Retired or former law-enforcement officers; publication of personal information.
Summary
SB781 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 to petition a circuit court for an order barring the Commonwealth from publishing their personal information on the Internet if they can show a threat or a reasonable fear for their safety or the safety of someone who lives with them. It also continues existing protections for active law-enforcement officers and attorneys for the Commonwealth, and it expressly covers active or retired federal and Virginia judges, justices, and magistrates who submit a written demand.
Under the bill, if a court issues an order and the official makes a written demand, state and local agencies may not publish the covered personal information, and any information already posted must be removed within 48 hours of the demand. The protection for law-enforcement officers and prosecutors lasts four years under specified conditions, while the protection for judges and magistrates remains in effect until rescinded. The bill defines the covered officials, the types of personal information protected, and excludes voter registration and absentee voting records from its reach.
Impact
The bill amends and reenacts Code of Virginia § 18.2-186.4:1, broadening the statute’s scope to include retired or former law-enforcement officers who meet the bill’s eligibility criteria and clarifying the procedures and timelines for removing online personal information. It affects the Commonwealth, meaning state agencies and political subdivisions, by restricting what personal contact information they may publish online for covered officials and by imposing a 48-hour removal requirement after a valid demand. It also preserves exceptions for voter-related records under Title 24.2.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate 39-0 and the House 95-0, and committee reports were unanimous as well, indicating strong agreement that the measure addresses safety and privacy concerns for law-enforcement personnel and other covered officials. The absence of recorded dissent suggests the bill was viewed as a targeted protective measure rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No major contention is evident in the available record. The main policy issue is the balance between public access to government-published information and the privacy and safety of law-enforcement officers, retired officers, prosecutors, and judges. The bill narrows access only for specific personal information and only when safety concerns are shown or a written demand is made, which likely helped limit opposition. The explicit exclusion of voter records also suggests an effort to avoid conflicts with election transparency laws.