Presentation on theme: "2013 New Laws Update For Law Enforcement Prepared by Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Services Council."— Presentation transcript:
2013 New Laws Update For Law Enforcement Prepared by Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Services Council
Selected Court Decisions from June 2012 through May 2013. Detailed information about 2013 General Assembly legislation is available at: http://lis.virginia.gov http://lis.virginia.gov All new laws are effective July 1, 2013, unless passed as emergency legislation.
Stops Otey v. CW, 61 Va. App. 346, 735 S.E.2d 255 (2012) Court upheld traffic stop that led to discovery of marijuana. Officer had a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that appellant’s vehicle had defective equipment” because part of a brake light was out - “defective” under §46.2- 1003 - notwithstanding that it otherwise complied with requirement to be visible from 500 feet.
Roadblock Desposito v. CW, 60 Va. App. 252, 726 S.E.2d 354 (2012) “Roadblock jurisprudence does not prohibit all discretion by the field officer but only ‘unbridled’ discretion.” Court rejected complaint that open-ended time frame (minimum of 30 minutes w/o upper limit and “lunchtime”)afforded the officers too much discretion.
Canine Probable Cause Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2/19/13) U.S. Supreme Court upheld search based on dog alert to drugs and rejected Florida court ruling that a specific checklist of factors must be established when dog expertise is used. Probable cause is a fluid concept that turns on the assessment of probabilities in the totality of particular factual circumstances; it cannot be reduced to a neat set of legal rules.
Canine Probable Cause Florida v. Harris, 133 S. Ct. 1050 (2/19/13) “If a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting, a court can presume (subject to any conflicting evidence offered) that the dog’s alert provides probable cause to search.” “A defendant, however, must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog's reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses.”
Search Warrant Based On Dog At Front Door Florida v. Jardines, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (3/26/13) On tip, police approached D’s residence with trained dog, who alerted at front door. Police obtained warrant and found MJ growing. Fourth Amendment still permits searches of “open fields,” but at residence, and within curtilage, police may only act as licensed by the homeowner. Dog sniff exceeds ‘license’ to approach residence and knock at door.
Consent to Search Elliott v. CW, 61 Va. App. 48, 733 S.E.2d 146 (2012) Court refused to suppress evidence based on argument that police stopped D with the intent to ask for consent and that his consent was coerced. Elliott’s testimony in trial court that he refused to consent, and did not consent, precludes claim that he was coerced to consent.
Consent Amin v. Cnty of Henrico, 61 Va. App. 67, 733 S.E.2d 661 (2012) Asking to see I.D. during consensual encounter does not convert it into a seizure. Amin already was parked (not operating his vehicle on a public highway) and was not required to provide driver's license to officers. The request to see Amin’s identification was just that, and his consent was voluntary.
Warrantless Search / Exigent Circumstances Washington v. CW, 60 Va. App. 427, 728 S.E.2d 521 (2012) Police followed fresh footprints in snow that led from burglarized home to nearby trailer; officers suspected trailer was then being burglarized. Door to trailer opened upon knocking; no one answered officers’ calls; police entered looking for a burglar. No burglar, but police observed stolen property from the neighboring home. Warrantless entry upheld on exigent circumstances: not practical to secure warrant if burglar still in trailer.
Exigent Circumstances CW v. Turner, No. 2276-12-3 (Va. App., 5/14/13) (unpublished) D manufactured and possessed methamphetamine in his residence, where his children resided. CPS notified narcotics agent that she was going to investigate a complaint. CPS and agent went to residence and circumstances there indicated meth manufacturing. Agent entered trailer. Court upheld entry supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. D’s conduct showed intent to thwart law enforcement and, and potentially had children at risk inside the residence.
No BAC Per Se Exigent Cicumtances Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (4/17/13) U.S. Supreme Court: The fact that a person's blood alcohol level declines until the alcohol is eliminated does not create a per se rule of exigent circumstances. Circumstances may make obtaining a warrant impractical such that the alcohol's dissipation will support an exigency, but that is a reason to decide each case on its facts.
Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant Knight v. CW, 61 Va. App. 297, 734 S.E.2d 716 (2012) ‘Community caretaker’ / ’emergency’ exceptions apply when a warrantless entry is necessary (1) to protect public and police from physical danger, (2) to protect property while it is in police custody, (3) to protect police from disputes involving lost or stolen property. For opening closed container, must be “totally divorced” from criminal investigation.
Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant Knight v. CW, 61 Va. App. 297, 734 S.E.2d 716 (2012) Rule applied (Knight): Defendant hit girlfriend, and entered shopping mall to ask security guard (off-duty deputy) to help “calm her down.” D left backpack in mall office. Guard went with D to car but left when police responded. Guard found backpack and returned to advise police “needed to come and take a look at the bag.” Police officer went to office, opened backpack and found concealed weapon. Search was not independent of police investigation and not necessary to protect police or others.
Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant CW v. Hudgins: No. 1513-12-1 (Va. App., 1/22/2013)(unpublished) Rule applied (Hudgins, reversing suppression). Trial court mistakenly limited authority for vehicle impoundment under community caretaker exception “to protect the community’s safety.” Exception also includes protection of property and against claims for lost or stolen property. Impoundment of a vehicle is reasonable where the driver is taken into custody and has no immediate means to safeguard the vehicle or protect his property.
Community Caretaker Exception to Warrant Ross v. CW, 61 Va. App. 752, 739 S.E.2d 910 (4/16/13) Rule applied (Ross): DSS brought police as security for unannounced visit. D met the DSS worker in yard, became agitated, and left DSS in yard. Police followed D inside home and saw marijuana, various firearms, in plain view. Police lacked probable cause to arrest for any crime. There was no evidence of an imminent threat of violence that would constitute an emergency justifying the police entry, or satisfy the community caretaker exception to the warrant requirement.
Detention of Occupants During Search Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2/19/13) Rule you know: Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981) permits detention of occupants at or immediately outside premises subject to a search warrant. The three rationales of Summers rule: 1.officer safety, 2.facilitation of search, and 3.preventing flight.
Detention of Occupants During Search Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2/19/13) Rule applied: While police prepared to execute search warrant for apartment, D and another man drove away. Detectives followed and stopped car 1 mile away. Pat down turned up key to apartment. D was too far away to be subject to detention during the execution of the search warrant. In closer cases, factors to determine if detention within immediate vicinity include: lawful limits of premises, whether occupant within line of sight, ease of reentry for D.
Good Faith Reliance on Warrant CW v. Becerra-Ochoa: No. 1672-12-2 (Va. App., 2/26/13) (unpublished) Officer obtained warrant from magistrate with affidavit that checked wrong box re who (officer or CI) had personal knowledge of facts. Court of Appeals ruled that officer could rely on warrant in good faith. No attempt to deceive magistrate, affidavit established who knew what, magistrate did not abandon judicial role.
Identification / Suggestiveness Smith v. CW, 61 Va.App. 112, 733 S.E.2d 683 (2012) Rule you know: Due process issues when “police have arranged suggestive circumstances leading the witness to identify a particular person as the perpetrator of a crime,” Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S.Ct. 716, 720, (2012). Rule applied: “Smith’s assertion that his photo stood out because none of the other pictures were elongated does not prove that this innocuous feature suggested to the victim that the long-faced male attacked her” and failed to demonstrate that police “arranged suggestive circumstances” leading the victim to identify him.
Miranda Violations Kuhne v. CW, 61 Va. App. 79, 733 S.E.2d 667 (2012) Rule you know: Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). If police deliberately employ a strategy to obtain an unwarned confession, then read Miranda rights and get a new confession, it all is suppressed. Rule applied: Defendant walked into police station and produced written note confessing he murdered wife. Officers asked whereabouts of the wife, searched D, and asked if he had written the note. D acknowledged writing note; the police then read Miranda rights; D confessed in detail. Police did not use prohibited “two-step” interrogation.
