Dear Delegate,   I recognize that our state has a workforce problem and that there are many angles we can take to address this, however I don’t think our workforce should be built on the backs of our children. The first part of HB 4005 expands apprenticeship programs and seems appropriate, but I’m very concerned about the reduction in age limitations for workers that is written into the second half of this bill.  I look forward to hearing a healthy discussion in your committee today about the implications of HB 4005 as it relates to the balance of economic/workforce needs and child welfare.   Thank you for your consideration Bekah Aranda, Morgantown

Test comment from Judiciary staff to see how public comments are displayed. For reference only.

I respectfully oppose House Bill 4034.

Public schools exist to serve students of all faiths and of no faith. Requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom crosses the constitutional line between freedom of religion and government endorsement of religion.

The language in this bill is not neutral or historical. It mandates a specific religious text, in a specific translation, presented prominently in every classroom. That is not about teaching history or civic values. It is a government requirement to display a religious doctrine, which directly conflicts with the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

West Virginia’s public schools educate Christian students, Jewish students, Muslim students, Hindu students, students of Indigenous traditions, and students who do not practice any religion. This bill elevates one religious tradition above all others and sends a clear message to many students that their beliefs, or lack thereof, are less welcome in their own classrooms.

I am also concerned about the precedent this bill sets. If the state can mandate the display of one religious text, it opens the door to political and religious pressure on schools that distracts from their core mission: educating children. Public schools should not be battlegrounds for religious or ideological mandates.

Parents already have the right to teach their children religious values at home and through their faith communities. That freedom is not under threat. What is under threat is the principle that public schools remain inclusive spaces governed by constitutional protections, not religious requirements.

West Virginia has many pressing education needs: teacher retention, classroom resources, student mental health, and academic outcomes. This bill does not address those needs.

For these reasons, I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4034.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I oppose House Bill 4038.

This bill limits the rights of rural landowners to use their own property by arbitrarily restricting wind power development. Many landowners choose wind projects because they provide steady lease income that helps keep farms intact, pay property taxes, and support family land that has been held for generations.

Capping wind permits and discouraging new projects reduces local tax revenue and economic activity in rural counties that already struggle to fund schools, roads, and emergency services. These projects bring construction jobs, long-term operations work, and dependable income without extracting or degrading the land.

The provision that reduces coal severance taxes for each new wind project further destabilizes county and municipal budgets by tying local revenue to political decisions instead of predictable tax policy.

West Virginians should not be forced to choose between energy industries. Rural communities deserve the freedom to pursue economic opportunities that work for their land, their families, and their counties.

I urge lawmakers to reject HB 4038.

This is a topic I am very passionate about. I’ve been riding motorcycles since I was 12 years old (a highway purpose motorcycle since 16) and it has always been so freeing and exciting to go to neighboring states like Ohio and Kentucky that let the rider decide if they want to wear a helmet. The issue with the helmet law is that the riders in WV who don’t want to wear one (including myself) just find the most bare bones, cheap, small, and comparatively unsafe helmet to wear (most of which aren’t legitimately approved by the DOT) just so they can avoid getting into legal trouble. Another issue with the helmet law is that riders from states like Ohio and Kentucky will avoid West Virginia just so they don’t have to wear a helmet, or simply because they just don’t have one. There’s multiple implications to this law that in my opinion make it the right choice to do away with it. Motorcycling by nature is already extremely dangerous, we know this. However let the ones who ride decide the kind of protection they want to wear.

OPPOSITION Response to HB 4135

To allow police access to all photo information upon arrest for sex offenders.

January 14, 2026

House Judiciary Committee: West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offence Laws (WVRSOL) is a West Virginia non-profit association and an affiliate of the National Association for Rational Sexual Offence Laws (NARSOL), which advocates for society’s segment that is adversely affected by the sex offender registry. We help families impacted by the registry, seek ways to maintain and improve public safety, recommend prudent use of state funding in this area, and work to ensure that proposed legislation is constitutional. WVRSOL opposes HB 4135 because its language is vague, fails intermediate scrutiny, and is unconstitutional on several grounds. HB 4135 has vague language and requirements.

