Public Comments

Maybe legalizing it would help with the opioid addiction issues we are facing everyday. I know it would also come with it's own set of problems.  I feel the benefits would outweigh the risks.

Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014), the police generally cannot search the contents of a cell phone seized during a traffic stop or arrest without a warrant, even if the person is a registered sex offender. This would also apply to a sex offender who is visiting the state police to update the registry. There could be exceptions for persons who are on probation or parole, but as for sex offenders who are not, they are still covered under the Fourth Amendment. For these reasons, HB-4135 is clearly unconstitutional and should be rejected.

This is a devastating step in the wrong direction for West Virginians, who not only pride themselves on their sense of community but the right to follow their conscience on issues related to immigrant community members. The use of “illegal alien” is dehumanizing of all individuals who have basic human rights and must have access to due process. When you dehumanize “the other,” you risk the whole of humanity and invite further abuses to one another that violate cultural norms. Truly, this is terrible. Not only is violation of the right to due process unconstitutional for these individuals, but you dare to make citizens complicit in this violation of basic human rights. How will I be protected in the future from legal action for FAILURE to assist in situations involving threat of or active violent harm to immigrant families, as is so widely seen in places like Minneapolis as of January 2026. You have to understand that many simply MORALLY will be unable to comply with this proposed “law.”

• HB 4376 creates a narrow prohibition on familial appointments but does not address the acknowledged limits of ethics oversight.
• Negligence and corruption remain non-actionable unless tied to specific enumerated violations under §6B-2-5.
• The bill does not expand jurisdiction, enforcement tools, or accountability pathways.
• Without broader statutory reform, unethical conduct that does not fit a predefined category will continue to evade oversight.

    I am strongly opposed to HB-4414 because I own my home and have lived in it for almost 13 years. Unfortunately, I am less than 1,000 feet from a playground, so I will be forced to move and find a new home by January 1, 2027.  I get along really well with all my neighbors and have not had any problems since I moved here. I am over 65 and on a fixed income, and where I live is close to my doctor and other places, such as a hospital and grocery stores. HB-4414 to me is a form of punishment in forcing me to either sell my house that is paid off, or keep it and incur the cost and upkeep. I will be forced to try to find a new place to live, which will not be easy due to the residency restrictions, and other reasons such as if I buy a new house, which I really cannot afford to do, will my new neighbors want me in their neighborhood? Or will they try to make living there so difficult for me that I have to move again? As far as renting an apartment goes, good luck finding a decent apartment or anything at all being an RSO, because landlords and property management companies will not rent you an apartment. And if you are lucky enough to find an apartment, it has to be in a non-restrictive area.  What makes things even more difficult for me is that I also have a small dog and a cat that I have had for years. Will I have to get rid of them as well?

   The residency restrictions to me appear to be a punitive measure that is only going to create more homeless registered sex offenders. Applying these restrictions to registered persons retroactively who have lived in the “restricted areas” for years with no problems before the law is passed can be seen as a form of punishment and unconstitutional as found in cases in other states. I was sentenced in Michigan and was deemed a tier 1 offender, which is the lowest risk level, and sentenced to 15 years on the registry. If West Virginia had a tier system like Michigan, I could have petitioned for removal 3 years ago and would be removed by completing my registration sentence in 2 years. West Virginia needs to adopt a 3-tier system and to give people who are tier 1 a way to get off of the registry after 10 years for good behavior. That is why I am in agreement with WVRSOL in their opposition, but conditional support to HB-4414.

Please SUPPORT HB 4547.  Add it to Judiciary Committee agenda.

“This is a clear violation of people’s first amendment rights to practice their religion by meeting people’s basic needs (for food, housing, or transportation), regardless of their immigration or citizenship status. HB 4433 would create significant exposure to criminal liability for not only individuals, but also businesses, charities, and religious organizations.  HB 4433 if passed would face constitutional challenges in court.”

The slogan does not say “West Virginians are always free.” The term Mountaineer reflects a people shaped by labor, hardship, and resistance to exploitation. HB 4433 contradicts that legacy by codifying unequal treatment under the law and stripping legal remedies from individuals the statute itself defines as “victims.”

HB 4433 explicitly provides that “if the victim of the offense is an illegal alien then no order to pay restitution shall be made” (§61-14-7(d)(1)).

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that equal protection under Article III, Section 17 prohibits the Legislature from arbitrarily denying legal protections or remedies to similarly situated individuals.