Miranda Violation CW v. Gatewood, No. 1420-12-1 (Va. App. 1/22/13) (unpublished) D interviewed by CPS investigator at police HQ. (D arrested and charged 2 months previous and had attorney, not present). Investigator told D that investigation was civil - not part of the criminal investigation. She said D signed Miranda waiver (not part of record) which lacked indication of affirmative waiver of the right to remain silent or right to counsel. Investigator gave evasive answer when D asked if statement could be used against him.
Miranda Violation CW v. Gatewood, No. 1420-12-1 (Va. App. 1/22/13) (unpublished) Suppression motion properly granted. D’s waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because social worker appeared to use fraud, deceit, trickery and ambiguity to obtain a waiver. D was led to believe investigator not a government agent and interview and waiver were unrelated to pending charges against him.
Brady Claim Tuma v. CW, ___ Va. ___, 740 S.E.2d 14 (4/18/13) D charged with sexually assaulting stepdaughter. The CW did not disclose that interview with child was recorded until during trial. (CW previously gave D a written summary of interview). D asked for new trial or to play entire tape at trial. D declined court’s offer of an opportunity to listen to the tape and then make a motion to admit the tape after listening to it.
Brady Claim Tuma v. CW, ___ Va. ___, 740 S.E.2d 14 (4/18/13) Conviction affirmed. Commonwealth did not suppress the evidence. Brady not violated when impeachment evidence is made available to a defendant during trial if the defendant has sufficient time to make use of it at trial. By failing to request a continuance or even a recess to listen to the tape, the defendant waived Brady argument. Reverses Tuma v. Commonwealth, 60 Va App 273, 726 SE2d 365 (June 12, 2012)(en banc).
Confrontation / Crawford Robertson v. CW: 61 Va. App. 554, 738 SE2d 531 (3/19/13)(en banc) Sixth Amendment does not require that everyone involved in the preparation of an exhibit testify as a witness at trial. Witness testified that she was present and directed, supervised, and observed the creation of the list of stolen items and created the adding machine tape to establish value. The witness was involved in the analysis and her employee was a “mere scrivener” who simply scanned items and wrote down the results. Employee not needed. Rev’d Robertson, 60 Va App 688, 732 SE2d 30 (2012)
Fingerprints and Photos SB 847 - Amends §§ 19.2-123 and 19.2-390 SB 84719.2-12319.2-390 Magistrate may require accused’s fingerprints and/or photograph prior to his release on bail Accused to go with officer to processing location Fingerprints / photograph may be taken wherever magistrate located, including at a regional jail
Arrest Warrants HB 1763 - Amends §§ 19.2-72 and 19.2-76 HB 176319.2-7219.2-76 Jail officer at regional jail / jail farm may execute arrest warrant, capias, or summons issued anywhere in the Commonwealth. Currently only a person with law- enforcement power may do so.
Stay Pending Appeal of Bond Decision HB 1311 / SB 1118 - Amends §§ 19.2-124 and 19.2-132 HB 1311SB 111819.2-12419.2-132 Court may stay bail order for “good cause shown” and for so long as reasonably practicable to obtain expedited appeal but may not grant a stay once the person charged has been released on bail
Stay Pending Appeal of Bond Decision HB 1311 / SB 1118 - Amends §§ 19.2-124 and 19.2-132 HB 1311SB 111819.2-12419.2-132 Also may stay order increasing amount of bond, ordering additional sureties, or revoking bail for “good cause shown” and for so long as reasonably practicable for expedited hearing
Protective Orders Not Stayed On Appeal HB 1643 / SB 1016 - Amends §§ 16.1-106 & 16.1-298 HB 1643SB 101616.1-10616.1-298 Protective order not stayed if for violation of an initial protective order, family abuse protective orders (issued w/family abuse disposition).
PERK Exams / For Incapable Victims HB 2120 / SB 1006 - New § 54.1-2970.1. HB 2120SB 100654.1-2970.1 Procedure for P.E.R.K. examination of sexual assault victim incapable of consent/informed decision. Medical personnel to conduct exam when: – need to act – no legally authorized representative available, and – “capacity reviewer” provides confirmation.
Photographs of Incapacitated Adults HB 2122 / SB 997 - New § 63.2-1606.1 HB 2122SB 99763.2-1606.1 Photographs, X-rays, etc of incapacitated adult may be taken without the consent of person responsible as part of medical evaluation of suspected abuse. Photographs, X-rays, etc may be introduced into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding.
