A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 19.2-120 and 19.2-121 of the Code of Virginia, relating to admission to bail; fixing terms of bail; mental health considerations.
HB240 amends Virginia’s bail statutes to require judicial officers, before any bail, release, or detention hearing, to try to obtain and review a person’s criminal history and any available emergency custody order, temporary detention order, or involuntary admission record under Title 37.2. It also requires law-enforcement officers who know the accused is currently or recently subject to one of those mental health-related orders or admissions to inform the judicial officer. The bill keeps the general rule that a person held pending trial or hearing must be admitted to bail unless there is probable cause to believe the person will not appear or that release would pose an unreasonable danger to the person, family or household members, or the public.
In determining whether to deny bail, the judicial officer must consider a broad set of factors, including the nature of the offense, whether a firearm was used, the weight of the evidence, the accused’s personal and community ties, prior convictions, court appearance history, risk of obstruction or intimidation, and the person’s medical, mental health, and substance use treatment history. The bill therefore expands the information available to courts when making bail decisions and places explicit emphasis on mental health-related history as part of that assessment.
The bill would amend §§ 19.2-120 and 19.2-121 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the standards and procedures used by judicial officers when deciding bail, release, or detention. Its practical effect is to formalize consideration of mental health records and related involuntary treatment orders in pretrial release decisions, while preserving the existing probable-cause framework for denying bail based on flight risk or danger to the person or public. It would primarily affect courts, magistrates or other judicial officers, law enforcement officers, and accused persons subject to pretrial bail determinations.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was not advanced to final passage and was instead continued to the next session in the House Courts of Justice Committee by voice vote. That procedural outcome indicates the bill had at least some committee interest but did not receive enough support or readiness for immediate action. Because no transcript or recorded vote details are provided, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as cautious or unresolved rather than clearly favorable or opposed.
The main point of potential contention is the use of mental health information in bail decisions. Supporters would likely view the bill as improving judicial awareness of safety risks by allowing courts to consider recent emergency custody, temporary detention, or involuntary admission history. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned about privacy, stigma, and whether mental health history could be overused as a basis for detention rather than individualized assessment. There may also be concern about the feasibility of obtaining and sharing these records quickly enough for bail hearings and about the burden placed on law enforcement to relay such information.