An Act to amend and reenact § 9.1-193 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Marcus alert system; external database information removal.
HB249 amends Virginia’s Marcus alert system statute, § 9.1-193, which governs law-enforcement protocols for responding to behavioral health crises. The bill’s title indicates it addresses “external database information removal,” and the text shown continues the existing framework for coordinated crisis response, including definitions, law-enforcement training, mobile crisis response, and the role of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (DBHDS) in approving protocols and best practices.
More broadly, the bill reinforces the Marcus alert system’s purpose: diverting people experiencing mental health, substance use, or developmental disability-related crises away from traditional law-enforcement-led responses whenever feasible and toward the comprehensive crisis system. It preserves requirements for specialized law-enforcement training, coordination with local behavioral health stakeholders, and policies intended to reduce use of force and minimize the impact of uniformed or marked police presence during crisis calls. The bill was enacted as Chapter 95 and approved April 6, 2026.
HB249 amends § 9.1-193 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the statutory framework for the Marcus alert system and related law-enforcement crisis-response protocols. Its practical impact is on how state and local agencies manage behavioral health crisis information and response procedures, including DBHDS oversight, law-enforcement participation, and any rules tied to external database information removal under the Marcus alert system. The bill primarily affects state agencies, local law-enforcement agencies, behavioral health stakeholders, and individuals experiencing behavioral health crises.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears consistent with an ongoing policy direction in Virginia toward crisis diversion, behavioral health coordination, and limiting unnecessary police escalation in mental health-related incidents. The enacted status suggests the bill had sufficient support to pass and become law.
The bill text itself suggests the main policy tensions are likely around the role of law enforcement in behavioral health crises, the extent of DBHDS oversight, and how much information may be retained or removed from external databases used in the Marcus alert system. Potentially contentious issues include whether police should remain involved as backup, how specialized response protocols are implemented locally, and how to balance public safety, privacy, and crisis diversion goals. No specific opposing viewpoints are documented in the materials provided.