions of §§ 4.1-339 through 4.1-348 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to proceedings for the enforcement of such forfeiture except that venue for the forfeiture proceeding shall be in the county or city in which the offense occurred.

D. The agency seizing the motor vehicle or other conveyance shall, for such period of time as the court prescribes, be permitted the use and operation of the motor vehicle or other conveyance, after court forfeiture, for the investigation of crimes against the Commonwealth by the agency seizing the motor vehicle or other conveyance. The agency using or operating each motor vehicle shall have insurance on each vehicle used or operated for liability and property damage.

• On February 10, 2010 HB1113 was passed by the House Criminal Courts of Justice Full-Committee 21 to 0.
• On February 12, 2010 HB1113 was read on the House floor for the first time.
• On February 15, 2010 HB1113 was read on the House floor for the second time, the substitute agreed to and engrossed.
• On February 16, 2010 HB1113 was block voted* on the House floor and passed 99 to 0.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• HB1113 has been assigned to the Senate Criminal Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.

HB 1198 Sex Offenders; Registration Requirements; Collateral Proof of Conditions Requiring Registration.
01/13/10, Sponsor- Sal Iaquinto R-Virginia Beach
Co-Sponsors- Clay Athey R-Front Royal, Mark Cole R-Fredericksburg, Timothy Hugo R-Centreville , Matthew Lohr R-Harrisonburg , Ron Villanueva R-Virginia Beach
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb1198&Submit2=Go

Sex offenders; registration requirements; collateral proof of conditions requiring registration; verification of residency and notice to offenders committed to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; notice of escape from commitment or escape from jail.  Redefines "offense for which registration is required" in Title 9.1 to include an offense under another jurisdiction for which registration is required "regardless of whether adjudication was withheld." The bill also provides that offenses for which a condition of registration is that the offense was committed against a minor, a physically helpless person or a mentally incapacitated person, the additional condition need not be alleged and proven at trial but may be adjudicated in a separate proceeding. The bill also provides that the residency of those offenders under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or Community Supervision pursuant to § 37.2-919 (persons committed to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services whether on conditional release or in involuntary secure inpatient treatment) shall be verified by the State Police. The bill also provides that the Department shall give notice to a sex offender committed to the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, prior to his release, of his requirement to register with the State Police as a sex offender; and that the Department shall give notice to the State Police within 12 hours if such an offender escapes from custody. The bill also provides that if a sex offender escapes from a jail, the jailer shall notify the State Police within 12 hours of the escape.

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose HB1198

Update:

• On February 12, 2010 HB1198 was passed by the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee 8 to 0.
• Immediately following the Sub-Committee meeting on February 12, 2010 HB1198 was passed by the Full-Committee 12 to 0 to make the Cross-Over Day dead.
• On February 14, 2010 HB1198 was read on the House floor for the first time.
• On February 15, 2010 HB1198 was read on the House floor for second time, substitute agreed to and engrossed.
• On February 16, 2010 HB1198H1 was read on the House floor for third time and passed 99 to 0.
• On March 8, 2010 HB1198 passed the Senate Courts of Justice Full-Committee with a substitute 14 to 0.
• On March 9, 2010 the Constitutional reading was dispensed 39 to 0.
• On March 10, 2010 some how HB1198S1 was read for the third time, the substitute waived, engrossed and passed by the Senate 40 to 0.
• On March 11, 2010 HB1198S1 was agreed to by the House 98 to 0.
• HB1198S1 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

HB 1328 Written Notice to Sex Offenders of Applicable Laws
01/22/10, Sponsor- Brenda Pogge R-Williamsburg
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb1328

Written notice to sex offenders of applicable laws.  Requires that a copy of all laws applicable to the requirements placed upon persons required to register or reregister with the Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry be provided to such persons once per year upon registration or upon reregistration. The Attorney General is responsible for approving the list of laws to be provided, and such list shall be printed from the Department of State Police website and given directly to the person along with his receipt of registry.

This bill was submitted because of our request to Delegate Pogge.
This was a GREAT bill!

• It was basically a "Dissemination of Information" Bill.  
• All the restrictions and regulations that 16,500 registered Virginians are required to abide by; but currently cannot be found listed anywhere, would have been known to those needing to comply.

If suddenly you are breaking the law by going on school grounds, to a children’s museum or even to church you would at least have been informed prior to just being arrested and if you aren't sure about a rule you could have gone to look it up on the VSP web-site anytime. As all the restrictions would have also been posted on the VSP web-site and when you re-registered in person you would have been handed a copy and to sign acknowledging receipt of them.

