Virginia cracks down on illegal street takeovers and reckless driving
Richmond's Capitol Square with the new General Assembly Building in the background. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/ Virginia Mercury)
Reckless drivers tearing up Virginia's highways and public spaces may soon face tougher penalties, as legislation targeting exhibition driving heads to the governor's desk.
Lawmakers moved swiftly this week, approving legislation that aims to curb street racing, burnouts, and illegal road takeovers — dangerous stunts that have turned deadly in recent years.
Between 2023 and 2024, Virginia circuit courts convicted four defendants for racing that resulted in fatalities, according to legislative records. One average, they served three and a half years in jail.
The problem extends beyond deadly crashes. Data from Virginia's General District Court Case Management System, shows that 126 people were convicted of Class 1 misdemeanor racing over the past two years. While most avoided jail, 42.1% served an average of 20 days behind bars.
Illegal racing and reckless driving incidents have cropped up across the state, from Northern Virginia to Hampton Roads, Richmond and Virginia Beach. One particularly alarming case shared with lawmakers involved a Fairfax County police officer being surrounded by masked participants in a street takeover at 3 a.m. — an event where drivers and spectators block roads for dangerous stunts. Some struck the officer's cruiser in the chaos.
'It's not just an annoyance, it's something that's very, very dangerous and, quite honestly, potentially deadly,' said Del. David Bulova, D-Fairfax, who sponsored House Bill 2036.
Bulova's bill broadens Virginia's reckless driving laws to include exhibition driving—defined as aggressive driving near groups of two or more people. It specifically targets burnouts, doughnuts, drifting, street racing, and illegal takeovers on state highways, as well as driveways and parking lots of churches, schools, recreation centers, and businesses open to the public.
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the proposal will also clarify and enhance some penalties for certain types of driving, 'which you might think could be reckless driving, but don't always constitute reckless driving.'
Drivers caught participating in illegal street takeovers and reckless stunt driving could soon face harsher penalties, including up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine — either or both — under the proposal now headed to Gov. Glenn Youngkin's desk. The measure also calls for a six-month license suspension and vehicle impoundment for offenders behind the wheel.
Passengers aren't off the hook either. Those caught riding on a car's hood or roof during such events would face a $500 fine.
The bill expands Virginia's definition of reckless driving to include injuries and deaths caused by exhibition driving. Under existing state law, street racing that results in injury is a felony punishable by 1 to 20 years in prison. If a death occurs, offenders already face an additional mandatory year behind bars — but the proposal removes that minimum requirement.
A fiscal impact statement from the Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission warns that the proposal could increase demand for bed space and resources at correctional facilities across the commonwealth.
Shortly after discussing the bill in committee, two House lawmakers said they unexpectedly encountered a street takeover not far from the state Capitol in Richmond.
On the night of Feb. 3, at the intersection of North 18th Street and East Broad Street, Dels. Laura Jane Cohen, D-Fairfax, and Elizabeth Bennett-Parker, D-Alexandria, found themselves stopped as a group of motorcyclists — unmasked and without helmets — performed stunts and wheelies in the middle of the road.
Cohen, who was driving behind Bennett-Parker, described the incident as 'minor' but still 'dangerous,' noting the risk posed to cyclists and other drivers stuck at the blocked intersection.
'I already was supportive of the legislation, but it certainly gave a renewed perspective,' Cohen said before the bill's passage.
Some lawmakers raised concerns over the bill's wording, particularly the use of terms like 'close proximity' and 'spectators' in defining exhibition driving. Before it reached the full Senate, Bulova amended the language to remove references to spectators.
Bulova acknowledged that holding onlookers accountable would have strengthened the bill but said a clear-cut solution proved elusive because he and others could not find a solution without inadvertently capturing individuals who happened to be in near vicinity of such events.
