Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Device Destruction Child Exploitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee approves bill allowing destruction of seized devices with child‑exploitation material, adds statutory clarity
Summary
The subcommittee reported HB148 (incorporating HB274 and HB688) 9–0 with a substitute clarifying that courts shall order destruction when forfeiture is established; the bill permits law enforcement to destroy devices that cannot be safely sanitized while preserving notice and appeal safeguards.
The Criminal Law Subcommittee unanimously reported HB148, a consolidated bill addressing the handling of seized electronic devices that contain child sexual exploitation material. The subcommittee adopted a substitute amendment clarifying that the court shall order destruction if forfeiture is established under the referenced forfeiture code provisions.
Delegate Ren Williams introduced HB148 and said colleagues had filed similar measures. Delegate Walker and other presenters described a practical problem: when civil forfeiture deadlines lapse or agreements with defendants cannot be reached, police departments accumulate devices that may still contain illicit images. "This bill would allow law enforcement to simply keep and destroy any devices where it can confirm that there is child sexual exploitation material on it," a presenter said, adding that safeguards are included so defendants’ appellate rights are preserved.
Counsel explained the draft language was pulled from Va. Code §§ 19.2‑386.23 and 19.2‑386.24 (seizure/forfeiture and destruction provisions for seized controlled substances) and recommended clarifying the subsection language to match existing forfeiture phrasing (that destruction follows after forfeiture is established). David Ledbetter, speaking for the Virginia Association of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, testified in support, saying the bill provides a mechanism to clear evidence rooms and prevent re‑distribution of illicit material.
The committee adopted the substitute amendment to make clear that destruction follows established forfeiture and reported the bill as amended by a recorded unanimous vote of 9–0.
The transcript records discussion about notice requirements: the bill provides notice to the accused and other "interested parties" (property claimants) and does not expressly define an obligation to notify victims depicted in the images; counsel noted "interested parties" in existing forfeiture sections refers to property claimants rather than victims. The committee did not add a separate victim‑notification requirement on the record.
The bill now moves forward in the House process with the committee’s substitute incorporated.