Drone Moratorium HB 2012 / SB 1331 - Not Codified HB 2012SB 1331 2-year prohibition (to July 1, 2015) on law enforcement use of drones; exceptions for specified emergency circumstances. Drones are “unmanned aircraft systems.” Applies only to state/local law enforcement. Never a “weaponized” state/local drone.
Drone Moratorium Deployment exceptions for: Amber Alert § 52-34.352-34.3 Senior Alert § 52-34.6,52-34.6 Blue Alert § 52-34.952-34.9 Search and rescue operation Not applicable to Va Natl Guard training, or to support damage assessment, traffic assessment, flood stages, and wildfire assessment.
Communications Interception HB 2266 / SB 1373 - Amend Va. Code §§ 19.2-66 and 19.2-68. HB 2266SB 137319.2-6619.2-68 Attorney General may apply for authorization for the observation or monitoring by a sheriff's office of an interception of communications; under existing law the same may be done for a police department of a county or city or for U.S. law-enforcement officers.
Nonconsensual Tracking Devices HB 1981 - Adds new § 18.2-60.5.HB 198118.2-60.5 Class 3 misdemeanor to place “electronic tracking device” through “intentionally deceptive means” and without consent, … to track the location of any person. Exceptions for law enforcement, parents, guardians, caretakers, fleet vehicles, and registered private investigator in course of business with property owner’s consent (but not to track person with protective order or to aid in commission of crime)
Offenses Committed By Persons in DJJ HB 2065 / SB 1033 – Amends §§ 18.2-48.1, 18.2-57, 18.2-431.1, 18.2-473.1, 18.2-474, 18.2-474.1, 18.2-475, 18.2-476, and 18.2- 477.2 HB 2065 SB 103318.2-48.118.2-5718.2-431.1 18.2-473.118.2-47418.2-474.118.2-47518.2-47618.2- 477.2 Makes penalties for offenses committed by persons confined in a juvenile correctional center comparable for certain offenses involving adult prisoners.
Felony Stalking HB 2211 – Amends § 18.2-60.3 and § 18.2-308.1:4 HB 221118.2-60.318.2-308.1:4 Class 6 felony for 2nd offense stalking: when it occurs within 5 years of prior conviction of stalking, and D also convicted in prior 5-year period of (i) assault and battery and etc crimes against same stalking victim (ii) domestic assault, or (iii) violation of protective order.
Felony Stalking HB 2211 - Amends Code § 18.2-60.3 and § 18.2-30 8.1:4 HB 221118.2-60.318.2-30 8.1:4 3 rd offense of stalking under § 18.2-60.3 (A) is a felony.18.2-60.3 Protective order entered for stalking is one that prevents lawful purchase / transport of firearm.
Impersonating Police Officer HB 1358 / SB 1128 – Amends § 18.2-174 HB 1358SB 112818.2-174 Current law makes Class 1 misdemeanor to impersonate, falsely assume being, etc, sheriff, police officer, marshal, or peace officer. Bill adds federal law-enforcement officers and any local, city, county, and state law- enforcement officers to the list.
Impersonating Police Officer HB 1955 - Amends §§ 15.2-1612, 18.2-174, and 18.2 -174.1 HB 195515.2-161218.2-17418.2 -174.1 Class 6 felony for 2 nd /subseq. conviction: § 15.2-1612 (Unauthorized uniforms);15.2-1612 § 18.2-174 (Impersonating LEO);18.2-174 § 18.2-174.1 (Impersonating public safety personnel).18.2-174.1
Reorganization Of Weapons Statutes HB 1833 HB 1833 No substantive changes to existing law. Affirmatively states “provisions of this act are declaratory of existing law.” Reorganizes existing § 18.2-308, etc., to set out existing law in separate clearly labeled §§. Updates cross-references.
