[{"_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",6381471,"mediaKeyId","2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901","parentId",2128333,"title","Commission approves panel to review Mary Jane Burton cases; adds Attorney General pending ethics opinion","audioSeconds",669,"startMs",4877000,"endMs",5546000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901&start=4877&end=5546","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901/thumbnail_4877000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6381471/Virginia/Commission-approves-panel-to-review-Mary-Jane-Burton-cases-adds-Attorney-General-pending-ethics-opinion","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381471-40a53d5baf156056e4a7d0129cb065d5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152816&Signature=k8jOlDKIJE9GdvK49eM5hExImziFDZ~BHYHxFLL49WYMuPH2dwtFcNZFHXTDjHV3QPvYO8sbbmolypbib0ZSZoPinBuHnO9iK7RKL0HnZbA-x7pWksjunpgeOtx07SPz7tG02qWDBGO-cFwVhfali0IkD18bMiA0L~58if7BFJSJXlXNGgRk4jh~qur7a6UO8tDusHF67KNX35CSFnpOi5OzZ9tUmmxZa64I8v5qFWoFXMqbFDJkIyLhHz5JVEf5HoJ8FkxNFUJWI9cayYHS9-wtJ-Y9sHKPYL1X~eoGewQXMBirSO5-4SkM0JoOo11Y1A3BP5NBDt5f77S0q0dIlQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virginia Legislature","date","2025-01-17T00:00:00Z","article","The Virginia Crime Commission voted to create a review panel to examine cases that involved forensic examiner Mary Jane Burton, including cases in which affected individuals are incarcerated, executed, exonerated or otherwise potentially impacted by Burton's testimony.

Commission staff described the proposed panel as a multidisciplinary body charged with determining whether Burton engaged in a pattern of misconduct and assessing the accuracy of her testing and testimony. The panel's membership set out in the draft includes: a Commonwealth's attorney, a public defender, a practicing criminal-defense attorney, a retired circuit-court judge, a representative of the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project and an independent serologist. Crime Commission staff would provide support for the panel and could share materials with attorneys representing affected individuals, including innocence-project counsel.

During committee consideration, a member proposed adding the Office of the Attorney General as a permanent panel member. Commissioners debated whether the OAG's role as the Commonwealth's legal representative could create a conflict of interest if the office also participated as a voting panel member. To address that concern, the commission approved the amendment on the condition that the Virginia State Bar provide an opinion that inclusion would not create an ethical conflict; commissioners asked staff to seek the Bar's guidance promptly.

The commission also approved language allowing staff to share information gathered by the panel with attorneys representing potentially affected defendants, including public defenders and innocence-project lawyers. The panel will report its work to the Crime Commission annually until the review is complete.

The commission adopted the panel-forming legislation with the Attorney General conditional amendment; members asked staff to obtain a bar opinion on conflicts within 30 days and to return any recommended technical edits for incorporation before the bill advances to the legislature.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Virginia State Crime Commission Friday, Jan 17, 2025 8:50 AM - 10:25 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Crime Commission approved legislation to create an independent panel to review cases involving forensic examiner Mary Jane Burton and adopted an amendment to add the Office of the Attorney General as a panel member if the State Bar finds no conflict of interest.","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},6381476,"Crime commission recommends ALPR limits, including 30-day retention and highway permitting by state police",1384,3815000,5199000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901&start=3815&end=5199","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901/thumbnail_3815000.jpg","/articles/6381476/Virginia/Crime-commission-recommends-ALPR-limits-including-30-day-retention-and-highway-permitting-by-state-police","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381476-711cdf5444dc26e1f8d39b3c65b825ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152816&Signature=YLFV0w-xY2qjYCL0xZP1B-8KngQYgIBxZFvpZ6tLsx0i6EHGbkwg1J3UHzpESGlyXiLsUVxsm8Rr2YAV1JgGGJx-a2J5O6W6U-Mc4WD2Ay1Tmnq5fVSOh-AKBYIkNzKt8I3phFocMOssVSCBdNcsFhjJrxTd~e93yv0iu3nvlSc10WmZS2UiFwq~HbM3-O6RjqcF3f04rUUKkoKAzQf3uwNAT6EvEb31HA81j62ZS42l986BpoPyyfg4c9VSDamzjtGcSBeMlSAxSU1Sl6usPjWI~nrazBIFxp-f5Z-WEym41neUEDoSZqM7y5x3Dv0eySf9L0ib4wOUeDk8cVSbqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Virginia Crime Commission voted to recommend legislation to regulate automatic license-plate readers (ALPRs), endorsing a framework that limits use, sets a 30-day retention period and establishes vendor and permitting controls.

