<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact § 19.2-386.31 of the Code of Virginia, relating to seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of property used in connection with the exploitation and solicitation of children.</p>
HB688 amends Virginia law governing the seizure, forfeiture, and destruction of property used in connection with child exploitation offenses. The bill applies to audio and visual equipment, electronic devices, and other personal property used in the possession, production, distribution, publication, sale, or possession with intent to distribute child pornography, as well as property used in the solicitation of a minor. Such property would be subject to lawful seizure and forfeiture to the Commonwealth under existing forfeiture procedures.
The bill also requires the court to order destruction of the property and specifies what information must be included in the destruction order, including the nature and quantity of the items, where they were seized, and how they will be destroyed. It further allows law-enforcement agencies, with written consent from the appropriate Commonwealth’s attorney, to destroy similar property that is not evidence in a trial, provided an oath-based destruction record is made. Destruction cannot occur until all appeal rights are exhausted, and notice must be given to the accused or other known interested parties and their attorneys at least seven days before destruction.
HB688 would strengthen and clarify the statutory process for handling property connected to child pornography and child solicitation offenses under § 19.2-386.31. It reinforces seizure and forfeiture authority, expands procedural detail for destruction orders, and adds notice and appeal protections before destruction occurs. The bill affects law-enforcement agencies, prosecutors, courts, accused persons, and any third parties with an interest in the seized property, while operating within Virginia’s existing forfeiture framework in Chapter 22.1.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The subcommittee recommendation to incorporate the measure passed unanimously, 9-0, and the bill was later incorporated by voice vote. That pattern indicates broad agreement on the need to update or consolidate the forfeiture and destruction provisions for child exploitation-related property.
No major opposition is reflected in the provided materials. The main policy considerations appear to be procedural rather than substantive: ensuring that property used in child exploitation cases can be seized and destroyed, while also preserving due process through notice to the accused or interested parties and waiting until appeals are exhausted. Any potential concern would likely center on balancing effective enforcement against property-rights and notice protections, but no specific objections are recorded in the transcript or vote history.