Carrying Concealed Handgun Doulgerakis v. CW, 61 Va. App. 417, 737 S.E.2d 40 (Va. App., 2/5/13) D informed officer that he had handgun in his closed, latched, unlocked glove box and was convicted of carrying a concealed handgun. Conviction reversed. Ct. applied 2010 exception in § 18.2-308 (B)(10): “any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private motor vehicle or vessel and such handgun is secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.” “Secured” is not same as “locked” and means: “in safekeeping or custody” or “well-fastened.”
“Strawman” Gun Purchases SB 1378 - Amends Va. Code §§ 18.2-308.2:1 and 18.2-308.2:2. SB 137818.2-308.2:118.2-308.2:2 Person who engages in the "strawman" purchase of a firearm, where he purchases a firearm with the intent to resell or transport with the intent to resell outside of the Commonwealth to any person he knows is prohibited from purchasing a firearm, is guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Texting HB 1907 / SB 1222 - Amends §§ 46.2-868 & 46.2-1078.1 HB 1907SB 122246.2-86846.2-1078.1 Primary offense. Traffic infraction, $125 fine (1 st ), $250 (2d) (current penalties are $20 1 st / $50 2d &+) Enhanced / aggravated reckless driving punishment if texting; includes $250 mandatory minimum fine if texting at the time of the reckless driving offense.
Selling Alcohol Without Carding HB 1720 - Amends § § 4.1-3044.1-304 Class 3 misdemeanor to sell alcoholic beverages to individual < 21 if the seller does not require bona fide evidence of legal age. Bona fide evidence: unexpired driver's license, military identification card, passport, unexpired DMV special id card, or any other valid government-issued id card bearing photograph, signature, height, weight, and DOB. Excludes student identification cards.
Felony DUI’s HB 1559 / SB 1272. - Amends §§ 18.2-270, 18.2-271, and 46.2-391. HB 1559SB 127218.2-27018.2-27146.2-391 Amended / new § 18.2-270 (C)(2): If previously convicted of any DUI felony, any subsequent violation of §18.2-266 also is a felony:18.2-27018.2-266 § 18.2-36.1 [DUI manslaughter]18.2-36.1 § 18.2-36.2 [DUI manslaughter/ motorboat]18.2-36.2 § 18.2-51.4 [DUI maiming]18.2-51.4 § 18.2-51.5 [DUI maiming/ motorboat]18.2-51.5 § 18.2-266 felony18.2-266
Sexual Crimes Against Children HB 1745 / SB 1031 - Amends §§ 18.2-370 & 18.2-374.3 HB 1745SB 103118.2-37018.2-374.3 Prohibits person 18 years of age or older from proposing that a child feel or fondle child’s own sexual or genital parts. Current law prohibits proposing that a child feel or fondle another or that person feel or fondle the sexual or genital parts of the child. Addresses issue in statutes concerning indecent liberties and use of communications systems.
Sex Offender Registration and Guilty Pleas Hamilton v. CW, 61 Va. App. 542, 738 S.E.2d 525 (Va. App., 3/19/13) Code § 9.1-902(H): if court finds D guilty of an offense that requires registration when the victim is a minor, then court must determine the age of the victim and advise defendant of right to withdraw guilty plea. Statute only applies when registration is contingent upon the age of the victim. Here, advice of right to withdraw guilty plea is procedural and directory and failure to do so was not reversible error. The defendant knew victims were minors and that he would have to register.
Felony Solicitation Of Prostitution HB 1606 / SB 1015 – Amends § 18.2-346 HB 1606SB 1015 Creates Class 6 felony for solicitation from a minor 16 years of age or older; Class 5 felony for solicitation of minor younger than 16 y/o.
Code §18.2-361(A) Held Unconstitutional MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 3/12/13) MacDonald v. Moose, 710 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 3/12/13) Habeas petitioner had been convicted of 2 offenses: contributing to the delinquency of a minor (§ 18.2-371) and felony violation of solicitation statute (§ 18.2-29), based on predicate felony solicitation offense §18.2- 361(A). ("the anti-sodomy provision"). 4 th Cir ruled anti-sodomy provision of §18.2- 361(A) facially unconstitutional under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Bail Bondsmen Carnal Knowledge of Customer HB 2294 – Amends § 18.2-64.2 HB 229418.2-64.2 Class 1 misdemeanor for owner employee of bail bond company that posted the pretrial defendant's or posttrial offender's bond or has authority to revoke bond to carnally know, without use of force, threat, or intimidation, the pretrial defendant or posttrial offender.