Staff described the bill as a regulatory package that would allow law enforcement to use ALPRs for defined public-safety purposes — active criminal investigations, missing or endangered-person cases, investigations related to human trafficking and to receive alerts for wanted persons, stolen vehicles and life-safety license-plate matches — while restricting noncriminal uses and commercial sale of data. The draft requires agencies to adopt and publicly post ALPR policies, produce annual usage reports and maintain an audit trail showing who accessed ALPR searches and why.

Among the measures approved were: a 30-day automatic retention limit (with explicit ability to retain records as part of an active criminal investigation), a prohibition on the sale of plate data and limits on sharing, a requirement that agencies verify alerts before making traffic stops, and a vendor-approval process. The bill gives the Virginia State Police sole authority to obtain permits to install ALPR devices on state highways, bridges, tunnels or special structures. Most of the statute would take effect July 1, 2025; the subsection governing the statewide vendor list and related procurement execution was delayed to July 1, 2026, to allow the Division of Purchases and Supply to identify authorized systems.

Public commenters raised privacy and transparency concerns. Chris Kiser, policy director at ACLU of Virginia, acknowledged that 'the group has been critical of ALPRs on privacy and civil liberties grounds' and warned that widespread deployment could change the constitutional analysis around surveillance. Legal Aid Justice Center warned that broad 'investigation' language could be overbroad, urged making vendor contracts subject to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, and asked how the state will prevent cross-jurisdictional federal access to Virginian's data. The Virginia Association Chiefs of Police said ALPRs are a longstanding investigative tool and urged technical clarifications to make the bill operational; the chiefs expressed willingness to work with staff on technical amendments and supported a delayed enactment to resolve those issues.

Commissioners asked staff about the basis for the 30-day retention period; staff said the number reflected a policy compromise based on discussions with law enforcement and comparisons with other states. Staff also said data can be retained beyond 30 days when downloaded as part of an active investigation.

The commission voted to recommend the ALPR legislation by voice vote and then recorded a roll-call result: the measure passed 10-3.

The commission asked staff to continue working with law enforcement and civil-rights organizations to refine operational definitions (for example, what constitutes an 'act of criminal investigation') and contract and reporting language before the bill advances to committee.","The commission recommended legislation to regulate automatic license-plate readers, imposing a 30-day data retention period, limits on permitted uses, vendor approval, public posting requirements and a delayed vendor-approval timeline for state highways.",{"_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},6381481,"Crime commission backs changes to criminal record sealing, adopts seven amendments",2468,1051000,3519000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901&start=1051&end=3519","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2128333-b518d7005ac0a43d9e29fa3caafa6901/thumbnail_1051000.jpg","/articles/6381481/Virginia/Crime-commission-backs-changes-to-criminal-record-sealing-adopts-seven-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6381481-5d72e15857e0bc2c5d8cc18d53e67a50/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152816&Signature=oCK7EujTXlYHXvGKWOGMabu2aEEFTFYGblehXFC2bv8ptN6OOsqB~2MLbt8w9QF5SVXHH8XE26DVtCS~UJWOXF7TDXbW7YQtID--nOJyD6uj52ArGrViJHaM~Fxe57CXc81NM7PE0PVKh0zuqAbFPw5ZMSOyz6eIOrmGYwyRApS1EWajSR9WmekGFIq48NVhhRw8CJ7wQmL1h8Ft2ApW1dKOmeUgHiaIpxCOD824JZ~dLre-CGBPnwoE-184ZDDqYujH0Ta7pedCH07Cm284QnF7s4VZm95XY6Y13vzPb6kDOD5JW40zgux7FiG1JPOBfoHC5oDypytUR9gVINsHcw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Virginia Crime Commission voted to recommend legislation to revise the state's criminal-record sealing process, adopting a package of amendments intended to clarify implementation and limit who may benefit from sealing.

