2011 Annual Report - Virginia Attorney General

xviii
2011 REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Computer Crime Section also traveled frequently throughout Virginia to speak to
students and parents and deliver the office’s “Safety Net” presentation. “Safety Net”
is an interactive presentation that addresses issues of “cyber-bullying” and “sexting,”
and utilizes a real-life story to demonstrate how easy it is for a predator using very
little personal information to track down a child victim over the Internet.
In addition to investigating and prosecuting computer crimes, the Section serves
as a clearinghouse for information concerning criminal and civil misuses of
computers and the Internet. In 2011, the Section’s investigators handled over 1,000
investigatory leads funneled through the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the
primary, national clearinghouse for computer crime complaints. The Section also
reviewed over 250 notifications from companies experiencing database breaches for
compliance with the database breach notification law contained in Virginia Code §
18.2-186.6.
Correctional Litigation Section
The Correctional Litigation Section represents the Departments of Corrections,
Juvenile Justice, and Correctional Education, the Parole Board and Correctional
Enterprises. Further, the Section represents the Secretary of Public Safety and the
Governor on extradition matters and Commonwealth’s Attorneys on detainer matters.
During 2011, the Section was responsible for handling 105 § 1983 cases, 10
employee grievances, 162 habeas corpus cases, 206 mandamus petitions, 54 inmate
tort claims, 7 warrants in debts, and 414 advice matters. In 2011, the Section handled
several significant matters in the federal district courts, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the circuit courts of the Commonwealth, including 10 trials, 27 hearings,
17 videoconferences and 1 oral argument.
The Section was involved in several notable cases in 2011. In Peyton v. Watson,
which was tried in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia, a Department of Corrections offender brought an Eighth Amendment
excessive force claim alleging that he was assaulted by correctional officers at
Wallens Ridge State Prison. A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and denied,
and after a bench trial, the court awarded judgment in favor of the defendants. In the
United States District Court in Roanoke, the plaintiff in DePaola v. Taylor brought an
Eighth Amendment claim alleging excessive force and failure to protect him.
DePaola alleged that he had been assaulted by correctional officers at Red Onion
State Prison, and that another correctional officer failed to protect him from the
assault. A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed and denied, and the matter was
heard by a seven-member jury. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants.
Additionally, in Burnette v. Virginia Parole Board, counsel filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia a class action suit in which 11
inmates convicted of violent crimes challenged their ongoing Virginia Parole Board
denials of release on discretionary parole. They alleged numerous practices and
procedures that they argued constitute a violation of due process and effectively
abolished parole in violation of the ex post facto clause. Although the judge granted
our Motion to Dismiss, the plaintiffs’ counsel filed a Motion to Vacate the Dismissal
and requested leave to amend their pleadings. The court reaffirmed its decision to
dismiss. The matter is pending on appeal. Lord Versatile v. Johnson, also filed in the
Eastern District, involved members of the Five Percenter security threat group, who