Protecting Persons From Meth Labs HB 1816 - Amends Code § 18.2-248.02 HB 181618.2-248.02 Expands felony to include stepchild, grandchild or other child for which D has custodial role – any child younger than 15 y/o, – any mentally incapacitated person, or – physically helpless person. 10 to 40 years imprisonment; “in addition to and served consecutively with any other sentence.”
Synthetic Cannabinoids / “Research Chemicals” HB 1941 (Emergency clause) / SB 1083 Amend §§ 18.2-248.1:1 and 54.1-3446 HB 1941SB 108318.2-248.1:154.1-3446 Adds new chemical compounds / structural classes to list of synthetic cannabinoids and "research chemicals." New compounds can be considered prohibited synthetic cannabinoids. HB1941 became law 3/13/2013 when signed by Governor.
Synthetic Cannabinoids / “Research Chemicals” SB 1083 - Amends §§ 18.2-248.1:1 and 54.1-3446 SB 108318.2-248.1:154.1-3446 During veto session, Governor recommended, and General Assembly agreed, to add more newly identified substances via SB1083. Amendments to § 18.2-248.1:1(A)(2) add a total of 8 new cannabimimetic agents. Amendments to § 54.1-3446 (Schedule I), sub§ (3), add a total of 13 new hallucinogenic substances. SB1083 changes effective July 1, 2013.
Methamphetamine Substances HB 1806 – Amends Code § 18.2-248 HB 180618.2-248 Adds ammonium nitrate to the list of substances of which the possession of two or more with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine is Class 6 felony. Strikes "metal" from the term "lithium metal."
Testimony on Field-Test Identification HB 1376 - Amends Va. Code § 19.2-188.1. HB 137619.2-188.1 Clean-up bill allows law-enforcement officer to testify as to results of field tests approved by the Department of Forensic Science regarding identification of a substance at issue in a preliminary hearing on a violation of subdivision 6 of § 53.1-203 (possession of drugs by an inmate). Under current law, this provision applies to drug crimes in “§ 18.2-”.
Financial Exploitation of Incapacitated Persons HB 1682 / SB 706 – New Code § 18.2-178.1 HB 1682SB 70618.2-178.1 Larceny for any person: Who knows or should know that another person suffers from mental incapacity, Uses knowledge of that incapacity, To take, obtain, or convert victim’s money or other thing of value With the intent to permanently deprive him thereof.
Financial Exploitation of Incapacitated Persons HB 1682 / SB 706 – New Code § 18.2-178.1 HB 1682SB 70618.2-178.1 “Mental incapacity" means that condition of a person existing at the time of the offense … that prevents him from understanding the nature or consequences of the transaction or disposition of money or other thing of value involved in such offense.
Financial Exploitation of Incapacitated Persons HB 1682 / SB 706 – New Code § 18.2-178.1 HB 1682SB 70618.2-178.1 Venue where(i) any act was performed in furtherance or (ii) the accused resided at time. Safe Harbor provision exempts transaction or disposition of money, etc where accused acted for the benefit of the person with mental incapacity or made a good faith effort to assist such person with management of money, etc.
Maliciously Filing False Lien SB 811 - New § 18.2-213.2 SB 81118.2-213.2 Maliciously filing a fraudulent lien or encumbrance in public record against real or personal property of another, knowing of falsity, is a Class 5 felony. Includes mechanism for court to direct clerk to release lien; deem it invalid; treat it if never filed.
Identity Theft HB 1684 / SB 1010 – Amends § 18.2-186.3 HB 168418.2-186.3 Increases identity theft penalties: – 5 or more persons' identifying information in the same transaction raised to Class 5 felony; – 50 or more persons' identifying information in the same transaction raised to a Class 4 felony. A violation resulting in the arrest and detention of the victim is raised from a Class 6 to a Class 5 felony.