Then every year when the General Assembly meets and passes new laws that change the rules, the web-site and the hand-out would have been revised so you would have had up to date information. No more would you have feared accidently breaking the law.

Update:

• As of Friday February 12 HB1328 had not been scheduled on a sub-committee docket to be discussed.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB1328 has “died on the vine” because no action was taken by the 2010 General Assembly
• The RSOL of Virginia will attempt to get a similar bill proposed for the 2011 Virginia General Assembly.      
  We will NOT give up on this extremely important bill!

HB 1366 Prohibition of Entry onto School or Day Care Property
01/22/10, Sponsor- Benjamin Cline R-Amherst
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=hb1366

Prohibition of entry onto school or day care property.  Rewrites language in the code section prohibiting entry onto school property and child day care center property by persons convicted of sexually violent offenses to make it abundantly clear that entry onto day care property is prohibited 24 hours a day.

• This Bill would have changed the current statute by Adding the words, “upon any property he knows or has reason to know is a child day care center property or” AND Striking the words “or child daycare facility or property”.
• This phrasing would have prevented ANY Registered Sex Offender from attending church or temple in the evenings or on the weekends.
• This Bill would have prevented ANY Registered Sex Offender from attending AA meetings, Court Appointed Parenting Classes or Counseling Sessions that are at a facility with a daycare even though it’s not open or even for homeless RSO’s to visit a soup kitchen.
• This Bill would have prevented ALL Registered Sex Offenders in Virginia from their Freedom to Worship their God.
• A similar Bill was proposed back in 2008 by Delegate Crockett-Stark, but an amendment was made that added the words “during school hours and during school-related and school-sponsored activities” allowing RSO’s to attend church and temple.
  This years HB1366 would have undone ALL of that.
• This Bill would have taken away 16,500 Virginians Freedom of Religion!
• In December 2009 a North Carolina Court found this type of legislation UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Update:

• To read ALL the updates on HB1366, go to Bulletin Board Posting #189, http://www.rsolvirginia.org/blog_189.html
• On February 8, the RSOL of Virginia spoke against HB1366 in the House Sub-Committee meeting.
• On February 10, the RSOL of Virginia spoke against HB1366 in the House Full-Committee Meeting. Since Delegate Cline was across the hall in a Finance hearing that HB1366 would be discussed AGAIN on Friday February 12 with the Full-Committee when he could defend HB1366.
• On Friday February 12 when the Full Committee met our concerns of HB1366 prohibiting 16,000 RSO’s from their Freedom of Worship resulted in the bill “being put aside for the day”.
• Tuesday February 16 was Cross-Over Day. Which means if a House bill hasn't made it all the way through to the House Floor to be voted to then  start the process in the other chamber after Cross-Over Day then the bill is dead.
• HB1366 is dead.
  HB1366 was killed for 2010 without the Full-Committee having to officially state it.
  All of your e-mail’s, phone calls and letters in opposition of HB1366 stopped it from making it to the House floor for a vote.
  Great job everybody!

SB 528 Prisons; Treatment and Control of Prisoners.  
01/14/10, Sponsor- Toddy Puller D-Mt. Vernon
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb528

Prisons; Treatment and control of prisoners. Allows licensed professional counselors or licensed clinical social workers to direct sex offender treatment programs in the Virginia Department of Corrections.

Update:

• On January 29, 2010 SB528 was heard by the Senate Sub-Committee for Rehabilitation and Social Services.
• The RSOL of Virginia spoke against this bill and included as part of our statement a letter we received from a resident at a VA DOC facility where the Sex Offender Treatment Program of 30 years was being dissolved. Low-risk offenders would no longer be given treatment unless they ask for it. The treatment for the medium to high risk offenders would now be condensed to just a 15-week program.
  The director and assistant direct of the VA DOC S.O. programs were in the audience and felt the need to defend the re-structuring of the program we mentioned. A wonderful debate began between the DOC folks and two Senators’ who pointed out that the DOC was already doing what this bill was asking to make legal and in fact if they were then the DOC was already breaking the law, the DOC of course said that was not true. In the end the Sub-Committee said that more discussion would need to occur before this bill could proceed and it was suggested that they all pull up for a meeting.
• Two weeks later a substitute was submitted for SB528.
• On February 12, 2010 SB528 was passed by the Senate Rehabilitation and Social Services Committee 15 to 0 with a substitute.
• On February 15, 2010 SB528S1 reading was dispensed on the Senate floor by 40 to 0.
• On February 25, 2010 SB528 passed the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee 3 to 1.
• On February 26, 2010 SB528 passed the House Militia, Police and Safety Full-Committee 20 to 1.
• On March 1, 2010 some how SB528 was read for the second time on the House floor.
• On March 2, 2010 SB528 was read for the third time and passed by a block vote 99 to 0.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• SB528 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

