Two surveillance technology bills that passed the General Assembly are awaiting action from Gov. Glenn Youngkin.
If signed into law, both could set up frameworks and reporting mechanisms regarding the use of such technology by law enforcement agencies across Virginia. If vetoed, that technology could remain unregulated.
State of Surveillance
Read more about public-facing surveillance technology in Southwest and Southside Virginia in part one of Cardinal’s State of Surveillance investigation.
Both bills were developed based on recommendations by the Virginia Crime Commission. The commission is a criminal justice agency under the legislative branch that was established by statute to study, report and make recommendations on all areas of public safety and protection.
The two bills, HB 2724 by Del. Charniele Herring, D-Arlington, and HB 2725 by Del. Sam Rasoul, D-Roanoke, would add guardrails to the use of technology that is already in place at a number of law enforcement agencies across the commonwealth.
Managing how, and where, automatic license plate recognition systems can be used
Herring’s bill, regarding the use of automatic license plate recognition systems, or ALPRs, underwent many iterations as it made its way through the General Assembly. It even suffered a brief death in a Senate committee before it was revived and amended, but at its core, it has remained the same throughout the legislative process.
“The bill puts restrictions on the data retention, the use of license plate readers in Virginia. There will finally be restrictions on the use as well as a reporting requirement to the crime commission so that legislators can monitor its use,” Herring said.
As it passed the House in early February, the bill would have allowed the Department of Transportation to permit state law enforcement to install cameras on the rights of way of state roads and keep data collected by ALPRs for up to 30 days, and it would have established an audit of law enforcement use of the technology.
Herring noted that there are already cameras on land abutting state roadways in locations undisclosed to the state and that the permitting process would allow state agencies to obtain and maintain a record of where the cameras are installed going forward.
The bill passed the Senate in late February with changes: The 30-day period was amended down to 21 days, and a delay in the permitting of cameras on state road rights of way was included through a reenactment clause. The addition of the reenactment clause means the permitting won’t happen this year and will need to be voted on by the General Assembly during the 2026 session before it can take place. The two bills were sent to a conference committee to rectify their differences.
The final iteration of the bill that was sent to Youngkin includes the reenactment clause. The governor could amend the bill to cut the clause and allow for the expansion to happen sooner. If that were to happen, the General Assembly would need to take up the governor’s amendment during its April 2 veto session.
As written, the bill also exempts system data and audit trail data from disclosure under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
“I am hopeful that the guardrails and parameters that we put in remain in place, because we have nothing right now,” Herring said. “We already know that there has been some positive public safety outcomes with the cameras with finding active shooters or missing persons but I think it will just help give us an idea how they’re being used.”
Kristen Howard, executive director of the Virginia Crime Commission, concurred.
“At the end of the day, it’s important to note that if nothing is passed by this General Assembly or signed by the governor, the use of ALPRs will become completely unregulated,” Howard said. “If nothing is done, then we will be in a position where there will be absolutely no regulation on the use of this technology.”
Keeping an eye on third-party surveillance
Rasoul’s bill, which passed the General Assembly without a single “no” vote in committee or on the floor, expands on a 2024 effort to put guardrails on the use of surveillance technology.
That bill, which was also patroned by Rasoul, sought to define the technology and launch an effort to analyze where and how it’s used at the local and state levels.
“The crime commission took that new section of the code that was passed last year and analyzed that and came up with recommendations for improving that section of the code to ensure all surveillance technology is, in fact, captured,” Rasoul said. “This is included for people’s fundamental rights.”
The commission learned that law enforcement agencies needed more clarity and instruction regarding the reports they were required to provide on the surveillance technology they use, which prompted them to work with Rasoul on the 2025 bill.
This year’s bill, HB 2725, received unanimous support in both General Assembly chambers, and Rasoul said he anticipates Youngkin’s signature.
“I know people are worried about how technology is certainly impacting their privacy,” he said. “This at least gives us a baseline to move forward in understanding what technologies are out there.”
If the bill is signed by Youngkin, it would expand upon the 2024 legislation to include third-party surveillance. All state and local law enforcement agencies would be required to provide a list each year of the surveillance technology they use to the state government in addition to the crime commission and the Joint Commission on Technology and Services.