HB240 revises Virginia’s bail statutes governing admission to bail and the setting of bail conditions. The bill directs judicial officers, before a bail or detention hearing, to try to obtain and review a person’s criminal history and any recent emergency custody order, temporary detention order, or involuntary admission related to mental health. It also requires law-enforcement officers to inform the judicial officer of such mental health-related orders or admissions when known.
The bill expands the list of factors a judicial officer must consider when deciding whether to grant bail and what terms to impose. Those factors include the nature of the offense, firearm involvement, evidence strength, ties to the community, prior convictions, court appearance history, risk of obstruction or intimidation, mental health and substance use history, and evidence that the person is pregnant, has recently given birth, or is nursing a child. It also requires notice to the local Commonwealth’s attorney when bail is granted in cases involving acts of violence, and it adds a procedure for magistrates to document the information considered at bail hearings and transmit that form to the court, and in violent-offense cases to the prosecutor within 24 hours.
HB240 also changes how secured bonds interact with bail bondsmen and court costs. If a secured bond is set and a licensed bail bondsman is used, the magistrate must provide the bondsman, on request, a copy of the accused’s Virginia criminal history record if readily available, for a limited purpose tied to reporting requirements, and the bondsman must pay a $15 fee to the Literary Fund. In addition, the bill provides that a bond may not be used to satisfy fines and costs unless the person who posted the bond agrees.
The bill’s impact would be to make bail determinations more structured and information-driven, with explicit attention to mental health history, public safety, and pregnancy/postpartum status. It would also increase documentation and notification requirements for magistrates and courts, and it would give bail bondsmen limited access to criminal history information while preserving a fee for the state treasury. Overall, the measure would affect judicial officers, magistrates, prosecutors, defendants, and bail bondsmen, while amending the existing Code of Virginia provisions on bail and bond conditions.
The available context suggests the bill was not advanced in the session and was continued to the next session in the House Courts of Justice Committee by voice vote. No recorded floor votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so the general sentiment can only be inferred as procedural rather than strongly supportive or opposed. The bill’s emphasis on mental health information and pregnancy-related considerations suggests a policy focus on individualized bail decisions, while potential concerns likely center on privacy, administrative burden, and the expanded role of criminal history and mental health records in bail hearings.
HB240 would amend §§ 19.2-120 and 19.2-121 of the Code of Virginia to expand the factors and procedures used in bail determinations. It would require judicial officers and magistrates to consider mental health-related orders and admissions, pregnancy/postpartum/nursing status, and other risk factors when setting bail, while also adding notice and reporting obligations in violent-offense cases. The bill would further affect bail bondsmen by allowing limited access to criminal history records for reporting purposes and by imposing a $15 fee credited to the Literary Fund. It would also prohibit using a bond to pay fines and costs without the surety’s consent.
The bill appears to have had a cautious or unresolved reception, as reflected by its continuation to the next session in the House Courts of Justice Committee by voice vote. With no transcript excerpts or recorded votes, there is no clear evidence of broad support or organized opposition in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests an intent to refine bail decisions with more information and safeguards, which may have appealed to members concerned with public safety and individualized justice, while also raising questions for those concerned about implementation and privacy.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s expanded use of mental health records and criminal history in bail decisions, the added administrative duties for magistrates and courts, and the requirement to notify prosecutors in violent-offense cases. Another possible area of debate is the limited disclosure of criminal history to bail bondsmen and the new fee associated with that access. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, better-informed judicial decisions, and consideration of pregnancy and postpartum status; opponents may focus on privacy, due process, and the burden on the bail system.