In State ex rel. Harris v. Calendine, the Court reaffirmed that classifications created by statute must bear a real and substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, not merely a political or punitive one. Denying restitution to trafficking victims based solely on immigration status fails this test: it does not advance public safety, deter crime, or protect victims. It does the opposite. Moreover, in Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. W. Va. Bd. of Regents, the Court held that laws which impose unequal burdens without adequate justification violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, even when the Legislature claims broad discretion.

HB 4433 creates a two-tier victim system–recognizing victimization for prosecution purposes while denying restitution to certain victims–without a constitutionally sufficient justification.

Article III, Section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has consistently recognized that statutory remedies are a component of due process, particularly where the state affirmatively recognizes harm. In Roberts v. Stevens Clinic Hospital, the Court held that the Legislature may not abolish or materially impair remedies in a manner that is arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.

HB 4433

• Acknowledges individuals as victims under §61-14-1(18);

• Uses their victimization to support criminal prosecutions;

• Then denies restitution as a punitive consequence of immigration status.

This is punishment without adjudication and deprivation without process.

HB 4433 recognizes deportation threats as a form of coercion (§61-14-1(2)(B)). Yet by denying restitution to undocumented victims, the bill institutionalizes the very coercive dynamic it purports to combat.

The Supreme Court of Appeals has emphasized in Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dept. that statutes must be interpreted—and written—in a manner consistent with their stated purpose. A law that deters victims from seeking help and incentivizes traffickers to target undocumented individuals is internally contradictory and legally unsound.

HB 4433 declares that “any individual or entity that transports illegal aliens is engaged in human smuggling” (§61-14-7(b)).

The Court has warned against overbroad criminal statutes that chill lawful conduct and fail to provide clear notice of prohibited behavior. In State v. Flinn, the Court held that laws must be sufficiently definite so that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and so that enforcement is not arbitrary.

This language risks criminalizing

• Humanitarian aid,

• Mutual aid networks,

• Religious or nonprofit assistance,

• Good-faith support unrelated to exploitation.

Such chilling effects are incompatible with due process and fundamental fairness.

While HB 4433 increases penalties for forced labor, debt bondage, and sexual servitude (§§61-14-3 through 61-14-6), denying restitution ensures that undocumented victims remain economically trapped.

In Harrah v. Leverette, the Supreme Court emphasized that constitutional protections apply to persons, not classifications deemed politically convenient. A statute that recognizes harm but withholds remedy perpetuates injustice rather than preventing it.

To summarize the points, House Bill 4433 violates:

• Equal protection under Article III, Section 17;

• Due process under Article III, Section 10;

• Longstanding Supreme Court of Appeals precedent requiring fairness, proportionality, and rational legislative purpose.

It undermines anti-trafficking efforts, invites constitutional challenge, and erodes West Virginia’s moral and legal credibility.

If Mountaineers are always free, then freedom cannot be conditional, selective, or symbolic. For these reasons, I urge the Standing Committee on the Judiciary to reject HB 4433 in its current form. At minimum, all provisions denying restitution or remedies based on immigration status must be removed.

Freedom is not a slogan. It is a constitutional obligation that each of you have a moral and legal obligation to uphold for your constituents. Do the right thing. You're putting your name on it.

I am writing to express my strong objection to HB 4433. While I support efforts to combat human trafficking and protect victims, I find it horrible and dehumanizing that this bill would deny restitution to victims based on immigration status.

Every person, regardless of where they were born or their legal status, is a human being deserving of protection and justice. Using terms like “illegal alien” to determine eligibility for restitution strips individuals of their humanity and punishes them for circumstances beyond their control—often circumstances that traffickers exploit.

Denying restitution to any victim of human trafficking undermines justice, discourages reporting, and places vulnerable people at even greater risk. I urge you to reject this provision and ensure that all victims, without exception, have access to restitution and full legal protection.

I am writing to express my strong objection to HB 4106, which would allow 18–20-year-olds to carry a concealed firearm without a license. While I respect the rights of adults, this bill ignores well-documented scientific research showing that the prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for reasoning, impulse control, and long-term planning—continues developing well into the mid-20s.

Young adults in this age range, particularly males, are more prone to emotional volatility and risk-taking behaviors. Removing licensing and training requirements places these individuals and their communities at increased risk of accidents, violence, and tragedy.

Laws regulating firearms exist for a reason: to ensure that those carrying weapons have adequate training, judgment, and accountability. Expanding concealed carry to an age group still undergoing critical brain development is not rooted in science or public safety—it is ideology over evidence.

I urge legislators to vote against HB 4106 and protect both young adults and the broader public from unnecessary risk.