Failure to Return Leased Property SB 1144 – Amends § 18.2-118 SB 114418.2-118 Failure to return leased property to the lessor within 30, as opposed to 10, days after written notice has been given that the rental period for the property has expired is prima facie evidence of the intent to defraud; failure to return leased property within 30, as opposed to 10, days of the expiration of the lease is to be deemed larceny.
Gang Predicate Acts Expanded HB 1847 / SB 1205 – Amends § 18.2-46.1 22 additional crimes HB 1847SB 120518.2-46.1 § 18.2-31, capital murder18.2-31 § 18.2-51.2, aggravated malicious wounding18.2-51.2 § 18.2-51.3, reckless endangerment by throwing objects18.2-51.3 § 18.2-51.6, strangulation18.2-51.6 §18.2-52.1, poss. biological/radiological substances18.2-52.1 §18.2-89, burglary18.2-89 §18.2-90, entering dwelling house, etc., with intent18.2-90 §18.2-95, grand larceny18.2-95 § 18.2-108.1, receipt of a stolen firearm18.2-108.1 §18.2-248.03, meth. manuf., distributing, PWID18.2-248.03
Gang Predicate Acts Expanded HB 1847 / SB 1205 – Amends § 18.2-46.1 cont. HB 1847SB 120518.2-46.1 §18.2-279, discharging firearms or missiles18.2-279 §18.2-289, use of machine gun18.2-289 §18.2-300, poss./ use of "sawed-off" shotgun, rifle18.2-300 §18.2-308.2, poss. of firearm by felon18.2-308.2 §18.2-308.2:01, poss. firearms - persons not legally present18.2-308.2:01 §18.2-308.4, poss. of firearms - controlled substances18.2-308.4 § 18.2-60.3, felony stalking18.2-60.3 § 18.2-248.1:1, felony distribution, etc. syn. cannabinoids18.2-248.1:1 § 18.2-248, felony manuf., etc. controlled substances18.2-248 §18.2-248.1, felony distribution, PWID marijuana18.2-248.1 §18.2-248, felony manuf. etc. controlled substances18.2-248 § 18.2-248.1, felony distribution, PWID MJ18.2-248.1
Gangs Rushing v. CW, 284 Va. 270, 726 S.E.2d 333 (Va. 2012) D convicted of gang participation based on detective’s testimony of photo of D throwing “Gangsta Disciples” signs and D’s participation in this offense. 2 predicate acts included conviction of individual that detective testified was a gang member based on seeing him wearing black and blue beads, insignia of GD members. Conviction reversed. Wearing beads alone did not constitute proof of gang membership at time of commission of offense. Trial court erred in admitting photo of D without authentication.
Metal Theft HB 1481 HB 1481 Bill improves regulation of metal markets making it harder to cash in stolen metal. Metal sold for recycling now regulated by §§ 59.1-136.1 through 136.7 Amends term "scrap metal processors“ to "scrap metal purchasers” Eliminates “licensed peddlers and brokers” loophole
Metal Theft HB 1481 HB 1481 “Proprietary articles”: manhole covers; bronze or copper cemetery markers plaques and urns; aluminum bleacher seats and guardrails; and mining cable. Scrap metal purchasers to photo or video all proprietary articles bought from other than authorized scrap seller.
Metal Theft HB 1481 HB 1481 Second hand building fixtures now regulated by §§ 59.1-117 through 130. “Licensed peddlers and brokers” changed to "peddlers permitted under §59.1-118“ authorizing chief or sheriff to issue permit. Expands transactions in materials subject to permit to cover where item offered for "acquisition" as well as sale.
Pawnbrokers And Precious Metal Dealers HB 1649 - Amends §§ 54.1-4009, 54.1-4010, and 54.1-4101 HB 164954.1-400954.1-401054.1-4101 Dealer must verify identification by requiring government-issued identification card bearing a photograph of the person pawning, pledging, or selling …., and Must keep a digital image of the form of identification used. Limits items that may be accepted for pawn: No goods, article, or thing … if the original serial number affixed to the goods, article, or thing has been removed, defaced, or altered.
