Committee pauses bill to require law-enforcement access for parole/clemency investigators after questions on costs and timeframe
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 92 would require public law-enforcement agencies and courts to provide records to parole-board investigators conducting pardon and clemency background investigations, and the committee paused the bill to gather more information on costs and a proposed five-day access deadline.
House Bill 92 would add a statutory requirement that public bodies engaged in criminal law enforcement and courts provide records to investigators working on executive clemency petitions to the governor.
The bill, presented by Delegate Campbell, would require agencies to make records available so parole-board investigators can compare the original investigative and court records with petitioners’ current circumstances; it also includes a statutory citation that investigators could present to show their authority to receive the materials.
"This work that we are doing in investigating executive clemency is of vital importance to the citizens of the Commonwealth," Colleen Maxwell, a legal service specialist with the Virginia Parole Board, told the committee.
Several people who said they benefited from pardons testified in favor. Samuel Harris said he was pardoned this past July after serving more than 24 years; Sean Winnet, a recipient of a gubernatorial pardon, told the committee that when investigators cannot obtain records they typically recommend denial.
Committee members expressed support for the bill’s goal but raised concerns about a proposed five-day response requirement and potential costs to local agencies, and whether juvenile or sealed records could be compelled. Counsel noted the bill could provide a safeguard for law enforcement when releasing records, but said she could not estimate compliance costs for local agencies. Committee members asked for additional information from local law enforcement and requested time to refine language.
After discussion, the committee voted to pass House Bill 92 by for the day so members could gather additional cost and implementation information and consider language changes before further action.