[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6386262,"mediaKeyId","2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356","parentId",2118393,"title","Senate committee advances bill narrowing when fleeing suspect can be charged with obstructing arrest","audioSeconds",392,"startMs",137000,"endMs",529000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356&start=137&end=529","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356/thumbnail_137000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6386262/Virginia/Senate-committee-advances-bill-narrowing-when-fleeing-suspect-can-be-charged-with-obstructing-arrest","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386262-5222ed2ed32c699e35689ff0fa15a553/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437813&Signature=D53rzwApwJTEKukYKuqRZEPeu7rUUUccsKPRIXAxM4XZeMdnmHqpetpeq0BXH21xIGgG7tzpUSZBAZnA-gdfOIpvtj65eJ6o2IDWH60UDUthlTCe~YqJfKicX2XNGpf11ldfFIg6wz7ZIg-N0iE9sKGFUc3Eow~XQeXN~yIOuUtnao3mm9-iK3bQUaPQrXy6OD0gOAhDLWe-D4Wh0gae2T9Pqh6HI0mAQ-FN32kZD0JryoXe01~cZLtn5CUGXTjLtBR5FDhUaYSv~RlSrctUmWr1DU-gtYG3RvZQi5hcRWs3RtUI~dD5-wxxqE0QPLIHHiMArzELgqfonWJyQvBHtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virginia Legislature","date","2025-01-15T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 952, a measure that would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor to \"knowingly and intentionally prevent[] or attempt[] to prevent\" a lawful arrest when certain qualifiers are met, was reported out of the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee on a 9-5 vote.

The substitute amendment adopted in committee narrows the existing language by adding three qualifying elements: (1) the officer must have legal authority to make the arrest; (2) the officer must have clearly communicated to the person that they were under arrest and the person must know or have reason to know the speaker is a law enforcement officer; and (3) the officer must either have applied physical force or be within 30 feet (10 yards) of the person when announcing the arrest. The substitute was described by the bill patron as largely grammatical and clarifying.

The sponsor said the change responds to Hackett v. Commonwealth (2023), in which the Court of Appeals found that a suspect who was about 25 yards from an officer when told they were under arrest was outside the statute's reach because the distance prevented \"immediate effectation\" of an arrest. The patron and supporters said a 30-foot/10-yard standard better reflects an officer's ability to effectuate an arrest in most circumstances.

Opponents and some committee members pressed policy concerns during debate. Senator Boyseco asked whether the measure could sweep in people who flee in fear and are not otherwise committing an offense; the sponsor and counsel repeatedly emphasized the bill's qualifiers, saying the statute requires that the officer have probable cause to arrest for an offense that carries a potential jail or prison sentence and that the person actually know the speaker is a law enforcement officer. Committee members discussed hypotheticals including underage drinking, trespass, and a group of teens fleeing from a park as examples of scenarios raised during debate.

Public commenters spoke both for and against the bill. Dr. Michael Huffman, representing the Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptist, said he strongly supported SB 952 and described his background as being \"raised in a policeman's home,\" urging tougher laws for those who attack or evade law enforcement. Valerie Slater, speaking for Rise For Youth and the Virginia State Conference NAACP, said her organizations strongly opposed the bill. Committee members invited additional clarification but did not further amend the substitute.

After debate the committee voted to report the bill out for further action. The committee clerk recorded the roll call as 9 in favor and 5 opposed.

Why it matters: The bill responds to a recent appellate decision that courts interpreted narrowly; if enacted the statute would broaden the circumstances in which fleeing can be charged as a misdemeanor by specifying distance and knowledge criteria. Advocates say it restores law-enforcement tools; civil-rights and youth-advocacy groups warned of overcriminalization risks in scenarios where people scatter in fear.