1. The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2 (d)(8) remove the requirement to provide “screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet and add the requirement to provide:
   • Any “online identifier” used by the registrant, which includes:
     • Any email address information, instant message, or chat information;
     • A social networking platform account name or identifier;
     • Any identifier used for communicating on a mobile application or internet website;
     • A mobile telephone number;
     • Any mobile device identification information; and
     • Any other similar internet communication name.

2. First, neither screen names, user names, aliases, nor IP addresses are included in the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” schema; as such, if the bill’s purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck, NOT expanded. Moreover, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
3. Second, while “email address,” “instant message,” or “chat” may not need further elaboration, the statute does not define nor limit the scope of “social networking platform,” “mobile device identification,” or “other similar internet communication name” information.” Does this include usernames and passwords? What about information for commercial transactions or pure political speech?
4. Third, the law does not specify what local law enforcement or other government officials can do with the identifier information they receive. Under what circumstances, if any, can they disseminate it to the public? What about for internal use? Can the state peruse identifier information at its leisure or only to investigate a specific type of crime?
5. Fourth, how can requiring individuals to disclose their identifier information within three days of an update be seen as anything other than highly onerous and deeply burdening protected speech?

 HB 4135 doesn’t meet the intermediate scrutiny standard.

1. The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements do not withstand intermediate scrutiny.
   • The statute chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime.
   • The statute has not defined whether or how law enforcement uses internet identifiers to protect the public against the commission of sex crimes.
   • The statute has not defined how the information may or may not be released to the public or how the public could effectively use it to protect themselves.
   • Finally, the current statute and proposed updates (collectively, internet reporting requirements) have not been shown by other states and jurisdictions to serve any government interest, much less a significant interest. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)

HB 4135 is unconstitutional on several fronts.

1. The constitutional problems with the existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) internet-identifier reporting requirements are both readily apparent and significant.
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants chills a wide swath of speech activity—regardless of whether such activity could further the commission of a sex crime and violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
   • Collecting internet identifiers from registrants does not meet the intermediate scrutiny standard. Other states and jurisdictions have not shown that it serves any government interest, much less a significant one. (Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209—Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024), 2024)
   • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed.” (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences. Specific examples of the punitive nature of this bill are:
     • Piling on onerous restrictions retroactively that are not supported in research or empirical evidence (Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 39 A.3d 200, 209 N.J. 595 2012); and
     • Providing for a felony penalty for non-compliance.
   • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Doe v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d 672 E.D. Mich. 2015).
   • The existing and proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) Internet-identifier reporting requirements are overbroad.
     • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.”(FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
     • HB 4135 applies to “All registrants,” not just those whose offense involved or had an internet component.
2. The constitutional problems with the proposed updates to §15-12-2. (d)(8) “The registrant shall permit inspection of his or her mobile device to verify all identifiers for mobile applications used by the registrant are provided.” is also both readily apparent and significant.
   • Requiring all registrants, regardless of parole, probation, or supervised status, is overbroad.
     • • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
       • HB 4135 applies to “all registrants,” not just those on parole, probation, or under supervision.
   • Requiring registrants performing their civil regulatory reporting duties under §15-12-2 who are not on parole, probation, or supervision to submit to a search and seizure of their person and effects represents an unreasonable search and seizure. It clearly violates the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment (Fourth Amendment Library of Congress, n.d.)and Article III, Section 6 of the West Virginia Constitution. (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.)

WVRSOL supports legislation that reduces abuse and sexual offenses, helps children and families, and improves public safety. Unfortunately, HB 4135 does none of these things. Therefore, we oppose and respectfully urge the House, its members, and the House Judiciary Committee to reject HB 4135.  

