A BILL to amend and reenact § 19.2-386.31 of the Code of Virginia, relating to seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of property used in connection with the exploitation and solicitation of children.
HB148 amends Virginia Code § 19.2-386.31, which governs seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of property used in connection with child exploitation offenses. The bill expands and clarifies the authority of law enforcement and courts to seize audio-visual equipment, electronic devices, and other personal property used in the possession, production, distribution, publication, sale, or possession with intent to distribute child pornography, as well as property used in the solicitation of a person under 18. It requires forfeiture proceedings to follow the Commonwealth’s existing civil forfeiture procedures and directs courts to order destruction of forfeited property.
The bill also adds procedural safeguards for destruction of property. It requires that destruction be delayed until all appeals are exhausted, and it mandates at least seven days’ notice by first-class mail to the accused or other known interested party and their attorney before destruction occurs. For property not needed as evidence in a criminal case, a law-enforcement agency may destroy it with written consent from the appropriate Commonwealth’s attorney, provided an oath-backed destruction record is made. Overall, the measure is aimed at ensuring devices used in child exploitation cases can be permanently removed from circulation while preserving notice and recordkeeping requirements.
HB148 would modify the forfeiture and destruction statute for property connected to child pornography and child solicitation offenses, strengthening the Commonwealth’s ability to seize and destroy such items after lawful forfeiture. It affects law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, and defendants in cases under §§ 18.2-374.1, 18.2-374.1:1, and 18.2-374.3, and it ties the process to Virginia’s broader civil forfeiture framework in Chapter 22.1. The bill would not create new criminal offenses, but it would change how evidence and contraband-like property are handled after seizure and adjudication.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was controversial enough to be defeated in committee, passing by indefinitely in the House Courts of Justice Committee on an 8-7 vote. That narrow margin indicates a divided view, with some members likely supporting the bill as a child-protection and enforcement measure, while others had reservations about forfeiture procedures, destruction of property, or the adequacy of existing law. No transcript excerpts are provided, so the record shows division but not detailed floor or committee debate.
The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of seizure and forfeiture authority, the destruction of property after criminal proceedings, and the procedural protections afforded to accused persons and other interested parties. Supporters would be expected to emphasize the need to eliminate devices used in child exploitation and solicitation offenses, while opponents may have questioned whether the bill was necessary, whether it could affect evidentiary preservation, or whether the forfeiture/destruction process was sufficiently narrow and protective of due process rights. The close 8-7 committee vote reflects that disagreement.