A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 2.2-1112 and 19.2-270.7 of the Code of Virginia, relating to determining decibel level of sound with proper equipment; certificate as to accuracy of equipment.
HB1397 would update Virginia law governing the equipment used to measure sound levels for enforcement purposes. The bill directs the Division to identify the proper equipment for determining the decibel level of sound and requires police chiefs and sheriffs to ensure that such equipment, including equipment used by trained local government employees, meets state standards. It also requires that the equipment be maintained, inspected, calibrated, and tested for accuracy on a schedule set by the Division.
The bill further amends the evidentiary rules for noise-related cases. It allows a law-enforcement officer or properly trained local government employee to use approved equipment to measure sound, and it provides that those measurements are prima facie evidence of the decibel level in court or other legal proceedings. If the accuracy or calibration of the equipment is challenged, a certificate showing calibration or testing details would be admissible as evidence, and any calibration or testing would be valid for no more than 12 months.
HB1397 would affect §§ 2.2-1112 and 19.2-270.7 of the Code of Virginia by tightening standards for sound-measuring equipment and clarifying how those measurements may be used in court. It would place ongoing maintenance, inspection, calibration, and testing obligations on law-enforcement agencies and local governments using the equipment, while strengthening the evidentiary basis for noise enforcement actions and related prosecutions or civil proceedings.
There is limited recorded discussion or voting history for the bill, and no committee transcript is available. Based on the text, the bill appears to be a technical enforcement and evidentiary measure rather than a broad policy change. Its referral to the Public Safety Committee and lack of recorded votes suggest it did not advance far, but the available record does not show explicit support or opposition.
The main potential point of contention is whether the bill gives sufficient flexibility and reliability to local enforcement agencies while imposing additional calibration and documentation requirements. Supporters would likely favor clearer standards and stronger evidentiary rules for noise enforcement, while critics might question the administrative burden, the admissibility framework, or the expansion of enforcement authority to trained local government employees. No specific objections are recorded in the available materials.