Two draft monitoring laws that have adopted the General Assembly await the action of Governor Glenn Youngkin.
If signed, the two could set up managers and reporting mechanisms concerning the use of such technology by the application agencies of the law of Virginia. If it is opposed to the veto, this technology could remain unregulated.
Surveillance
Find out more about public-oriented surveillance technology in the southwest and southern Virginia in the first part of Cardinal Surveillance survey.
The two bills were developed on the basis of the recommendations of the Virginia Crime Commission. The Commission is a criminal justice agency under the legislative power which was created by status to study, report and make recommendations in all areas of public security and protection.
The two bills, HB 2724 by del. Charniele Herring, D-Arlington, and HB 2725 By del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, would add railings to the use of technology which is already in place in a number of organizations for applying the Commonwealth law.
Manage how and where, automatic recognition recognition systems can be used
The Herring’s bill, concerning the use of automatic recognition systems for license plates, or ALPRS, has undergone many iterations when it has made its way through the general assembly. He even underwent a brief death in a senatorial committee before being revived and modified, but at his heart, he remained the same throughout the legislative process.
“The bill provides restrictions on data retention, the use of license plates readers in Virginia. Finally, there will be restrictions on use as well as a declaration to the crime commission so that legislators can monitor its use,” said Herring.
At the start of the chamber in early February, the bill would have enabled the Ministry of Transport to allow the police forces to install cameras on state road rights and to keep the data collected by the ALPRS for 30 days, and it would have established an audit of the application of the law of technology.
Herring noted that there are already cameras on land while keeping the state roads in places not disclosed to the state and that the authorization process would allow state agencies to obtain and maintain a recording of the Place des Cameras in the future.
The bill adopted the Senate at the end of February with changes: the 30 -day period was changed to 21 days, and a delay in the authorization of the Cameras on the Rights of the State was included by a reconstruction clause. The addition of the reconstruction clause means that the authorization will not occur this year and must be voted by the General Assembly during the 2026 session before being able to take place. The two bills were sent to a conference committee to rectify their differences.
The last iteration of the bill sent to Youngkin includes the reconstruction clause. The governor could change the bill to reduce the clause and allow expansion to occur earlier. If this were to happen, the general assembly should resume the governor’s amendment during his veto session of April 2.
As written, the bill also exempts system data and data from the audit trails of the disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
“I hope that the railings and the parameters that we have put remain in place because we have nothing at the moment,” said Herring. “We already know that there have been positive results on public security with cameras with the search for active shooters or missing persons, but I think that will simply help you give us an idea of how they are used.”
Kristen Howard, Executive Director of Virginia Crime Commission, concluded.
“In the end, it is important to note that if nothing has passed through this general meeting or signed by the governor, the use of Alprs will become completely unregulated,” said Howard. “If nothing is done, then we will be in a position where there will be absolutely no regulations on the use of this technology.”
Keep an eye on third -party surveillance
Rasoul’s bill, which adopted the general assembly without a single “no” in a committee or on the ground, developed an effort in 2024 to put railings on the use of surveillance technology.
This billWhich was also published by Rasoul, sought to define technology and launch an effort to analyze where and how it is used at local and state levels.
“The crime commission has taken this new section of the code that was adopted last year and analyzed this and found recommendations to improve this code section to ensure that any surveillance technology is, in fact, captured,” said Rasoul. “This is included for the fundamental rights of people.”
The Commission learned that law enforcement organizations needed more clarity and instructions concerning the reports they should provide on the surveillance technology they use, which prompted them to work with Rasoul on the 2025 bill.
This year’s bill, HB 2725, has received unanimous support in the two chambers of the General Assembly, and Rasoul said that he provided the signing of Youngkin.
“I know people are concerned about the impact of technology on their privacy,” he said. “This gives us at least one reference base to move forward to understand which technologies exist.”
If the bill is signed by Youngkin, it would extend the legislation of 2024 to include the monitoring of third parties. All law and law enforcement organizations would be required to provide a list each year of the surveillance technology they use to the State Government in addition to the Crime Commission and the Mixed Commission on Technology and Services.