An Act to amend and reenact § 9.1-102 of the Code of Virginia, relating to use of confidential informants in drug-related investigations.
HB1140 amends § 9.1-102 of the Code of Virginia, which sets out the powers and duties of the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Criminal Justice Services Board. The bill adds a new requirement that the Board establish a model policy for the use of confidential informants in drug-related investigations. That model policy must address when a person on probation or pretrial supervision may serve as an informant, prohibit use of a person who recently violated probation or parole in circumstances where that person’s testimony may be needed in a criminal case, require approval from the local Commonwealth’s attorney before law-enforcement personnel work with an informant, and prohibit informants from unlawfully using or possessing controlled substances.
Because the bill amends the Board’s statutory duties rather than creating a standalone criminal offense or procedure, its legal effect is to direct state-level policy development and guidance for local and state law-enforcement agencies. The change is aimed at standardizing how confidential informants are vetted and supervised in drug investigations, and it places the resulting policy within the broader framework of DCJS training, certification, and model-policy authority.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s legislative path was strongly favorable and noncontroversial. It advanced through committee and floor votes unanimously in both chambers, including unanimous committee reports, unanimous Senate passage, and House agreement to the Senate amendment. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the recorded votes suggest broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition.
The main point of policy contention, based on the substance of the bill, is the balance between law-enforcement flexibility in drug enforcement and safeguards against unreliable or coerced informants. The bill appears designed to reduce risks associated with using people under supervision or with recent violations as confidential informants, while preserving the ability of police to use informants under a formal approval process. Any concerns would likely come from law-enforcement stakeholders about operational constraints, though the vote history does not show active opposition.
Overall, HB1140 is a targeted criminal justice policy bill focused on confidential informant practices in narcotics investigations, with an emphasis on oversight, prosecutorial involvement, and limits on informant eligibility.
HB1140 updates Virginia Code § 9.1-102 by adding confidential-informant policy development to the duties of the Criminal Justice Services Board and Department of Criminal Justice Services. It requires the Board to create a model policy governing the use of confidential informants in drug-related investigations, which will influence law-enforcement agency practices statewide and may be incorporated into agency procedures, training, and oversight. The bill affects state and local law-enforcement agencies, Commonwealth’s attorneys, and individuals on probation, pretrial supervision, or parole who might otherwise be used as informants.
The bill appears to have been received positively and with little controversy. It moved through the legislative process with unanimous votes in committee and on the floor in both chambers, and the Senate amendment was agreed to by the House without recorded dissent. The vote history indicates broad bipartisan support for adding safeguards around confidential informants in drug cases.
The central policy tension is between improving accountability in drug investigations and preserving investigative tools for law enforcement. The bill limits who may serve as a confidential informant, requires notice to supervision officers for certain individuals, and mandates prosecutorial approval before use, which could be seen as strengthening oversight but also adding procedural hurdles. Any opposition would likely come from law-enforcement interests concerned about reduced flexibility, while supporters would favor the added protections against misuse, coercion, and unreliable testimony.