Senate committee backs bill recognizing the Public Safety Assessment for pretrial review

The Senate Courts of Justice subcommittee on Monday voted to report SB 714, a bill that recognizes the Public Safety Assessment (PSA) as an acceptable pretrial risk-assessment tool and changes statutory language so interviews of defendants are discretionary rather than mandatory.

The sponsor said the bill reflects current practice where pretrial officers sometimes cannot conduct in-person interviews and that the PSA better captures the data judges need at arraignment. "The Public Safety Assessment... is a nationally used and recognized tool," said Gary Hughes of the Virginia Community Criminal Justice Association, who testified in support.

The bill's backers said the PSA supplies judges with consistent, data-driven risk indicators (failure to appear and risk of new or violent crime) even when an interview cannot occur. Tracy Lennox, chief public defender for Prince William County, described her county as an early adopter and said the PSA "results in more information for judges, commonwealth's attorneys, and public defenders at arraignment" and that interviews can still be conducted when necessary.

Opponents and some committee members pressed whether the change would reduce interviews in practice, especially in rural areas where officers face long travel and workload constraints. Senator Perry, drawing on his experience as a former pretrial officer, said in-person interviews "provide much more information"—for example, medical or employment verification—that automated tools may miss.

Patrons and supporters said the bill does not prohibit interviews, and an amendment clarified that assessments may include defendant interviews while not requiring them. The committee adopted amendments to tighten language and then voted to report the bill. The clerk recorded the final roll as nine in favor, three opposed and one abstention.

The committee's action moves SB 714 to the Senate floor for further consideration. Supporters said the change will make arraignment decisions more uniformly data-driven; critics asked legislative staff and agencies to monitor whether interviews decline in practice and to report any unintended consequences.