[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6362723,"mediaKeyId","2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625","parentId",2167403,"title","Subcommittee hears HB 2299 to elevate computer trespass against schools to felony; vote result not specified in transcript","audioSeconds",650,"startMs",4570000,"endMs",5220000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625&start=4570&end=5220","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625/thumbnail_4570000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6362723/Virginia/Subcommittee-hears-HB-2299-to-elevate-computer-trespass-against-schools-to-felony-vote-result-not-specified-in-transcript","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362723-e11544e275babaa1df65b03cec1bb06b/orig.mp4?Expires=1774771314&Signature=hGb7BYRggaNZ6sSwYRmgREPEZzdMt0ETlK0m8mWPTMWQA~pGJlqk5~I0oH-ZwcYFlS5nHVSsOaT-zxmc3QFsqkAqw~WlgGkl~BljowQPqq9Y~vIxNZfHFPfhsh~yu9fxbVJMs4RyxKmSPN58~-8Tu3BuVxoloHGx90PkeX1t0DPwWusyNTFwJtmX6K4KrxvCKJ7Ez~ebGLgb2K-H2kz09OOKJproYSWeLLEVVvglzgC1M6j2lNBSRIkdQUGM1aRl~VdPIl5ss~CWoWDHY9u2x7fc3wRx8YEelEIf92dquC8mcex0GIySgcIFyAdqRKz4UFae0MHkZw5bE4v3FlKS4Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virginia Legislature","date","2025-01-29T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 2299, introduced by Delegate Early, would add elementary and secondary schools to the list of entities that, when targeted by computer trespass, may be charged at the higher statutory level (class 6 felony) rather than the baseline class 1 misdemeanor.

The patron told the subcommittee the proposal does not change the substance of the offense but only specifies that computer trespass against elementary and secondary schools is a class 6 felony “because this is sensitive as we’re often talking about data belonging to children.” He cited recent cyber incidents involving school systems, including a December 2024 incident affecting Hanover County Public Schools, and referenced national reporting that education-sector breaches have exposed millions of records.

Delegates asked practical questions. Delegate Hernandez asked whether a prank—such as a student changing passwords or sending silly emails from a teacher’s computer—could be charged as a class 6 felony under the bill; committee counsel said that, as written, a student accessing a school-owned computer to alter accounts could be charged as a class 6 felony, but that prosecutorial discretion would affect charging decisions.

Another delegate raised a statutory-interpretation concern: current code already covers the Commonwealth and local governments and “any department or agency thereof,” and several members said public schools are typically units of local government and therefore already covered. Counsel said public (government) schools likely would already be covered under the existing language, while private and religious schools would not; the patron said the bill’s primary aim is to call out schools explicitly to protect student data.

On procedure, the subcommittee considered motions to report the bill and also a motion to lay the bill on the table. The transcript records that members were asked to “cast your vote” on the motion to lay on the table, but the roll-call result is not stated in the section of the transcript provided.

Because the transcript does not record a final roll-call result for HB 2299 in the excerpt, this report records the motions and the substance of the testimony but does not assert an outcome that is not present in the record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Criminal Subcommittee Wednesday, Jan 29, 2025 4:20 PM - 5:48 PM","oneSentenceSummary","HB 2299 would make computer trespass against elementary and secondary schools a class 6 felony; the subcommittee debated scope and charging implications but the vote outcome is not specified in the available transcript.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature VA, Virginia","taxId",77687,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362729,"Subcommittee tables bill to let juvenile court impose longer serious-offender commitments after heated testimony",1084,3513000,4597000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625&start=3513&end=4597","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625/thumbnail_3513000.jpg","/articles/6362729/Virginia/Subcommittee-tables-bill-to-let-juvenile-court-impose-longer-serious-offender-commitments-after-heated-testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362729-79f4e9efdcff2b5257057492ac1523bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1774771314&Signature=iS2Fe9R~4bvGD1MiT52ZuEBdh2f1vy1G3TzhYQzGvLPnVq5UfevtM5fH-goz7bQt0Aso8tTpwG1AY~Xoz20ANaUGklWsXHddnKvjIB7nK2QsCt8b82FNxFi-cz8YP7un4wsfmcmELzrt29KV2jXm8T9NcVTVUr2tBLDpzdwvBEcURHwv331IiaNq6M9dBfB2d9-rStv0BU4HL5WdiP-W3uR5FRVxGxavXyRccL8zPsfnxteBNxilmdTwSWAiNCxF3FRBSIMJyROd3Dp9~z52y73b-8kuPpEaSGOqM339yawMSykyPSzTWASdKoJjRcZxoOjebXETHPRTPP7KQ5aj3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Courts of Justice subcommittee voted 5-3 to table House Bill 2270 after extended testimony and questions about moving serious-offender commitments into juvenile court.

Delegate Obenshane, the bill’s patron, told the subcommittee HB 2270 is intended to “reduce the incentives that currently exist in the code to transfer young juvenile serious offenders to circuit court” by giving juvenile and domestic relations (JDR) courts the same authority as circuit courts to commit serious juvenile offenders. The bill would permit the juvenile court to impose certain determinate commitments (up to seven years in some instances) without transferring the case to circuit court.

Committee counsel and multiple witnesses explained the statutory background. Under current law, the code provides two subdivisions for serious-offender commitments: subsection (a) contains objective predicate factors under which a juvenile can receive a serious-offender commitment in juvenile court; subsection (b) contains different factors that to date have required transfer to circuit court to pursue a serious-offender disposition. Counsel said the substitute would allow juvenile court judges to use the subsection (b) authority so cases can remain in juvenile court when appropriate, but noted the distinction in current law was deliberate.

