The Republitarian

RICHMOND – A new report from the Virginia State Police (VSP) reveals a massive expansion in automated speed enforcement across the Commonwealth, with civil penalties collected from photo speed monitoring devices topping $54 million in 2025.

The “2026 Report on Photo Speed Monitoring Device Usage,” submitted to the General Assembly by VSP Superintendent Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, details a year of record-breaking growth for the controversial safety technology. According to the data, which spans January 1 through December 31, 2025, the number of law enforcement agencies participating in the program jumped to 49, a significant increase from just 13 agencies three years prior.

Sky-High Violations and Revenue

The report highlights a staggering 957,780 violations prosecuted during the 2025 calendar year. Of those, 607,899 resulted in successful prosecutions, which include both court convictions and penalties paid in lieu of an appearance.

While the law caps individual fines at $100, the sheer volume of infractions has created a significant financial stream.

• School Crossing Zones: Remained the primary source of activity, generating $34.4 million from over 656,000 violations.
• Highway Work Zones: Though fewer in number, these zones were highly active, netting $19.6 million in penalties.

New Kent County emerged as a major hub for enforcement, collecting more than $7.1 million in penalties—the highest of any single agency in the report—largely driven by monitoring on Interstate 64. Other high-revenue localities included Suffolk ($6.5 million) and Arlington County ($3.6 million).

Safety vs. Surveillance

Authorized under Virginia Code § 46.2-882.1, these devices use radar or LIDAR to capture images of vehicles exceeding posted limits by at least 10 mph. Proponents argue the systems are essential for protecting “sensitive areas” like school crossings and work zones. The data shows some evidence of a “calming effect” on traffic; in several zones, such as at Francis C. Hammond Middle School in Alexandria, average speeds dropped from 26 mph during the warning period to 22 mph once active enforcement began.

However, the program remains a point of contention for some motorists. Unlike traditional speeding tickets, these are civil penalties that do not add demerit points to a driving record or impact insurance premiums. Critics often point to this distinction as evidence that the programs are designed more for revenue than for rigorous law enforcement.

Where the Money Goes

The destination of the $54,096,163 collected depends on who issued the ticket:

• Localities retain fines issued by local police.
• State Police fines are diverted to the Literary Fund, which supports public education.
• High-Risk Intersection penalties (though none were reported in 2025) are earmarked for the Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program.

As the 2026 legislative session continues, lawmakers will likely weigh this massive revenue growth against ongoing public concerns regarding privacy and the transparency of how these automated zones are selected.

The entire 154-page report may be found here.

At tonight’s meeting of the Rockingham County School Board, District Three Member apparently suggested that the five school board members undergo criminal background checks, though the author would suggest that as creations of statutes, there is no statute that authorizes this under current or pending Virginia law.

No statute in Title 22.1—or elsewhere in the Code of Virginia—extends criminal background check requirements to members of local public school boards. School board members are statutory officers selected by election or appointment, not by employment contract, and the General Assembly has not imposed a consent-to-background-check requirement as a qualification for office.

Under settled principles of Virginia local-government law, a school board possesses only those powers expressly granted by statute or necessarily implied. In the absence of express statutory authorization, a school board may not impose additional qualifications or conditions—such as mandatory background checks on its own members.

The author believes that this may be an attempt to allow people to float disparanging and defamatory attacks against the District Five School Board member to “dirty” that member up so a prior, failed candidate or her apparatchiks to float the same bullshit as they did in the 2023 School Board election.

There is a shitload of questions that needs to be addressed by the cheerleader representing District Three, and I’ll list some of those questions here:

• Tell us all the statutory authority for running background checks on your and your peers.
• Exactly what are you looking for by running background checks on your peers? In other words, tell us all what you’re looking for, otherwise it’s presumed that the electorate vetting the candidates during their respective campaigns was likely sufficient.
• Exactly who would see the results of the background checks once they are accomplished and what would they do with the information?
• If the background checks on your and your peers came back “clear”, would you then seek to have you and your peers “run” through databases controlled by the Virginia Department of Social Services?
• Exactly who would see the results of the VDSS screening once they are accomplished and what would they do with the information?
• If the background checks and screening both came back clear, would you insist on credit reports for you and your peers?
• Perhaps you’d spend taxpayer money to hire a private investigator to go through District and Circuit Court records, perhaps to dig up something as simple has multiple speeding tickets which resulted in numerous dismissals across several jurisdictions by one member, or perhaps divorce records which may indicate behavior which some may consider to be unethical by a school board members. Perhaps simply lying on your application to be endorsed? But then, all of these questions come back to one: who is going to see the background checks and what is going to be done with the information?

In the author’s opinion, perhaps the School Board might pass a policy requiring background checks on their employees on a yearly basis? I was stunned to learn that my wife, a career School Counselor at Spotswood High School had not had a background check since before she was hired by RCPS…some 30-plus years before she retired some years ago, which is odd because everytime I purchase a firearm, I’m background checked. Furthermore, my profession as a Notary Public requires me to submit a background on a yearly basis to maintain my ability to conduct real estate closings, and I can assure you that the $90 I pay annually is significantly more than the $35 or so paid to acquire backgrounds from the Central Criminal Records Exchange for each employee.

This is a waste of School Board time and energy, energy that could be better spent by having our District Three School Board member continue to take self-serving pictures with our District Three Supervisor on the Rockingham County Board of Supervisors, while they shovel snow.