All human beings deserve protection.  Brown skin is not an exception.

The ACLU of West Virginia said it best: “Victims of trafficking deserve justice regardless of their status. Empathy is not a crime.” I think that everyone needs to employ a more empathetic approach to their everyday lives, and this bill is no different. I say “NO” to HB 4433, and I hope my representatives agree.

This is cruel and disgusting. You are treating undocumented immigrants like animals-not people. Please vote NO for this bill. It will only damage West Virginia and its residents further and prove right the many people who think this state is awful.

Empathy is not a crime. Victims of human trafficking are not here of their own volition. Why would you vote to further harm these people? Do you not have anyone in your life that, if this happened to them (and it could), that you wouldn’t want whatever country’s government to help protect them? Statistically speaking, women and girls are the most vulnerable to human trafficking and, more times than not, it’s sex trafficking. Think of your daughters, mothers, your sisters, your wives who are already vulnerable to assault in their own country. And then think of “the least of these” , the frightened victims who are here by no choice of their own. Thank you for your time.

I wish to submit a public comment. VOTE NO. Immigrants are the problem. We need jobs, Healthcare, education.

I want to keep up with the craziness

I agree with the concept, but 25 years is too long. Punishment should be in proportion to the severity of the assault. A mandatory sentence should perhaps begin at 30 days and increase as appropriate.

This bill I feel should not be passed. Every individual has the right to have legal assistance as any individual would expect to be supported!

Please vote NO on advancing this bill. Undocumented immigrants are human beings like all of us. If they are also victims of human trafficking, they should have the same protections and recourses as everyone else.

To the Members of the West Virginia House Judiciary Committee and My State Representatives:   I am writing as a constituent to strongly oppose House Bill 4433 — a measure that would prohibit undocumented victims of human trafficking from seeking restitution and create new criminal penalties for anyone who provides assistance to people based solely on their immigration status. This bill is harmful, unjust, and counterproductive to public safety, victim recovery, and fair treatment under the law. 1. Victims of human trafficking deserve justice regardless of immigration status. Human trafficking is modern-day slavery that can occur anywhere in West Virginia and affects people of all ages, genders, nationalities, and legal statuses. According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, West Virginia has had 339 confirmed trafficking cases involving 710 victims since 2007 — and in 2024 alone, 38 cases and 57 victims were reported to the hotline. These figures understate the problem because trafficking is widely underreported due to lack of awareness, coercion, and fear of authorities. 2. Denying restitution to a subset of victims undermines justice and recovery. Restitution — compensation for the harms victims have suffered — is a critical part of recovery and reintegration for trafficking survivors. Federal data show that in West Virginia, courts have never ordered restitution to trafficking victims in the past decade of federal prosecutions, despite convictions. Excluding undocumented victims from restitution would embed inequality into our response to exploitation and discourage reporting, making traffickers’ jobs easier. Victims who are undocumented are often among the most vulnerable; having been coerced, manipulated, or trapped by traffickers who exploit their legal status. Removing legal avenues to restitution sends a dangerous signal that some victims matter less than others. 3. Criminalizing assistance to undocumented people creates fear and erodes public safety. HB 4433’s provisions to punish individuals who “help” undocumented people — even for humanitarian acts — risk chilling essential support services. Faith-based organizations and nonprofits provide critical care for all victims of crime, regardless of status. Experts have warned that broadly defined terms like “transporting” or “harboring” could make ordinary acts of assistance (such as transporting someone to a medical appointment) subject to felony penalties. When victims fear law enforcement or penalties, they are less likely to come forward, report abuse, or seek services. This reduces our collective ability to identify traffickers and rescue those being exploited. 4. West Virginians have prioritized victim support and awareness initiatives. The state’s Human Trafficking Task Force, the West Virginia Fusion Center, and initiatives like “YOU CAN” encourage reporting and community involvement to combat trafficking. Since 2007, the hotline has generated hundreds of tips and identified hundreds of victims locally, showing that trafficking is a real concern that requires support, not punitive policy that erodes access to justice. Conclusion: House Bill 4433 is not the solution West Virginia needs. Instead of targeting victims and criminalizing compassion, our legislature should advance policies that: Protect all trafficking victims equally, regardless of legal status. Expand awareness, training, and resources for law enforcement and service providers. Ensure restitution and support services remain accessible to every survivor. Empathy is not a crime and justice should never be conditional on immigration status. I urge you to vote against HB 4433 and focus this session on meaningful public safety priorities that strengthen our communities. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. In solidarity, Jamie L