With final approval now in Youngkin's hands, Virginia is one step closer to tightening its grip on reckless driving and illegal street stunts.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Democrats urge spiking of Trump watchdog nominee who would ‘traumatize' workforce
Two Democratic committee leaders are urging the Senate to reject the nomination of Paul Ingrassia to lead a top whistleblower office, calling him 'unfit' for the role and arguing he would help the Trump administration 'traumatize the federal workforce and consolidate unchecked power.' Ingrassia, a former podcast host, was nominated last month to lead the Office of the Special Counsel (OSC). He has come under fire for a series of controversial remarks about Jan. 6, 2021, as well as his praise for other right-wing figures. OSC is a unique office within government, one with a dual mission to both enforce the electioneering prohibitions of the Hatch Act and to protect federal employees — fighting unlawful firings and serving as an outlet for whistleblowers. Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, said Ingrassia would not tackle either mission 'without fear or favor.' '[OSC] is an independent guardian of accountability within the executive branch. Mr. Ingrassia's loyalty to Donald Trump over the Constitution, his calls for imposing martial law and celebrating violent January 6th insurrectionists, and his close associations with antisemitic extremists all make it clear that he lacks the temperament, experience, and fundamental constitutional fidelity required to lead this office,' Garcia and Raskin, the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Judiciary committees, wrote in the letter. 'He is not simply unqualified — his confirmation would pose a direct threat to federal whistleblowers, the credibility of the OSC, and the integrity of our oversight institutions.' Ingrassia was previously a writer for the Daily Caller and hosted the podcast Right On Point. He is also an attorney and served on the legal team representing self-described misogynist Andrew Tate. Ingrassia has called Tate, who has been charged with human trafficking in Romania as well as rape in the United Kingdom, the 'embodiment of the ancient ideal of excellence.' In 2020, he said it was 'time for @realDonaldTrump to declare martial law and secure his re-election.' He also said in December that Trump should 'offer reparations to the tune of $1 million per family (at least)' for Jan. 6 defendants. The letter notes that Ingrassia graduated law school three years ago and describes him as being fired from a job at the Justice Department he had at the start of the Trump administration. Various outlets have reported Ingrassia walked the halls of DOJ telling people he was the 'eyes and ears' of the White House and clashed with leadership as he pushed to hire those with 'exceptional loyalty' to Trump. Garcia and Raskin noted numerous Trump officials were cited for Hatch Act violations during Trump's first term. 'It is hard to imagine a nominee less likely to enforce the Hatch Act in a fair and even-handed way if an investigation implicated anyone close to the Trump Administration,' they wrote. The lawmakers also expressed fear for whistleblowers, who often report matters to OSC if they fear they will face retribution at their own agencies. 'When whistleblowers come forward, they are speaking truth to power. They do so at great personal risk to bring transparency where secrecy and misconduct might otherwise prevail. Yet Mr. Ingrassia has time and again made clear that he is blindly loyal to the President—a view that is utterly disqualifying for any position of public trust, but particularly one charged with defending the rights of whistleblowers,' they wrote. The White House defended their selection in a Thursday statement. 'Paul Ingrassia is a respected attorney who has served President Trump exceptionally well and will continue to do so as the next head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The eleventh-hour smear campaign will not deter the President from supporting this nomination, and the administration continues to have full confidence in his ability to advance the President's agenda,' said White House spokesman Harrison Fields. Trump fired previous special counsel Hampton Dellinger, despite his Senate confirmation to a five-year term, amid his battle to restore fired federal workers to their posts after the Trump administration booted federal workers still in their probationary period. Dellinger, who sued to keep this job, was initially reinstated to his post, but ended his legal battle after an appeals court declined to keep him in his role while the case continued. His departure also meant the end of the OSC's battle to protect fired probationary workers, and the office has since shifted its position on the matter. The Thursday letter is the first from Garcia since his election to serve as the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. A hearing date for Ingrassia has not yet been set by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, but the lawmakers encouraged the panel to reject his nomination. 'President Trump wants to appoint Mr. Ingrassia because he knows that this nominee will treat treasonous, secessionist rhetoric as acceptable political discourse; reward extremism instead of condemning it; and work to tear down, not build up, the democratic institutions we have sworn to protect,' the two lawmakers wrote. 'The ultimate victims of Mr. Ingrassia's installation as special counsel would be the brave civil servant whistleblowers, the credibility of the federal workforce and civil servants, and the American people they serve.'
