Motor vehicle collisions; collection of certain mobile telephone data, collision reports.
SB1012 would create a new framework for preserving and documenting mobile-phone and vehicle-related evidence after a motor vehicle collision. The bill allows an attorney representing an injured person to send a preservation request shortly after a crash to the alleged at-fault driver, that driver’s mobile phone provider, and, if applicable, the driver’s insurance carrier. The requested preservation would cover a two-hour window before and after the collision and could include call logs, texts, emails, photos, videos, IP addresses, website history, location data, telematics or driving-app data, and other device identifiers.
The bill also expands collision-reporting requirements for law-enforcement officers. Officers investigating qualifying crashes would be required to ask about mobile-phone use and driving-monitoring apps, and collision reports would have to include additional information such as phone number, provider, IMEI number, and whether the driver refused to provide that information. The Department of Motor Vehicles would have to update its collision report form, and the Supreme Court’s Office of the Executive Secretary would have to create a certification form for attorneys seeking preservation of records.
The bill would amend Virginia’s spoliation-of-evidence statute and collision-reporting law, and it would add a new section authorizing pre-suit preservation requests for mobile-phone and telematics records in personal injury cases arising from collisions. It would also require administrative changes to DMV collision forms and court-prescribed certification forms. In practice, the measure would increase the amount of electronic data potentially available in crash litigation and would create a rebuttable presumption of spoliation if requested data are not preserved, which could affect discovery disputes, evidentiary sanctions, and settlement leverage in motor-vehicle injury cases.
The available voting history suggests the bill was controversial and did not advance, failing to report from the Senate Courts of Justice Committee on a 7-7 vote. That split indicates substantial support and opposition within the committee, but no recorded floor debate or transcript is available here to show detailed arguments. The bill’s structure suggests supporters viewed it as an evidence-preservation and roadway-safety measure, while opponents likely had concerns about privacy, burden, and the breadth of the data collection requirements.
The main points of contention are likely the privacy and scope of the data sought, the burden placed on drivers, phone providers, insurers, and law enforcement, and the legal consequences of noncompliance. The bill would require preservation of highly sensitive information, including location data, communications, and device identifiers, and would tie refusal to provide information to a rebuttable presumption of spoliation. Another likely concern is that the bill reaches beyond traditional accident reporting by compelling officers to ask about phone use and telematics apps and by requiring preservation requests before a civil action is filed. Supporters would likely emphasize preserving evidence in serious collision cases, while opponents would likely focus on privacy, due process, and administrative complexity.