The measure, described to commissioners by staff attorney Colin Stahl as a rewrite of the 'sealing' process in advance of laws taking effect July 2025, would expand automatic sealing for many nonconviction marijuana possession and related charges, create a petition process for records eligible for automatic sealing but not sealed because of clerical or transmission errors, and add explicit rules for ancillary matters such as suspended sentences, probation, parole violations, contempt, failures to appear and bond appeals.

Commissioners said the draft resolved some implementation gaps from the 2021 law but required additional limits. The panel adopted seven amendments during a lengthy debate: requiring payment of restitution before a petition-based sealing, allowing sealed convictions to be used in calculating sentencing guidelines, allowing sealed convictions to be considered at bail determinations, narrowing 'sealing in the moment' to dismissals with prejudice and acquittals, extending the Commonwealth's response time on petitions from 21 to 30 days, excluding certain firearm-related offenses unless the petitioner's firearms rights have been restored, and aligning penalties for improper disclosure with the expungement statute.

Commission members emphasized the distinction between automatic sealing and petition-based sealing. Under the draft, some misdemeanor nonconvictions would be 'sealed in the moment' by court order unless an exception applied; felony automatic-sealing would remain narrower and generally require Commonwealth consent for acquittals or dismissals with prejudice. Staff told the commission the draft also limits access to sealed records to the central criminal records repository (CCRE), law enforcement, courts and the DMV and addresses technical issues flagged by state police and courts.

Debate focused on several practical and public-safety concerns. Delegate Delaney Gilbert, who offered or sponsored many of the adopted amendments, pressed for restitution to victims to be paid before a petitioner could use the petition process. Gilbert said the change would prevent petitioners from 'being in a posture' to seek sealing while owing restitution. The commission approved that amendment by voice vote.

Gilbert also successfully moved to make sealed offenses available for use in calculating sentencing guidelines and for bail determinations, arguing that those uses apply when a person reoffends and should not be shielded by sealing. Commissioners discussed the technical limits of sentencing-guidelines methodology; staff said current law prohibits use of sealed offenses in some contexts but the amendment would explicitly allow guideline writers and those preparing presentence information to see sealed records for new felony sentencing events.

Members also debated 'sealing in the moment' for nolle prosequi dispositions and agreed to treat such misdemeanor dispositions the same as felony dispositions: they will not automatically seal in the moment but remain eligible through the petition process. The commission extended the period for the Commonwealth to respond to sealing petitions from 21 days to 30 days to allow victim notification and consultation with victim-services obligations under the victim's bill of rights.

Firearm offenses prompted extended discussion. Commissioners agreed to exclude from petition eligibility any nonviolent felony in which a firearm was used, unless the petitioner has had firearms rights restored. Staff noted that some firearms-related offenses (reckless handling, brandishing, discharge in public) would remain eligible under the draft because they are class 5 or 6 felonies; the amendment focused on nonviolent felonies in which a firearm was used in the underlying offense.

Public comment drew support from court clerks and court staff. Randy Curran, clerk of the circuit court of Suffolk and a representative of the Virginia Court Clerk's Association, told the commission, \"Our association supports the legislation to include the amendments today. We think it's good and also to include the budgetary portion that is part of it.\" The Office of the Executive Secretary and other court administrators flagged technical and fiscal impacts to case-management systems.

Not all officials supported the measure. An Office of the Attorney General representative, who said she had been philosophically opposed to the legislation, told commissioners she would vote against recommending the draft and called parts of the bill 'one of the most misbegotten, convoluted pieces of legislation' she had seen. Another law-enforcement appointee likewise criticized the bill as a 'concealment bill' and said it could hide serious information from the public and courts.

After debate and the series of amendments, the commission took a roll-call vote and approved recommending the revised sealing bill to the General Assembly. The roll call recorded nine votes in favor and four opposed.

The commission directed staff to continue technical work on implementation issues, including system changes at the state police and courts, and to reflect the adopted amendments in the final draft for legislative referral.

Votes at a glance: The commission voted to recommend the sealing-of-criminal-records legislation as amended; the measure passed on a roll call 9-4.","The Virginia Crime Commission voted to recommend legislation updating the state's criminal-record sealing process, adopting amendments on restitution, sentencing guidelines, bail, firearms, response time, automatic sealing and penalties.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves panel to review Mary Jane Burton cases; adds Attorney General pending ethics opinion

Crime commission recommends ALPR limits, including 30-day retention and highway permitting by state police

Crime commission backs changes to criminal record sealing, adopts seven amendments