An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding sections numbered 16.1-69.35:4 and 17.1-128.2, relating to possession of a portable electronic device in district or circuit court.
HB872 creates a statewide framework for when visitors may possess and use portable electronic devices in Virginia district and circuit courts. The bill defines “portable electronic device” broadly to include laptops, tablets, cell phones, smart watches, e-readers, electronic calendars, and similar personal communication devices, while excluding standalone cameras and recording equipment. It also defines who counts as a “visitor to the court” and carves out several categories of authorized users, including judges, attorneys with bar identification, law-enforcement officers, court security officers, probation officers, certain government employees, court reporters, and others specifically approved by the local sheriff.
For district courts, the chief judge must establish a policy governing possession and use of these devices by visitors, and if the policy restricts use in the courtroom it must still allow devices needed to present evidence to be available during proceedings. The bill requires consultation with the circuit court chief judge and the local sheriff before finalizing the policy, and it assigns the sheriff responsibility for advising and training personnel. Where district and circuit courts share a courthouse, the circuit court chief judge sets the policy for the whole building under the circuit-court rules; where general district and juvenile and domestic relations district courts share a courthouse without a circuit court, the two chief judges must agree on the policy. The bill also requires public posting of the policy in the courthouse and online.
HB872 adds new Code of Virginia sections governing portable electronic devices in district courts and circuit courts, and it establishes local court policies rather than a single uniform statewide ban or allowance. It affects courthouse operations, judicial administration, sheriffs, court personnel, attorneys, litigants, and members of the public by setting baseline permissions and restrictions for phones and other devices, while preserving judicial discretion to impose limits for safety, security, order, and courtroom administration. The bill also expressly prohibits courthouse personnel from searching or accessing data on a visitor’s device during security screening, which limits how screening may be conducted.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or split vote history to indicate strong opposition or support. The enacted chapter text suggests the measure was ultimately approved and became law, which indicates it advanced successfully through the legislative process. Based on the structure of the bill, the likely general sentiment is practical and administrative, aimed at modernizing courthouse device rules while preserving security and courtroom control.
The main points of potential contention are the balance between public access/convenience and courthouse security, and the degree of discretion given to local judges and sheriffs. The bill allows devices in courthouses and courtrooms but permits restrictions such as screening, silent mode, designated use areas, and courtroom bans absent judicial permission, which may concern those favoring broader access. Conversely, the explicit prohibition on searching device data and the requirement to allow devices used for presenting evidence may concern those prioritizing security or strict courtroom control. Another possible issue is local variation, since policies are set by different chief judges depending on courthouse configuration, which could lead to inconsistent rules across jurisdictions.