Cigarette Smuggling Bills Possession with intent to distribute - large quantities. HB1783 / SB1017 – Amend Code § 58.1-1017.158.1-1017.1 PWID 25to 500 cartons of tax-paid is Class 1 misdemeanor for 1st offense; Class 6 felony for second or subsequent. PWID 500 + cartons of tax-paid cigarettes is a Class 6 felony; Class 5 felony for second or subsequent.
Cigarette Smuggling Bills Possession with intent to distribute - RICO SB1020 –Amends Code § 18.2-513.18.2-513 Adds violation of Code § 58.1-1017.1 (PWID large quantities) as a qualifying offense for Virginia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).58.1-1017.1
Cigarette Smuggling Bills Sell, Transport, Possession, etc – Unstamped Cigarettes. HB1820 / SB1018 – Amends § 58.1-101758.1-1017 Class 6 felony to sell, purchase, transport, etc, 500 + packages of unstamped cigarettes; Class 5 felony for a 2d offense; Lowers threshold from 3000 packs. Class 1 misdemeanor to sell fewer than 500 packages of unstamped cigarettes; (currently threshold is fewer than 3,000 packages and a Class 2 misdemeanor)
Cigarette Smuggling Bills PWID counterfeit cigarettes. Amends §§ 18.2-246.13, 18.2-246.14, 18.2-246.15, & 19.2- 245.0118.2-246.1318.2-246.1418.2-246.1519.2- 245.01 SB1019 – PWID counterfeit cigarettes is Class 1 misdemeanor up to 10 cartons, 1 st offense; Class 6 felony for second or subsequent; PWID 10 + cartons counterfeit cigarettes is Class 6 felony. SB1022 – Allows forfeiture of cigarettes illegally possessed etc under these statutes.
Expansion Of Violent Felonies List HB 1746 / SB 1214 - Amends § 17.1-805 HB 1746SB 121417.1-805 ADDS violent felonies for sentencing guidelines § 16.1-253.2 [protective orders]16.1-253.2 § 18.2-32.2 [feticide]18.2-32.2 § 18.2-40 [lynching] or 18.2-41[shooting by mob]18.2-4018.2-41 § 18.2-46.3 [gang recruitment]18.2-46.3 § 18.2-46.5, 18.2-46.6, or 18.2-46.7 [terrorism offenses]18.2-46.518.2-46.618.2-46.7 § 18.2-51.6 [strangulation]18.2-51.6 § 18.2-57 [assault and battery]18.2-57 § 18.2-60.4 [protective orders]18.2-60.4 § 18.2-67.4:1 [infected sexual battery]18.2-67.4:1
Expansion Of Violent Felonies List HB 1746 / SB 1214 - Amends § 17.1-805 HB 1746SB 121417.1-805 AND § 18.2-85 [firebombs, explosive devices]18.2-85 § 18.2-280 [public discharge of firearm]18.2-280 § 18.2-282 [brandishing firearm]18.2-282 § 18.2-282.1[brandishing machete]18.2-282.1 § 18.2-287.2, [wearing body armor while committing crime]18.2-287.2 § 18.2-374.4 [display child pornography, grooming videos]18.2-374.4 § § 18.2-423, -423.01, -423.1, -423.2 [cross burning, etc]18.2-423-423.01-423.1-423.2 § 18.2-481 [treason]18.2-481 § 37.2-917 [escape]37.2-917 § 52-48 [dissemination of Fusion Center information]52-48
FOIA for Law Enforcement Records SB 1264 – Amends §§ 2.2-3706, 2.2-3711, and 15.2-1713.1 SB 12642.2-37062.2-371115.2-1713.1 Reorganizes § 2.2-3706 Only substantive changes (i) expand ability to withhold portions of noncriminal incident information and (ii) allow law-enforcement agencies to make a verbal response for requests for criminal incident information. Clarifies that personnel records of persons employed by a law-enforcement agency are subject to the personnel records and background investigation records exemptions.
2013 New Laws Update For Law Enforcement Prepared by: Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ Services Council www.cas.state.va.us 757-253-4146 Robert Q. Harris, Director email@example.com