I am submitting these comments in my capacity as a journalist who has spent nearly 20 years covering courts, law enforcement, and crimes involving sexual violence and children in West Virginia.

The intent behind §61-8B-19 — protecting the identities of victims of sex crimes — is valid and necessary. No responsible journalist disputes that goal. However, in practice, the statute has produced unintended consequences that undermine transparency, consistency, and public safety.

By sealing arrest-stage court records for a wide range of serious offenses, the statute restricts access to documents that have historically been public, including criminal complaints and warrants. These records do not exist to satisfy curiosity; they exist to ensure accountability, public awareness, and trust in the justice system.

The result has been a significant public safety gap. In many cases, the public does not learn that a person has been accused of a serious sex crime until weeks or months later, often when the case reaches circuit court. By that point, opportunities for community awareness, institutional safeguards, and additional victim reporting may already have passed.

The statute has also created widespread inconsistency in magistrate courts across the state. Some magistrates release records with redactions. Others refuse to release them at all. Magistrates and magistrate court clerks frequently express uncertainty about what the law permits. As a result, access to public records varies depending on geography rather than law, which erodes confidence in the system.

Importantly, repeal of §61-8B-19 does not require the disclosure of victim identities. Victims can and should be protected through targeted redaction, the use of initials, and removal of identifying details — practices already used successfully by many courts and police officers tasked with writing these documents.

Sealing entire records is not the only method of victim protection, and it is not the most precise one. A more narrowly tailored approach would protect victims while preserving the public’s right to know when serious criminal charges have been filed.

House Bill 4468 restores balance. It supports victim protection, promotes consistent court practices, and reinforces the long-standing principle of open courts. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the passage of House Bill 4468.

DUI is not taken seriously in WV. This is a great bill.

WVRSOL'sa public comments on HB 5341 (subcommittee substitute) HB 5341 establishes a publicly accessible Domestic Violence Offender Registry within the State Police. While the committee substitute improves the original bill by:

• Eliminating retroactive application
• Limiting publicly displayed data
• Revising fee allocation

It retains a fundamental flaw: there is no empirical evidence that public offender registries reduce recidivism or prevent abuse. Over 25 years of research on analogous registry systems demonstrates no measurable deterrent effect. Public registries often produce collateral consequences—housing instability, employment barriers, and social marginalization—without corresponding public safety gains. Additionally, HB 5341 raises constitutional concerns:

• The bill references “patterns of abuse” and “ongoing risk” but provides no statutory definitions, risk assessment tools, or evidentiary standards.
• It does not create a structured periodic review mechanism tied to the legislative intent language.
• Public Internet publication risks being deemed punitive in effect.

Domestic violence prevention requires:

• Evidence-based intervention programs
• Risk-based supervision
• Survivor services funding
• Targeted accountability mechanisms

Creating another public registry may be politically appealing, but it lacks data support. We urge lawmakers to reject HB 5341 or significantly amend it to remove the public registry component and incorporate defined, individualized judicial risk assessments with periodic review. Public safety deserves policies grounded in evidence, constitutional clarity, and measurable outcomes.