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: With silencer regulations, public safety needs to come before the gun industry
To the editor: Oh, please. Republican legislators are whining about the accessibility of firearm silencers under the guise of hearing protection ('GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns,' June 23). Rather than using personal ear protection when shooting, they would prefer more silencers in our communities, thereby putting their fellow citizens at risk of being injured or killed during a shooting because they didn't hear gunfire or were unable to discern the direction from which it was coming. It is galling that Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, the owner of two gun stores, is shilling for the gun industry to reduce silencer regulation. Making silencers more accessible would increase sales and line his pockets. Legislators should concern themselves with public safety rather than doing the bidding of the gun industry. Firearms are the leading cause of death of American children and teens. Can't Republicans think of anything productive they might do to help solve that problem? Loren Lieb, Northridge .. To the editor: So Republicans in Congress want potential mass shooters, school shooters and presidential assassins to have ready access to silencers and sawed-off shotguns without being subject to a background check or paying a tax. Tell me this: How is a good guy with a gun supposed to stop a bad guy with a gun if he doesn't know where the shots are coming from? If only Senate Republicans had thought to pass similar legislation back in 2022 before 19 elementary school kids and two teachers were slaughtered in Uvalde, Texas. Instead of being ridiculed for failing to immediately confront the 18-year-old school shooter, the Uvalde police and Texas Rangers could have said, 'Well, we didn't go in because we didn't know the whereabouts of the shooter.' Patricia Holloway, San Clemente
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
What this Trump nominee says about his potential SCOTUS picks
President Donald Trump's first term was marked by a contentious and ultimately wildly successful campaign to overhaul the federal judiciary — one that dominated the Senate floor calendar for nearly four years straight and occasionally exploded in partisan fury. Now, with Trump dealing with unpredictable foreign crises and a sprawling domestic policy megabill, judge nominations have been almost an afterthought in the White House and on Capitol Hill. That changed Wednesday, when Emil Bove — Trump's former personal lawyer, now a top Justice Department official — appeared for the Senate Judiciary Committee for a fiery hearing on his nomination to an appeals court judgeship. The decision to nominate Bove, and the apparent willingness of Republican senators to fall in line behind him, suggests Trump is embracing a new kind of judicial pick as he continues to face significant resistance to his governing decisions in the federal courts. Bove, 44, faced intense questioning from panel Democrats who pressed on his loyalty to the president as reflected not only in his private representation of Trump but his actions as principal associate deputy attorney general. Those include dismissing prosecutors tied to cases involving the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, ending the corruption prosecution of New York City Mayor Eric Adams and pursuing the administration's deportation agenda. 'Bove has led the effort to weaponize the Department of Justice against the president's enemies,' said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Judiciary Democrat. 'Having earned his stripes as a loyalist to this president, he's been rewarded with a lifetime nomination.' The tenor of Wednesday's hearing suggested that there is no detente in sight in the escalating partisan fight over federal judges, which reached a crescendo in 2018 with the searing confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The only check on the rancor might be the fact that there are relatively few judicial vacancies for Trump to fill at the moment. According to the U.S. court system, there are just about 50 across the country, the vast majority of which are on district courts. The president's first slate of judicial nominees, including a pick for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, is poised to have a vote Thursday before the Judiciary Committee. There are, however, three Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices 70 or over who are considered possible candidates for retirement over the next three-and-a-half years. Trump's willingness to nominate Bove — and to weather a hardball confirmation fight when a lesser-known nominee might have had an easier time — suggests he won't hesitate to tap another loyalist when a high-court slot opens up. With a potential lifetime appointment to the 3rd Circuit, with jurisdiction over appeals from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands, Bove himself could emerge as a SCOTUS short-list candidate if confirmed. The questioning Wednesday appeared to underscore the high stakes. Democrats questioned Bove about the pardons of Jan. 6 convicts and his role in the removal of the line prosecutors who sent them to jail. The issue was effective in sinking one prior Trump nominee: his initial pick for U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a Judiciary member up for next year, effectively tanked his chances by objecting to Martin's comments minimizing the Capitol riot. (Tillis said Wednesday he has not yet taken a position on Bove's nomination. 