The Original Bill (SB528) Stated:
B. The Director shall establish and maintain a treatment program for prisoners convicted pursuant to Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2 and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections. The program shall include a clinical assessment of all such prisoners upon receipt into the custody of the Department of Corrections and the development of appropriate treatment plans, if indicated. The program shall be operated under the direction of a licensed psychiatrist or, licensed clinical psychologist, licensed professional counselor, or licensed clinical social worker who is experienced in the diagnosis, treatment, and risk assessment of sex offenders.

The Substitute (SB528) States:
B. The Director Department of Corrections shall establish and maintain a treatment program for prisoners convicted pursuant to Article 7 (§ 18.2-61 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2 and committed to the its custody of the Department of Corrections. The program shall include a clinical assessment of all such prisoners upon receipt into the custody of the Department of Corrections and the development of appropriate treatment plans, if indicated. The program shall be operated under the direction of a licensed psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist who is experienced in the diagnosis, treatment, and risk assessment of sex offenders A licensed psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist who is experienced in the diagnosis, treatment, and risk assessment of sex offenders shall oversee the program and the program shall be administered by a licensed psychiatrist, licensed clinical psychologist, or a licensed mental health professional who is a certified sex offender treatment provider as defined in § 54.1-3600.

The RSOL of Virginia no longer opposes SB528 with the new amendment

• On February 16, 2010 SB528S1 was read on the Senate floor for the second time, substitute waived and engrossed.
• Somehow also on February 16, 2010 SB528S1 was passed by the Senate 40 to 0.
• On February 25, 2010 SB528 passed the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee 3 to 1.
• On February 26, 2010 SB528 passed the House Militia, Police and Safety Full-Committee 20 to 1.
• On March 1, 2010 some how SB528 was read for the second time on the House floor.
• On March 2, 2010 SB528 was read for the third time and passed by a block vote 99 to 0.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• SB528 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

SB 529 Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators; Evaluation
SB 529 Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators; Evaluation
01/14/10, Sponsor- Toddy Puller D-Mt. Vernon
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb529

Civil commitment of sexually violent predators; evaluation. Provides that an evaluation for initial determination of whether a prisoner meets the definition of a sexually violent predator may be performed by a licensed professional counselor or licensed clinical social worker.

Update:

• On February 10, 2010 SB529 skipped the Senate Courts of Justice Sub-Committee due to cross-over day approaching and was heard by the Full-Committee.
  The RSOL of Virginia was prepared to speak against SB529 but an amendment was immediately offered up that was exactly like SB528’s so there was no longer a need to speak.

The Original Bill (SB529) Stated:
C. If the Director and the Commissioner agree that no specific scientifically validated instrument exists to measure the risk assessment of a prisoner, the prisoner may instead be evaluated by a licensed psychiatrist or, licensed clinical psychologist, licensed professional counselor, or licensed clinical social worker for an initial determination of whether or not the prisoner may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator.

The Amendment (SB529) States:
C. If the Director and the Commissioner agree that no specific scientifically validated instrument exists to measure the risk assessment of a prisoner, the prisoner may instead be   [ evaluated screened  ]  by a licensed psychiatrist or, licensed clinical psychologist,  [ licensed professional counselor, or licensed clinical social worker or a licensed mental health professional certified by the Board of Psychology as a sex offender treatment provider pursuant to § 54.1-3600  ]  for an initial determination of whether or not the prisoner may meet the definition of a sexually violent predator.

