Retired or former law-enforcement officers; definition, publication of personal information.
Summary
HB1874 amends Virginia law governing the online publication of personal information for certain public officials. The bill expands and clarifies protections for retired or former law-enforcement officers by allowing them, like active law-enforcement officers and attorneys for the Commonwealth, to petition a circuit court for an order barring the Commonwealth from publishing their personal information on the Internet when disclosure would create a threat or a reasonable fear for safety. It also specifically covers active or retired federal and Virginia judges, justices, and magistrates, who may make a written demand to prevent publication of their personal information without needing a court order.
Under the bill, “personal information” is limited to home address, home telephone numbers, personal cell phone numbers, and personal email address. If the Commonwealth has already posted such information before receiving a valid demand, it must remove the information within 48 hours. For retired or former law-enforcement officers, the protection is tied to a four-year period after retirement or separation, provided the person is in good standing and has no pending investigations or disciplinary actions. The bill also excludes voter registration and absentee voter records from its coverage, preserving existing public-records rules for election-related lists.
Impact
The bill amends and reenacts § 18.2-186.4:1 of the Code of Virginia, broadening the statute’s scope to expressly include retired or former law-enforcement officers and clarifying the categories of protected public officials. It imposes a nondisclosure obligation on state agencies and political subdivisions when a qualifying court order or written demand is received, and it requires prompt removal of already-posted information. The measure affects how government entities manage online disclosure of home contact information for covered officials, while leaving voter-related records unaffected.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It advanced unanimously through a House subcommittee, the House Courts of Justice Committee, and the full House, and then passed the Senate unanimously as well. The voting history suggests strong bipartisan agreement that the privacy and safety interests of the covered officials justified the added protections.
Contention
No significant opposition is reflected in the available votes or committee materials. The main policy issue underlying the bill is the balance between public access to government-held information and the safety and privacy of law-enforcement officers and judicial officials, especially after retirement or separation from service. The bill’s specific limits—such as the four-year effectiveness period for retired or former law-enforcement officers, the good-standing requirement, and the exclusion of voter records—appear designed to narrow the scope of the privacy restriction and reduce potential concerns about overbreadth.