Votes at committee: SB 952 reported to the next step by a roll call (9 yes, 5 no).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","January 15, 2025 - Courts of Justice - SR A (305) - 30 min. after adjournment","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 952, a measure that would make it a Class 1 misdemeanor to \"knowingly and intentionally prevent[] or attempt[] to prevent\" a lawful arrest when specified qualifiers are met, was reported out of the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee on a 9-5 vote.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature VA, Virginia","taxId",77687,"location","Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6386251,"Senate Courts of Justice Committee: summary of bills reported, referred and advanced",5473,3000,5476000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356&start=3&end=5476","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356/thumbnail_3000.jpg","/articles/6386251/Virginia/Senate-Courts-of-Justice-Committee-summary-of-bills-reported-referred-and-advanced","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386251-acf3afbccca90a0f93d85efd10c408ba/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437813&Signature=lOVW4X1oQBvkDDX6bJ53gDsBWt6z2jzKK-obllkxzJ969eL6mE5b-l3DeWgdcUYEZO84WBtfw0sOCQZho30qh5JGs8~vOxZSLE1yGpSygi4k~OhdJz-bZ7pIIs3~u3RxWq99AZcRGhpnkVZHY3cTC2aKxKL4fsvacMM9exr7vXlZbPUVUiOvLMtKIO-SnxtMJwwtvDIZWvuzcfHhD0i0VudbuBjUApAMLW-ZxKrzQT1T3w0C4xKRh7F~pQyObOkLeacnngTQk36eY1g-UmTigfNbv7oX0PE7H-q-BlTLqDGNa52lRvtc0sHClUKBjAWWwETu75k54Fi0LcBYMRQg9w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Courts of Justice Committee reported, referred or otherwise acted on a slate of bills in a single hearing. Below are the items that received committee action (motions, votes or referrals recorded on the transcript). For bills that generated minimal debate the committee generally adopted substitutes and reported them out; where a roll-call was recorded the tally is noted.

Votes and actions at a glance

- SB 952 (Patron: Senator DeStef) — Action: Substitute adopted and bill reported out of committee. Committee roll: 9 yes, 5 no (recorded). See separate article for extended debate and public comment.

- SB 861 (Reeves) — Topic: Definitions of \"police officer\" and correctional statutory language (clean-up). Action: Reported and referred to finance. Committee roll recorded: 15 yes, 0 no.

- SB 892 (Med Mal certification) — Topic: Plaintiff expert certification timing and content in medical‑malpractice cases (cleanup and negotiated changes). Action: Substitute adopted; bill reported (roll recorded 15 yes, 0 no).

- SB 846 (Newcraig) — Topic: Access to minors' records via secure websites (custody/records clarification). Action: Substitute adopted; bill reported. Committee roll recorded: 15 yes, 0 no.

- SB 986 (Williams Graves) — Topic: Assault/battery against sports officials; mandatory conditions of sentence (prohibition from attending events). Action: Bill reported; committee roll recorded: 15 yes, 0 no.

- SB 965 (Carol Foy) — Topic: Recording and transcript treatment in Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court. Action: Amendments adopted in committee; bill reported. Committee roll recorded: 15 yes, 0 no.

- SB 888 (Perry) — Topic: Eliminates sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine at particular quantity thresholds. Action: Bill reported; committee roll recorded: 15 yes, 0 no.

- SB 1195 (Line of Duty Act: occupational cancer) — Topic: Align Line of Duty Act coverage for occupational cancer with workers' compensation (extend from 5 to 10 years). Action: Bill reported and referred to finance (roll recorded: no recorded opposition in transcript).

- SB (private college Line of Duty coverage) — Topic: Permit private colleges/universities police departments to elect Line of Duty Act coverage if they bear the cost. Action: Substitute adopted; committee voted to report and refer to finance. (Roll procedure discussed; patron noted prior unanimous passage in earlier years.)

Postponed / taken \"by\"

- Appellate-procedure/dispense-with-oral-argument bill (Senator patron) — Committee took the bill \"by\" (postponed) after extended debate and stakeholder testimony; no roll call to report the bill.

Notes on process and next steps

- Several bills included substitutes or line amendments adopted in committee; counselors noted some measures will require conversion to substitutes because bills were rolled together on the docket.
- Where committee roll calls were recorded, the clerk's tallies are noted above; items reported will proceed to the next legislative step (finance or floor, where required).
- The committee took the appellate-procedure bill \"by\" to allow additional data collection and testimony, including Court of Appeals disposition statistics and potential compromise language.