Works Cited

Cornelio v. Connecticut, No. 3:19-CV-1240 (JAM), 2023 WL 5979996 (D. Conn. Sept. 14, 2023). https://casetext.com/case/cornelio-v-connecticut-3 Doe A et al v. Whitmer et al, No. 2:2022cv10209 - Document 158 (E.D. Mich. 2024) (September 27, 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/michigan/miedce/2:2022cv10209/359651/158/ Does v. Snyder. No. 15-1536. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. 25 August 2016. FindLaw Legal Dictionary. 1996. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law. 27 February 2017. http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/overbroad.html>. Fourth Amendment | Browse | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2026, from https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-4/ Riley v. New Jersey State Parole Board, 39 A.3d 200, 209 N.J. 595 2012 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12914673643919845255&q=Riley+v+New+Jersey+State+Parole+Board&hl=en&as_sdt=6,49 West Virginia Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved January 14, 2026, from https://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/wv_con.cfm?lv=true#articleIII

I don’t pretend to understand every aspect of gender identity, but I do understand what happens when politics turns people into symbols instead of neighbors.

HB4143 doesn’t address an urgent problem facing West Virginia. Instead, it sets rigid definitions that would affect many areas of law and policy, with long-term consequences that are difficult to undo. Laws like this don’t reduce conflict. They escalate it, while placing real families and children in the middle.

I ask the Legislature to focus on policies that improve safety, health, and opportunity for all West Virginians, rather than advancing legislation that feels designed to win a political argument rather than solve a real problem.

As a mental health provider in Randolph County, it took me nearly a year to be fully credentialed by Medicaid.  Credentialing obstacles deter providers from practice and Medicaid acceptance. Thank you for proposing a solution!

I am Michael Brandon Cochran's mother. Michael was a healthy 38 year old young man. He loved life. He was so blessed and loved his 2 children. He loved his wife and he trusted her. He never thought she would murder him - but she did. On Feb. 6, 2019, Michael collapsed in the kitchen of his home; he was unresponsive. His wife, Natalie Paige Cochran, let my son lay in his home on the couch for more than 8 hours, never rendering aid or medical treatment to Michael Brandon - until a friend came by several hours later and physically drove Michael to RGH E.R. Michael had a blood sugar of 21 and he was not a diabetic. By the time Michael was taken to the E.R., the damage to his brain was irreversible and he never woke up from his coma. Early on Feb. 6, 2019, Natalie Cochran injected my son with insulin, one time or more times - and murdered him. She knew what she was doing because she was a Doctor of Pharmacy. Michael Brandon would have recovered had he received treatment early, however Natalie would not let this happen. There were multiple people in the home throughout all hours of the day that Natalie had called to come - I really don't understand why no one called the police or 911, or just picked Michael up and drove him to the hospital - because by looking at him on the couch anyone could tell Michael was in distress and definitely not himself. Michael was intubated at RGH, transported to CAMC and was in this  hospital for 5 days. Michael never recovered, and the devil took him to Bowers Hospice House where they continued to end Michael's life. Throughout this horrific ordeal, Michael was fighting to live, he was fighting to breathe. He took his last breath at 12:18am on Feb. 11, 2019. Michael Brandon was tortured and tormented, and died a horrible death. Jan 13, 2025 - Jan. 30, 2025, there was a murder trial that lasted almost 3 weeks. Natalie Cochran was convicted of 1st degree murder of my Michael Brandon, on January 29, 2025. She also received NO MERCY - she will spend the rest of her days in PRISON where she needs to be. Thank God. Please pass this bill HB4344 in Michael Brandon's memory and in his honor. Michael didn't want to die, he so loved his life and he had made lots of plans for the future. EVILNESS took all of that away from him. She stole his life, and she stole my only son from me. I am still grieving from his death and I will NEVER get over this. One thing I do know is my Michael is with God above - and I will see his handsome face and beautiful smile again. And when I do, no one will ever take him away from me again. Please pass this HB4344. Maybe it can save someone else's life when they present to the E.R. with a low blood sugar - per Hospital guidelines, do the C-Peptide blood test first, before any treatment is given. Thank you. Donna Bolt  