The RSOL of Virginia no longer opposes SB529 with the new amendment

• On February 10, 2010 SB529 Senate Courts of Justice Full-Committee approved the amendment 15 to 0.
• On February 12, 2010 SB528 reading was dispensed and was passed by the Senate Full-Committee 37 to 0.
• On February 15, 2010 SB528 was read on the Senate Floor for the third time, the amended was engrossed.
• Somehow also on February 15, SB529 dispensed of the Constitutional reading 39 to 0 and then passed the Senate 40 to 0.
• On March 3, 2010 SB529 passed the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee 7 to 0.
• On March 8, 2010 SB529 passed the House Courts of Justice Full-Committee 21 to 0.
• On March 9, 2010 some how SB529 was read for the second time on the House floor.
• Then also on March 9, 2010 some how SB529 the Constitutional reading was dispensed by a Block Vote 94 to 0 and then passed the House in a Block Vote 95 to 0.
• SB529 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

 

SB 620 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces; Created
01/18/10, Sponsor- Creigh Deeds D- Bath
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb620

Creates the Internet Crimes Against Children Fund. The fund consists of a $10 additional fee on each felony and misdemeanor conviction and any appropriations, gifts and grants.  Moneys in the Fund will be disbursed to designated entities to support the investigation and prosecution of internet crimes against children.

The RSOL of Virginia does not oppose SB620

Update:

• On January 27, 2010 SB620 Senate Courts of Justice Sub-Committee submitted substitute.

The Original Bill (SB620) Stated:
1.  That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 17.1-275.12 as follows:
§ 17.1-275.12. Additional fee for Internet Crimes Against Children task forces.
In addition to the fees provided for by §§ 16.1-69.48:1, 16.1-69.48:1.01, 17.1-275.1, 17.1-275.2, 17.1-275.3, 17.1-275.4, 17.1-275.5, 17.1-275.7, 17.1-275.8, 17.1-275.9, 17.1-275.10  and 17.1-275.11, a fee of $10 upon each felony or misdemeanor conviction shall be assessed as court costs. All fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the state treasury and credited to the Internet Crimes Against Children Fund.
There is hereby established in the state treasury the Internet Crimes Against Children Fund to be administered by the Department of State Police. Such fund shall consist of all fees collected under this section, moneys appropriated directly to the fund, federal moneys received under the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program, and any other grants or gifts made to the fund.

The Amended Bill (SB620) Stated:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 17.1-275.12 as follows:
§ 17.1-275.12. Additional fee for Internet Crimes Against Children Fund.
In addition to the fees provided for by §§ 16.1-69.48:1, 16.1-69.48:1.01, 17.1-275.1, 17.1-275.2, 17.1-275.3, 17.1-275.4, 17.1-275.5, 17.1-275.7, 17.1-275.8, 17.1-275.9, 17.1-275.10 and 17.1-275.11, a fee of $10 upon each felony or misdemeanor conviction shall be assessed as court costs. All fees collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the state treasury and credited to the Internet Crimes Against Children Fund.
There is hereby established in the state treasury the Internet Crimes Against Children Fund. Such fund shall consist of all fees collected under this section, moneys appropriated directly to the Fund, and any other grants or gifts made to the Fund. Moneys in the Fund shall be disbursed in the following manner: to the Virginia State Police, 33.3333 percent of the total annual deposits to support the Northern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children program; to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, 33.3333 percent of the total annual deposits to support the Southern Virginia Internet Crimes Against Children program; to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, 27.7777 percent of the total annual deposits to support grants and training and equipment for local law-enforcement agencies' use in investigating and prosecuting Internet crimes against children; and to the Department of Social Services, 5.5555 percent of the total annual deposits to support the Virginia Child Protection Accountability System established under § 63.2-1530.

• On January 27, 2010 SB620 passed Senate Courts of Justice Sub-Committee 11 to 2.
• On January 27, 2010 SB620 referred to Senate Finance Committee.
• On February 10, 2010 SB620 passed Senate Finance Committee 14 to 1.
• On February 11, 2010 SB620 reading was dispensed on the Senate floor by 40 to 0.
• On February 12, 2010 SB620 was read for the second time on the Senate floor, substitute agreed to and engrossed.
• On February 12, 2010 SB620 was read for third time on the Senate floor and passed 39 to 1.
• On February 17, 2010 SB620 was referred to House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
• On February 22, 2010 SB620 passed the House Courts of Justice Sub-Committee 9 to 0. HB620 was referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
• On February 26, 2010 SB620 passed the House Courts of Justice Full-Committee 19 to 0.
• On March 3, 2010 SB620 passed the House Appropriations Sub-Committee 7 to 0.
• On March 3, 2010 SB620 passed the House Appropriations Full-Committee 22 to 0.
• On March 5, 2010 some how SB620 was read for the second time on the House floor.
• On March 8, 2010 SB620 was read for the third time on the House floor and passed in a Block Vote 98 to 0.
  *A Block Vote means the bill wasn’t even read, it was lumped in with a batch of bills that nobody could possibly have a problem with.
• SB620 needs to be signed by Governor McDonnell and then it becomes law.