Why it matters: The committee's actions move a set of criminal‑law clarifications, civil‑procedure cleanups and administrative fixes forward in the legislative process, with several unanimous committee votes and one closely divided roll on SB 952, which drew public comment and civil‑rights opposition.","The committee advanced or reported a series of criminal‑justice, civil‑procedure and administrative bills. This roundup lists each bill the committee acted on during the hearing, the outcome at committee, and any recorded roll-call tallies available in the transcript.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6386256,"Contentious proposal to let Court of Appeals dispose of some cases without oral argument set aside for more study",886,4370000,5256000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356&start=4370&end=5256","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2118393-3c0b3db65fb21f060333af48fb8d4356/thumbnail_4370000.jpg","/articles/6386256/Virginia/Contentious-proposal-to-let-Court-of-Appeals-dispose-of-some-cases-without-oral-argument-set-aside-for-more-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386256-afd41c5b54c289f765eb9e990c1f4357/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437813&Signature=XiyYcf0bcgWwVI7JHmTI18eTECzhLBaTXwesRvOp0BDgbifWOhnRzrOeFlov0OyMkC1GYBtWnKtSuS6ccS7Z8fpbpMrFs~Mb9BvzJ8DEs-KuzunbtWWZ-gHmFewoyWb0OPV1rb9C~qhnZzUfw7ztDTVfDJipwwQnPAamQIb0-QMKzkTwH8ujbuy9GGHi~39VVcSDdLK4J0zMHKrqEk2vIS2GKdfO54py--pb0hxQzjn7u2agq36JNd9~~GI8f-9L3otxlLyDlN6~H1a7g7Q1R8ccENXhHnX9YAcC3O9CtZwGcIqy3tAt2tHIsRRl1v3gHDjUV13rpzioKqeawEdLEA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A broadly scoped bill that would (1) make appellate courts' award of attorney fees discretionary in certain criminal appeals, (2) adjust appeal-bond interest periods, and (3 — most controversially) give the Virginia Court of Appeals discretion to decide some appeals without oral argument was taken \"by\" (postponed) by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for further study.

Committee members engaged in lengthy debate over the third component, which patrons argued was needed to reduce a growing backlog at the Court of Appeals since jurisdiction expansion. The patron described the proposal as aligned with practice in many appellate courts and said the court has asked for discretion to dispose of cases without oral argument so panels can clear dockets and prioritize merits-based oral argument. The patron placed a sunset on the new authority through June 30, 2027, to require legislative review of its effects.

Opponents and several senators pushed back. Some committee members said removing a litigant's presumptive opportunity for oral argument undermines the adversarial process and could leave meritorious appellants without their day in court. Others argued that the backlog stems from the jurisdictional expansion adopted earlier and asked why the legislature should respond by narrowing oral-argument access rather than by adding judges or other resources.

Witnesses and stakeholders provided testimony both for and against the measure. Phil Abraham of the Virginia Association for Commercial Real Estate and Andrew Clark of the Home Builders Association of Virginia told the committee delays in appellate review have slowed major development and housing projects; they supported the bill as a pragmatic step to reduce multi-year delays that can stall construction and investment. Alyssa Patton of the Office of the Executive Secretary said the courts support inclusion of the discretionary oral‑argument language and noted Judicial Council recommendations to that effect; the Court of Appeals reported an average disposition time near 450 days at the time of testimony and committed to providing data if the change is enacted.

Several committee members asked for more information and suggested the panel obtain additional expert testimony. Senator Stewart and others said the change could make appeals rights less meaningful for litigants and recommended pausing to consider middle-ground fixes. After testimony and debate the patron agreed to take the bill \"by\" to allow further study and potential compromise.

Why it matters: The Court of Appeals handles a rising share of Virginia's appellate caseload. How the court schedules and disposes of appeals affects timelines for development projects, family-law and criminal matters, and other civil appeals across the state. The discretionary‑argument proposal would change how many litigants obtain oral argument and the committee deferred a decision to gather more information and possibly craft amendments.

Next steps: The bill was taken \"by\" (postponed) for further study; committee staff and stakeholders signaled they would return with additional data and potential amendments before the legislature acts.","A proposal to give the Virginia Court of Appeals discretion to decide appeals without oral argument prompted lengthy debate over access to oral argument and appellate delay. The Senate committee took the bill \"by\" (postponed) after testimony from industry and court representatives and a request for more time to consider alternatives.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee advances bill narrowing when fleeing suspect can be charged with obstructing arrest

Senate Courts of Justice Committee: summary of bills reported, referred and advanced

Contentious proposal to let Court of Appeals dispose of some cases without oral argument set aside for more study