'Honestly I haven't discussed it with my staff yet,' he said.) Democrats also seized on the Justice Department's decision to abandon the Adams prosecution — a controversial order from Bove himself that triggered the resignation of at least 6 prosecutors in New York and Washington. In her resignation letter, then-acting Manhattan U.S. attorney Danielle Sassoon accused Bove of engaging in a corrupt deal to drop the case in exchange for the Democratic mayor's support of Trump's immigration policies. Asked during the hearing to swear to his 'higher being' that he didn't make a 'political deal' with Adams, Bove replied: 'I swear to my higher being and on every bone in my body.' But Bove also said that he ordered the case dismissed based on 'policy considerations,' explaining that 'the prosecution placed an inordinate burden on the mayor's ability to protect the city and to campaign in an ongoing election cycle.' Using that logic, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said, 'there would be two classes of justice – one for people who are in office and one for everyone else.' Bove also denied allegations from a former DOJ official that he suggested defying court orders for the administration's deportation agenda. 'I am not anybody's henchman,' Bove told senators. 'I am not an enforcer. I am a lawyer from a small town who never expected to be in an arena like this.' Republicans rallied to Bove's defense, with the tone set early in the hearing by Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who noted that the nominee had seen an 'intense opposition campaign' and extolled his credentials as a former prosecutor. Democrats, on the other hand, cast the fight over Bove's nomination as one of grave significance for the rule of law, echoing a familiar fight from Trump's first term. Indeed, federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties have been some of the most effective checks on Trump's power early in his second term — much to the president's frustration. Yet Democrats have little power to stop Trump's nominees so long as Republican senators stick together. With a 53-vote Senate majority, GOP leaders can lose several votes and still confirm Trump's picks with Vice President JD Vance as a tie-breaker. Democrats also lack the benefit of the 'blue slip' policy that gives home-state senators effective veto power over court nominees. Republicans abandoned the practice for circuit judges during Trump's first term, one of the procedural changes in the Senate that allowed the party to confirm hundreds of judicial nominees during those four years. Democrats maintained the practice after they won control of the Senate and Joe Biden won the presidency. Among those attending Wednesday's hearing were Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — Bove's supervisors at the Justice Department. Blanche and Bove worked together as Trump's criminal defense attorneys, including during last year's criminal trial that resulted in his conviction on 34 felony counts of business fraud. Bondi defended Trump during his first impeachment trial. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) contended that Bondi and Blanche attended for the sole purpose of 'whip[ping] the Republicans into shape, to make sure that they toe the line.' 'They were there to send a message to Republicans: We are watching you,' Blumenthal said during a news conference after Bove's testimony. 'They were there to watch members of this committee, the Republicans, whom they expect simply to fall into line.' Bove wasn't the only Trump nominee answering questions about his loyalty to the president Wednesday. Edward L. Artau, one of four district court nominees to also appear before Senate Judiciary members, was asked by Blumenthal why he did not recuse himself from a case involving Trump after he began lobbying for a federal judgeship. POLITICO previously reported that Artau, a state judge, was lobbying for a seat on the federal bench while he sat on a three-judge panel in Trump's defamation case against the board of the Pulitzer Prizes. Asked by Blumenthal why he did not recuse himself, Artau maintained that he abided by the relevant judicial conduct rule. He said he did not know he was under consideration from the White House at the time he wrote the opinion. 'Had the timing been differently, then I may have handled it differently,' Artau said. Calen Razor contributed to this report.