I’m opposed to victimizing further any victims of human trafficking. Additionally, I don’t believe that WV should create any laws that would prevent a person from getting documents or seeking asylum.  Nor should it be creating any laws that will prevent people from assisting undocumented immigrants in receiving help of any sort that makes their lives better.

I think in today's time a bill like this is required. Drugs are everywhere they are more prominent in wv because this is what people see as fun or this is what they seen and continued because it was easier then reality. Sadly in this world we see more and more abuse being committed by parents. We have to have a better system for our children and for the future of our children.  This bill will help solve a case faster.

Wonderful bill Personally I’d get the input of plenty of first responders if it hasn’t already. I feel 25 feet is a lot more appropriate. I also appreciate the language of “lawful” in there as that means if they’re acting unlawfully then it does not need to be adhered to. Such as warrantless search and seizure.

I really approve this one. This is important to hold people accountable for the job they do.

Pass this bill to help people prepare in advance for theor garnishment. It's fair.

This bill is important to various communities that are being led by the same people consecutively, who have various connections and little communal involvement to dispute their governance. NO MORE "GOOD OLE BOYS/GALS" governance cliques.

In opposition to this bill.

The responsibility of monitoring internet activity of children belongs to the parents, not the government. There are some things that should not be the domain of legislation, and attempting to replace aspects of parenting is one of them. There will always be content that is unsuitable for children to view, but once the lawmakers decide where that line is, then you will become responsible for each and every infraction. No legislation will ever be able to cover all the content available on the internet, it is simply too vast. For example, Twitter. Twitter is a social media website and application. It's purpose is to facilitate socializing in an online space. It would not fall under this bill because it's primary purpose is not to host pornographic material. With passing this legislation, you are telling parents that they no longer need to monitor their children's activity because there are safeguards in place to restrict viewership behind identification. But since Twitter doesn't fall under the definitions, it doesn't require age verification, and yet such material is available on the site since users can upload anything they want. Now a parent is going to catch their child viewing obscene images after the Legislature assured them that such images could not be accessed without ID verification. I understand wanting to push the responsibility off onto someone else. It's easy. It's appealing. But in this case, and many others, the responsibility rests solely in the hands of the person accessing the material. Not the government, not the website managers, not the uploaders or content makers. The person accessing the material.

I urge you all, regardless of political affiliation, to please acknowledge the harm that allowing this can do. The 18-20 year olds today (not all but a good many) do not hold the level of maturity as those that grew up in the 90's, 80's and earlier. When we had a problem with someone or something, we spoke about it. Now days people are quick to attack and claim self defense. Its not fake news when grown adults (18-20) are shooting/stabbing thier parents because they are told to turn off the game, look for work, mow the lawn or go wash a dish.  In my early and mid 20s I could go out to a bar and spill a drink on somebody, i would apologize, we laugh maybe even by the end the evening forge a friendship. Today somebody takes that spilled drink as a form of disrespect or an attack and shoots me claiming self defense. Also...keep in mind that many 18 year olds have not even graduated high-school. What if that concealed weapon enters the wrong hands?! This is not pro gun or anti gun. This is a pure lack of  common sense. This is absolutely NOT  a great idea. I stopped going out because the 18 years old today are not on the same level as the 18 year olds past. This generation is so far off base and those are the problems that needed addressed. PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE. UNDERSTAND THIS ACKNOWLEDGE THIS

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

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

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  

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.

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