1. HB 4750 is NOT supported by the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” (Sensenbrenner, 2006), and is entirely unnecessary.
   • 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.

1. • 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. HB 4750 violates the Void for Vagueness Doctrine.
   • It would be difficult for registrants to know with certainty how to comply with this language. It would not likely survive a “void for vagueness” challenge. The “void-for-vagueness doctrine” requires first that a statute must be clear enough for those subject to it to understand what conduct would render them liable to its penalties. 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)
   • With the current language, “… prohibited from residing within 3,000 feet of the real property comprising a public or nonpublic elementary or secondary school, a childcare facility, a residential child-caring agency, a children’s group care home or any playground, ballpark or other recreational facility” registrants would have to guess at what constitutes “reside”; does this include periods of time visiting friends or family, for how many days, is this a permanent residency or temporary, and does it matter, etc? How to measure 3,000 feet; is that door-to-door, property line to property line, etc? What constitutes a “playground, ballpark, or other recreational facility”? Is the GoMart ballpark in Charleston, WV, a restricted park? Does their neighbor’s backyard swingset and monkey bars constitute a playground, etc?
   • With the current language, each jurisdiction would have to unilaterally decide what constitutes “reside,” “3,000 feet”, and “playground, ballpark, or other recreational facility.” This interpretation violates the second criterion that criminal statutes provide “legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police, judicial officers, triers of fact and others whose obligation it is to enforce, apply and administer the penal laws.” (Bowers v. State, 389 A.2d 341)
   • With the current language, there are no provisions addressing pre-existing residences, no provisions for the financial implications of forcing registrants and their families from their privately-owned property should it fall into the 3,000-foot restriction, and no provisions for what should happen if there is a pre-existing residence and a new restricted facility is open/built thereafter.
3. HB 4750 violates the Void for Overbroad Doctrine.
   • A law is considered “overbroad” when it is “not sufficiently restricted to a specific subject or purpose.” (FindLaw Legal Dictionary)
   • HB 4750 applies to “All registrants,” not just those whose offense involved a minor or who are on parole, probation, or supervised release.

Works Cited

I strongly support House Bill 4038 because it provides a necessary check on unchecked wind development and addresses real-world reliability challenges. Wind energy is intermittent and weather-dependent, often producing little or no electricity during calm periods, making it difficult to rely on as a primary power source without extensive backup. Wind facilities frequently operate at much lower capacity than firm sources like coal, requiring far more installed capacity to match reliable output.

Practical experience from other regions highlights these challenges: turbines in Europe, the U.S., and Australia have suffered mechanical failures, including blade and bearing issues, forcing them offline for extended periods. Projects like these experienced catastrophic blade failures, and extreme weather can dramatically reduce output when meeting demand is most critical.

Equally concerning is the type of companies that bring these projects to West Virginia. These corporations are focused on short-term profit rather than investing in our future and long-term energy independence. When profit-driven developers dominate wind infrastructure, local taxpayers and landowners bear the risks, while financial benefits flow elsewhere.

West Virginia is rich in natural resources, which is already a foundation for a strong energy future. Responsible development of these existing capabilities supports high-paying local jobs, strengthens rural economies, and generates critical tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, and public services. By carefully limiting wind expansion while investing in these proven energy resources, the state can ensure a reliable, resilient, and economically balanced energy future for all West Virginians.

HB4038 allows West Virginia to retain control over our energy resources, protect rural communities, and ensure reliable integration with the grid before committing to wind projects. I urge Delegates to support this bill to promote a balanced and resilient energy future for our state. Thank you!

I am a Communities In Schools Site Coordinator in public school.   We have many children in our schools, and it is our job to assist our students in overcoming barriers to learning.   Part of that includes coordinating access to basic needs such as food, clothing, community linkages, etc.     To the best of my knowledge, it is not our job to determine the immigration status of parents prior to enrolling their children.  So if we assist a a student’s parent who happens to be illegal, are we going to jail for 10 years?  And if so, by what method will a parent’s immigration status officially be disclosed us?   It is not my area of expertise to review such documentation.    Once a child is enrolled, we are expected to do our job indiscriminately.  This may include providing food, linkages to free charitable resources such as healthcare, etc. Please consider public schools and all human services professionals whose ethical obligation it is to help the people presented to us before voting on this bill. Thank You!

There are existing issues with the Special Education camera law that this was copied from. Legislation will be presented to change that law very soon and I would urge that this not be passed as it is currently written.

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.

• Currently, non-relatives/non-kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents by child placing agencies (CPA), with whom the state has contracts.  Child placing agencies are throughout the state and serve various geographies/footprints of the state given their business models.  When a family is certified as a non-relative, that family is visited and supported during a child's placement, by both department (BSS) workers and child placing agency (CPA) workers.
• Relatives/kin to children are largely served and certified as foster parents (if they choose to certify), by the homefinding department of BSS.  Homefinders at BSS and workers at the CPA's perform very similar duties in the process of certifying families to the foster care level.  Relatives/kin can be held to slightly different (reduced) standards due to the waivers available relating to the certification requirements.
• Regardless of whether a CPA worker or a BSS homefinding worker undertakes certifying a family, the time it takes depends not only on the worker but also, and greatly, on the family's responsiveness to requests for information or documentation.  Time to certification relates to a shared process.
• Relatives/kin can be supported, particularly early in the placement journey, by a service called Kinship Navigator.  Each family can be supported, for months or as needed, by a KN who is an employee of one of the state's key contractors, Mission West Virginia.  Kinship Navigators provide resources, advocacy, support, advice, products, etc. so that new relative/kin families can have support services, whether they are choosing to be certified or not.  KNs do not stay involved however, for the entire pendency of the case (which differs from CPA visiting workers, who do).  An ongoing issue has been that the referral process to ensure that ALL relative/kin families are referred to the Mission West Virginia KN service is not consistently performed (by responsible BSS personnel).  The reasons for that are beyond this message content.

• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker and needs placement, first  is attempted but if non are available or safe, the CPS worker makes a request to the CPA's to locate a certified, prepared foster home.
• When a child comes to the attention of a CPS worker, needs placement, and relatives/kin ARE available, the CPS worker conducts a safety screen and notifies the homefinding unit, so that additional vetting can occur as needed and certification processes can begin.

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.