SB 635 Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry; Name of Offender's Employer Not to be Published.
01/19/10, Sponsor- Dave Marsden D-Fairfax Co-Sponsor- Brenda Pogge R-Williamsburg
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=sb635

Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry; name of offender's employer not to be published.  Provides that the name or company title of the employer of an offender included in the Registry shall not be made available on the database publicly available through the Internet.

This bill was submitted because of our request to Senator Marsden.
This is a GREAT bill!

• It REMOVES the employer/company name from being publicly posted on the Virginia Sex Offender Registry. The Federal Adam Walsh Act/SORNA requirements mandate that the employer address must be publicly posted but NOT the employer/company name. So why would Virginia go beyond the AWA requirement?
• Employers will be more willing to hire RSO's if their own company's name is not listed.
• Having the employers name listed as it is today not only deters employers from hiring RSO's but actually has caused thousands of Virginia RSO's to loose established employment either because of a stranger or potential customer calling that employer and shaming them for hiring an RSO or from vengeful co-workers demanding a company get rid of an RSO because they aren't "comfortable" working in the same building. This will keep everyone employed, it will keep families together and productive citizens are crime free, tax paying citizens.

Update:

• On January 28, 2010 SB635 was passed by the Senate Courts of Justice Sub-Committee.
• On February 1, 2010 SB635 was passed by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee with a 13 to 0 vote and a small amendment.
• On February 25, 2010 SB635S1 was heard by the House Militia, Police and Safety Sub-Committee (the toughest Sub-Committee for a Sex Offender Bill). The RSOL of Virginia spoke in support of SB635 and the Sub-Committee “laid the bill on the table” for the day with plans to speak to other Delegates about it.
• On February 26, 2010 SB635S1 was tabled permanently by a voice vote, its dead for 2010.
• The RSOL of Virginia will attempt to get a similar bill proposed for the 2011 Virginia General Assembly.
  We will NOT give up on this extremely important bill. All of your phone calls and e-mail’s in support of SB635S1 got it through the entire Senate with a vote of 40 to 0. Great job everybody!

The Original Bill (SB635) stated:
The State Police shall develop and maintain a system for making certain Registry information on persons convicted of an offense for which registration is required publicly available by means of the Internet. The information to be made available shall include the offender's name; all aliases that he has used or under which he may have been known; the date and locality of the conviction and a brief description of the offense; his age, current address and photograph; and such other information as the State Police may from time to time determine is necessary to preserve public safety including but not limited to the fact that an individual is wanted for failing to register or reregister; however, the information to be made available, while it may include the address of the offender's employer, it shall not include the name of the offender's employer or company title. The system shall be secure and not capable of being altered except by the State Police. The system shall be updated each business day with newly received registrations and reregistrations. The State Police shall remove all information that it knows to be inaccurate from the Internet system.

The Amendment (SB635S1) States:
The State Police shall develop and maintain a system for making certain Registry information on persons convicted of an offense for which registration is required publicly available by means of the Internet. The information to be made available shall include the offender's name; all aliases that he has used or under which he may have been known; the date and locality of the conviction and a brief description of the offense; his age, current address and photograph; and such other information as the State Police may from time to time determine is necessary to preserve public safety including but not limited to the fact that an individual is wanted for failing to register or reregister; however, the information  [ to be made available, while it may include the address of the offender's employer, it shall made available shall  ]  not include the name of the offender's employer or company title. The system shall be secure and not capable of being altered except by the State Police. The system shall be updated each business day with newly received registrations and reregistrations. The State Police shall remove all information that it knows to be inaccurate from the Internet system.

• On February 2, 2010 SB635S1 Constitutional reading dispensed with a vote of 40 to 0.
• On February 3, 2010 SB635S1 was read on the Senate floor for second time and the amendment was agreed to.
• On February 4, 2010 SB635S1 was read on the Senate floor for third time and passed by a vote of 40 to 0.

2010 Report: VSP Monitoring of Sex Offenders Required to Comply with the Registry
2010 VSP Monitoring of Sex Offenders.pdf

A New Chamber for Legislation Execution, March 6, 2010:
http://hamptonroads.com/2010/03/new-chamber-legislation-execution
(This is what happened to SB635, the House Sub-Committee of just 5 killed it after it passed the Senate 40 to 0)

Tougher Sex-Offender Bills Die in Committee, February 18, 2010:
http://www.henricocitizen.com