OPPOSITION, but CONDITIONAL SUPPORT to HB 4414

Relating to the sex offender registration act

January 16, 2026

House Judiciary Committee: West Virginians for Rational Sexual Offence Laws (WVRSOL) is a West Virginia non-profit association and an affiliate of the National Association for Rational Sexual Offence Laws (NARSOL), which advocates for society's segment that is adversely affected by the sex offender registry. We help families impacted by the registry, seek ways to maintain and improve public safety, recommend prudent use of state funding in this area, and work to ensure that proposed legislation is constitutional. WVRSOL OPPOSES HB 4414 as currently written; however, if amended, WVRSOL could SUPPORT the bill, which, if passed in its amended form, would align the West Virginia registry more closely with the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. WVRSOL's full support is conditioned on the following necessary changes to HB 4414:

1. Removal of the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), nor the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review, State of West Virginia. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016) To include such a provision would almost certainly lead to costly litigation, which has been decided unfavorably throughout the United States.
2. Removal of all references to the collection of DNA samples for registrants under a civil regulatory schema for registering only, and not related to a criminal conviction in WV.
3. Reclassification of certain offenses, which are currently classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'). This approach will allow limited law enforcement resources to be directed toward more serious offenses.
4. Addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006." (Sensenbrenner, 2006) This approach is consistent with federal law and will remove the less severe offenses from the list.
5. Update by striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days," which does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant. (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016)
6. Update to §15-12-2 (d) to make the current requirement for the person forced to register of "…provide or cooperate in providing at a minimum…" more understandable, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" §114. (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
7. Addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) 'juvenile sex offenders' who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense. Having 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1"), low-risk registrants on the public registry does not enhance public safety, nor does having 'juvenile sex offenders' visible/accessible on the public registry, as well as the moral implications it raises.
8. Updates to several highlighted items in the bill make it void for vagueness and require clarification, etc.

Support Amendment Conditions:

1. Support is conditioned on removing the residency restriction, which is NOT supported by the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) nor a recognized shortfall to substantial compliance according to the U.S. Department of Justice SMART Office's SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016).
   • There is also no empirical evidence that the presence or distance restrictions make anyone safer. In fact, they do the opposite.
     • In its decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals not only agreed but went on to declare that adding geographic exclusionary zones, among others, made Michigan's SORNA, post its 2006 and 2011 amendments, punishment and therefore could not be applied retroactively (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Moreover, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that geographic exclusionary zones and in-person reporting requirements constitute onerous restrictions unsupported by evolving research and best practices on recidivism, rehabilitation, and community safety. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
     • Additionally, Human Services professionals and nationally recognized experts on sexual abuse and sex offender legislation agree that distance restrictions are counterproductive. According to Gina Puls (Puls, 2016), residency restrictions, which prevent sex offenders from living within an established distance of various places where children gather, have created enormous hardship for released sex offenders as they attempt to reintegrate into society, and the effectiveness of these laws has increasingly been rejected.
   • Establishing presence or distance restrictions expands the use and impact of registry law in West Virginia. It invites litigation if passed, as it shifts the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" to a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and U.S. Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
     • Other jurisdictions have attempted to impose similar restrictions, only to have them struck down on constitutional grounds – most recently in Does v. Snyder, where the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Michigan's SORNA constitutes punishment and may not be applied retroactively. (Does #1-5 v. Snyder, 834 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2016))
2. Support is conditioned on removing all references to DNA sampling from registrants.
   • Adding DNA sampling to §15-12-2 is unnecessary, as WV code §15-2B-6 already codifies the collection of DNA samples upon conviction for registry offenses in West Virginia and those with equivalent offenses accepted from another state under any interstate compact or other reciprocal agreements.
   • Including DNA sampling to §15-12-2 would only impact people moving untethered to West Virginia who must register, i.e., not via a supervised interstate compact agreement or similar agreements—for these people, being forced to provide a DNA sample simply for registering invites litigation if passed as it transitions the WV registry from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
     • Article III, Section 4 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of a contract, shall be passed." (West Virginia Constitution, n.d.) There is little doubt that this bill could be anything other than a retroactive increase in punishment, ex post facto, because it seeks to place retroactive restrictions and punishment on registrants who have completed their court-ordered sentences.
     • WV §15-12-2 (a) makes the WV registry retroactively and prospectively adding a presence or distance restriction to the code, coupled with the above clause, would make the presence or distance restriction retroactive, and, as already established above would therefore transition the WV registry schema from a "civil regulatory schema" into a "criminal punishment schema," which violates the Ex post facto clauses of the West Virginia and US Constitutions.
       • Under ex post facto principles of the United States and West Virginia Constitutions, a law passed after the commission of an offense which increases the punishment, lengthens the sentence or operates to the detriment of the accused, cannot be applied to him. (Hensler v. Cross - West Virginia - Case Law - VLEX 895334483, n.d.)
3. Support is conditioned on reclassifying the following offenses, which are classified as lifetime (aka AWA' Tier III') but which, according to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006), should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II'):
   • Tier III to Tier II
     • 61-8A-1 et seq, §61-8B-9, §61-8B-11b, §61-8C-1 et seq, §61-8D-5, §61-8D-6, §61-8-12, §61-14-5(b), and §61-14-6(b) when the offense is NOT against a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12 years – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category when not committed against anyone not a minor who has NOT attained the age of 12.
     • 61-3C-14b and §61-14-6(a) – these offenses should all be 25 years (aka AWA' Tier II') category regardless.
   • Tier I
     • Additionally, §61-8-A-9 (1^st and 2^nd offenses) and §61-8c-3a should be specifically called out as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I'). Language needs to be added that specifies that all offenses where the sentencing judge made a written finding that the offense was sexually motivated and where the sentence is classified as a misdemeanor should be registerable as 15 years (aka AWA' Tier I').
4. Support is conditioned on the addition of the 5-year "Clean Record" credit outlined in §115 of the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006."
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a 5-year "clean record" reduction in registry requirements for Tier 1 (aka WV 15-year registrants) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this provision needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides a tier reduction for a "clean record" from Tier III (aka WV lifetime registrants) to Tier II (aka WV 25-year registration) (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and this needs to be added to HB 4414 and ultimately to WV §15-12-2. This credit provision must be coded as automatic upon review without the registrant's request or court proceedings.
5. Support is conditioned on striking the updating to registry change reporting requirements from "within 10 business days" to "within 3 business days."
   • Changing the current registry update requirement from within 10 business days to within 3 business days does not make West Virginia NOT substantially compliant (SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia, 2016); however, it will cause many more technical registry violations, requiring judicial resources to process, incarcerate, and supervise post-release, and significant associated unnecessary costs.
6. Support is conditioned on updating §15-12-2 (d) to delineate registrant vs State registry items.
   • The current language in §15-12-2 (d) requires the person forced to register to "provide or cooperate in providing" items they do not know of nor have control over. The language must be updated to make it more understandable by delineating between the registrant's and the State's responsibilities, similar to the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114.
   • 15-12-2 (d) should be updated to delineate the registry requirements that the registrant must provide and those that are the purview of the State, similar to how the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (Sensenbrenner, 2006) §114 delineates them.
   • As it stands today, registrants are expected to "provide or cooperate in providing" items not under their purview for which they have no means of providing, e.g.,
     • Date of all arrests;
     • Date of all convictions;
     • Status of parole, probation, or supervised release; and
     • Outstanding arrest warrants, etc.
7. Support is conditioned on the addition of exemptions from public display/access on the WV Registry of (a) 15-year (aka AWA "Tier1") category registrants and (b) juvenile registrants.
   • The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" provides for optional exemptions of:
     • "Any information about a tier I sex offender convicted of an offense other than a specified offense against a minor," and
     • "Any other information exempted from disclosure by the Attorney General." (Sensenbrenner, 2006)
   • HB4414 needs to add specific language using the optional exemptions above:
     • To provide WV registrants classified as 15 years (aka AWA "Tier1") exemption from display/access on the WV public registry, and
     • To provide WV juvenile registrants, those who had not attained the age of 18 years at the time of their offense, with an exemption from display/access on the WV public registry.
8. Support is conditioned on the updates to several highlighted items in the bill, which make it void for vagueness, require clarification, etc.
   • The proposed updates to West Virginia Registry §15-12-2. (d)(8) removes the requirement to provide "screen names, user names, or aliases the registrant uses on the internet" and adds the requirement to provide the "Internet Protocol (IP) addresses of any computer or electronic device of the registrant."
     • First, screen names, user names, aliases, and IP addresses are not included in the "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" schema; as such, if the bill's purpose is to be taken seriously, then §15-12-2. (d)(8) should be struck. In addition, recent federal case law has concluded that collecting internet identifiers from registrants violates the First Amendment. (Cornelio v. Connecticut, 2023)
     • Second, the above requirement to provide IP addresses is not feasible as the standard for IP addresses is that they are dynamic, NOT static (Network Fundamentals - Internet Protocol and IP Addressing | Information Security | University of Houston-Clear Lake, n.d.), and constantly change with the location the device connects to the internet, i.e., coffee shop, work, home, etc. consequently providing an IP address, which changes constantly and frequently, is nonsensical.
     • In addition to 1. a. & 1. b. above, the proposed update and addition of WV §15-12-2-10 (b) include a distance restriction from a "child daycare facility," which is insufficiently defined. It would be difficult for registrants to know with certainty how to comply with this language, given that "daycare" isn't explicitly defined. As written, the clause would not likely survive a "void for vagueness" challenge.
       • The "void-for-vagueness doctrine" requires a statute to be clear enough for those subject to it to understand what conduct would render them liable to its penalties. (Void for Vagueness and the Due Process Clause, n.d.) The standard for determining whether a statute provides fair notice is "whether persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at [the statute's] meaning." (Galloway v. State, 781 A.2d 851, 2001)