Supporters included the Department of Juvenile Justice. Kristen Peterson of the Department said the department “very strongly supports this bill,” arguing that keeping juveniles in juvenile-court proceedings preserves rehabilitative services and confidentiality protections and avoids collateral consequences associated with adult convictions.

Opponents included Rise for Youth, the Virginia State Conference NAACP, the Virginia Student Power Network, and the Legal Aid Justice Center. Valerie Slater of Rise for Youth said the bill “would remove the safeguards that in essence in circuit court protect a young person from being overly charged,” noting JDR court is not a court of record and lacks the evidentiary record and procedural protections present in circuit court. Amy Walters of the Legal Aid Justice Center told the subcommittee she had represented serious juvenile offenders for more than a decade and said the bill “is a radical change” that could expand the number of juveniles receiving determinate commitments and worsen capacity problems: she said the Department of Juvenile Justice “has over 50 kids right now waiting for beds in direct care” and that the population “is set to increase by over 50% in the next year and a half,” potentially straining resources.

Several delegates pressed on procedural safeguards, appellate record concerns and the rehabilitative mission of juvenile court. One delegate said juvenile judges are “familiar with the services that might be needed” and argued juvenile court was the proper forum in many cases; another delegate and counsel emphasized that subsection (a) contains objective criteria that the code’s drafters intentionally separated from subsection (b) to provide guardrails.

The subcommittee adopted line amendments earlier in the hearing to make certain findings oral or written to suit the JDR (juvenile and domestic relations) court context, but after testimony the panel voted to table HB 2270 by roll call, 5-3. Members who voted in favor of tabling and those against were recorded by roll call in the subcommittee’s minutes.","HB 2270, which would give juvenile (JDR) courts authority similar to circuit courts to commit serious juvenile offenders and expand the maximum determinate commitment in some cases, was tabled by the subcommittee 5-3 after testimony for and against the measure.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6362733,"Subcommittee unanimously advances substitute to let seized assets be returned to exploited adults during prosecutions",521,2990000,3511000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625&start=2990&end=3511","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2167403-94b07d1e6cae7294fa121b8273310625/thumbnail_2990000.jpg","/articles/6362733/Virginia/Subcommittee-unanimously-advances-substitute-to-let-seized-assets-be-returned-to-exploited-adults-during-prosecutions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6362733-b86c1a7a9abd3be1e2099453f01c28b3/orig.mp4?Expires=1774771314&Signature=CE6jSZ~XkoiKVrqS~M2yFMdRSpMj9VcolWlLCuW90JlwTDg~bn6L5SHYG~6KfQOCAFkGu4LnRHuY5L3fVaJEo9VAWZ7plI3HUyI29NgwFlHBeVN73EUxlSRVGZ5X8~W87zli43uSbZ-Rj7M6X95Vl4Caj~u2K-WN9WpdRZY~AA3ec~x1JonJSF0BPiJuql3UdOsT4LgS0T3epLA90cCJ-VcVmp0odISSw-CG71-oszQw8PW~v65HxbI-lg6100cVbGy5zA9RM5cRan9v8XWJ74AWFhPSKx6MLpndBotTvr~rnxrrgHDleFHOGxiR4ibsupod33iXKc14sWS7xHjCQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Courts of Justice subcommittee on [date not specified] voted 7-0 to report a substitute for House Bill 2120, a measure aimed at protecting assets of elderly and other vulnerable adults who are victims of financial exploitation.

The substitute, reported to members by committee counsel, aligns seizure and forfeiture procedures for this offense with existing statutes used for money-laundering cases and includes two departures from current law: it allows service of process to be satisfied by certified mail, and it requires that “any money, equipment, motor vehicles, and other personal or real property that was seized in the course of the prosecution for this offense shall be returned to the vulnerable adult or his estate upon a plea of guilty or finding a fact sufficient,” rather than automatically forfeiting seized items to the Commonwealth.

The change is intended to address a practical problem raised by law enforcement and victims’ advocates: investigators sometimes learn of suspected exploitation only after a victim’s assets have already been drained. Delegate Elizabeth Maldonado, the bill’s patron, told the subcommittee that the substitute “would help protect those assets while the investigation goes on and continues so that at the end, if appropriately determined, those assets will be available to the person.”

Representatives from local government and financial institutions testified in favor. Elizabeth Parker of Trauma and Strategies, speaking on behalf of Arlington County, thanked the patron and noted Detective Tim Parsons was available online to answer technical questions. A representative of the Virginia Bankers Association told the panel the bill “matches up with the existing ones that we have to follow [for] anti-money-laundering” and said banks welcome procedures that are “easy for the banks to follow.”

Committee counsel said stakeholders worked with staff on the substitute and described it as a short, targeted change that “more closely mimics the existing statutes that we have related to seizure and forfeiture law,” while noting the two exceptions for service by certified mail and for return of seized property upon certain outcomes in prosecution.

Votes and next steps: The subcommittee moved and seconded the substitute and reported HB 2120 with the substitute by roll call, 7-0. The substitute as described will accompany the bill as it proceeds through the legislative process.

The subcommittee discussion emphasized the bill’s goal of preserving limited retirement and savings assets while investigations are pending and the need to give law enforcement tools that align with existing forfeiture practices.","The Courts of Justice subcommittee voted 7-0 to report a substitute for HB 2120 that clarifies seizure and forfeiture procedures for cases of financial exploitation of vulnerable adults and allows certain seized property to be returned to victims upon a guilty plea or finding of fact sufficient.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee hears HB 2299 to elevate computer trespass against schools to felony; vote result not specified in transcript

Subcommittee tables bill to let juvenile court impose longer serious-offender commitments after heated testimony

Subcommittee unanimously advances substitute to let seized assets be returned to exploited adults during prosecutions