A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 9.1-101, as it is currently effective and as it shall become effective, 9.1-102, and 9.1-1110 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 17 of Title 15.2 a section numbered 15.2-1723.3 and by adding a section numbered 23.1-815.2, relating to law-enforcement agencies; use of certain technologies and interrogation practices; forensic laboratory accreditation.
HB1257 is a broad law-enforcement administration bill that updates several provisions of the Code of Virginia governing the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Forensic Science Board. The bill adds new definitions for generative artificial intelligence, machine learning systems, and sealing of records, and it expands the Department’s authority to set standards, publish model policies, and require training for a wide range of policing topics. Those topics include AI use, audiovisual surveillance technologies such as license plate readers, custodial and noncustodial interrogations, and a number of existing training areas such as de-escalation, crisis intervention, bias awareness, school safety, mental health response, and use-of-force practices.
The bill also creates two new accreditation-related restrictions on local and campus police crime laboratories. Beginning in 2030, local law-enforcement agencies and public campus police departments would be prohibited from purchasing forensic testing equipment or certain breath-test and presumptive drug/alcohol testing devices unless approved by the Department of Forensic Science or the Forensic Science Board. The bill further directs the Department of Criminal Justice Services to develop and publish model policies for AI, surveillance, and interrogation by January 1, 2027, with agency adoption required by July 1, 2027, and it sets later training deadlines for existing officers. Several provisions, including the new forensic-lab accreditation sections and the amended Forensic Science Board authority, become effective January 1, 2030.
HB1257 would significantly expand state-level oversight of law-enforcement technology, interrogation practices, and training standards, while also adding procurement controls for forensic and testing equipment used by local and campus police agencies. It amends §§ 9.1-101, 9.1-102, and 9.1-1110, and adds new §§ 15.2-1723.3 and 23.1-815.2, thereby affecting the Department of Criminal Justice Services, the Forensic Science Board, local police departments, campus police departments at public institutions, and officers who use or access the covered technologies. The bill would require agencies to align their policies with state-issued model policies and would condition certain equipment purchases on approval by state forensic authorities.
The available voting history and committee action suggest the bill was not advanced in the session and was instead continued to the next session by voice vote in the Communications, Technology and Innovation Committee. That procedural outcome indicates the measure drew enough interest to remain under consideration, but not enough consensus for immediate passage. No committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, so the public record here shows limited direct debate, but the bill’s breadth suggests it was treated as a major policy package rather than a narrow technical amendment.
The likely points of contention are the bill’s new restrictions on law-enforcement use of generative AI, machine learning, audiovisual surveillance, and interrogation tactics, as well as the requirement that agencies adopt state model policies. These provisions may raise concerns among law-enforcement agencies about operational flexibility, evidentiary practices, privacy compliance, and implementation costs. The forensic-lab approval requirements for local and campus police could also be debated by agencies that currently purchase or use testing equipment independently, since the bill would centralize approval authority with state forensic bodies. Supporters are likely to emphasize standardization, civil-liberties protections, and improved reliability of forensic and investigative practices, while skeptics may focus on administrative burden and the scope of state control.