WVRSOL is committed to legislation that measurably reduces sexual offenses, protects families, and enhances public safety. While HB 4414 has the potential to meet these goals if properly amended, it currently lacks the necessary modifications to be effective. Consequently, WVRSOL opposes HB 4414 in its current form. We respectfully urge the House Judiciary Committee and all House members to vote 'No' unless the bill is fully amended to address these critical concerns. ==================================================================================== Works Cited Cornelio v. Connecticut, No. 3:19-CV-1240 (JAM), 2023 WL 5979996 (D. Conn. Sept. 14, 2023). https://casetext.com/case/cornelio-v-connecticut-3 Does v. Snyder. No. 15-1536. United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. August 25, 2016. https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-snyder-2 Galloway v. State, 781 A.2d 851 (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2001), 365 Md. 599. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1494306/galloway-v-state/ Network Fundamentals—Internet Protocol and IP Addressing | Information Security | University of Houston-Clear Lake. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.uhcl.edu/information-security/tips-best-practices/ipaddressing Puls, G. (2016). No Place to Call Home: Rethinking Residency Restrictions for Sex Offenders. Boston College Journal of Law and Social Justice, 36, 319. Sensenbrenner, F. J. (2006, July 27). H.R.4472 - 109th Congress (2005-2006): Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (2005-12-08) [Legislation]. https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/4472 SORNA Substantial Implementation Review State of West Virginia (p. 13). (2016). U.S. Department of Justice - SMART Office. https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/westvirginia-hny.pdf Void for Vagueness and the Due Process Clause: Doctrine and Practice. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-5/void-for-vagueness-and-the-due-process-clause-doctrine-and-practice West Virginia Constitution. (n.d.). Retrieved January 16, 2026, from https://www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcode/wv_con.cfm?lv=true#articleIII

Please, for the love of liberty, DO NOT make kratom illegal. Banning the sale of derivitives in understandable. But, the leaf itself is useful in my life. I am a responsible consumer and feel that banning kratom leaf is a direct attack on my liberty. The evidence to show kratom leaf as a destructive product is far less proportional than that of alcohol. KRATOM HAS MADE MY LIFE BETTER. When speaking of this bill, please think of this contributing citizen. Who is a father, a (non-combat) veteran, a travelling man, and a proud citizen of West Virginia who loves his country.