THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, April 18, 1996 TAG: 9604180363
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY ROBERT LITTLE, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
Distressed that a Suffolk legislator skirted an indecent exposure charge and a House aide sought immunity from drunken-driving laws, state lawmakers said Wednesday they will reconsider Virginia's legislative immunity privilege.
In the state Senate, a bill to kill the immunity laws outright already has enough support to pass during next year's legislative session.
``You're going to see that repealed, in my opinion,'' said Sen. Richard J. Holland, D-Isle of Wight.
``The perception is that politicians get away with enough already,'' said Sen. Edward L. Schrock, R-Virginia Beach. ``The horse-and-buggy days are over, and it's time to get rid of that law.''
But it might not be that simple.
The law granting legislators and their aides immunity from misdemeanor arrests during legislative sessions dates to Colonial times. In Virginia, it was linked to an incident in the 1600s, when the King's governor arrested a lawmaker on his way to Jamestown to keep him from voting in the House of Burgesses.
The immunity privilege was granted to protect lawmakers from intimidation by people with arrest powers. And while the days are gone when legislators were muscled by crooked sheriffs and the king's henchmen, many modern-day lawmakers think the immunity principle is still valid.
``It would be difficult for anyone to vote against the idea, for political reasons,'' said Sen. John S. Edwards, D-Roanoke. ``But the idea is that our jobs as legislators should not be interfered with. That still holds true.''
Particularly in the House of Delegates, some lawmakers said they are more apt to alter the immunity laws than scrap them altogether. That could mean stripping the privilege from clerks and aides, while still protecting General Assembly members from the influence of anyone with arrest powers.
And members would likely clarify that lawmakers are only immune from physical arrest, not from being charged with a crime. ``It does not prevent prosecution, it merely delays prosecution,'' said Del. Clifton A. ``Chip'' Woodrum, D-Roanoke.
Del. H. Morgan Griffith, R-Salem, suggested clarifying the law to stress that legislators can be charged after the annual General Assembly session, if necessary. ``That doubt ought to be removed,'' he said.
The immunity issue vaulted out of obscurity this February when an aide to Lt. Gov. Donald S. Beyer Jr. was pulled over for speeding near Richmond. The police officer did not ticket the aide, claiming he had legislative immunity. That decision - which Beyer called an error - touched off debate over just who the immunity law should protect and when it should be enforced.
Earlier this month, Del. Robert Nelms, R-Suffolk, used the privilege to have an indecent exposure charge thrown out of court in Richmond. The charge will likely be reinstated against Nelms, who claims he was urinating when police arrested him in a city park.
And last month, an assistant clerk for the House of Delegates claimed immunity during her trial on a drunken-driving charge. The judge rejected the claim, convicted her and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
The General Assembly adjourned for the year Wednesday, completing a one-day session to consider vetoes from the governor. Lawmakers will not be able to consider changing the immunity laws until they reconvene in January.
Repealing the law would require a constitutional amendment, which must pass the legislature in two successive years and be approved by statewide referendum.
KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY VETO SESSION by CNB