West Virginia House Bill HB2652

West Virginia 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/20/25

Caption

To create the Protection of Shared Physical and Digital Property from Warrantless Searches Act

Summary

HB2652 would create a new article in West Virginia code called the Protection of Shared Physical and Digital Property from Warrantless Searches Act. The bill declares that people retain a property interest and reasonable expectation of privacy in both physical and digital property, including information shared with third parties when obtaining goods or services. It specifically rejects the “third party doctrine” as inconsistent with those rights and states that modern internet-based commerce and communications should not eliminate constitutional protections. The bill generally requires government agents to obtain a search or seizure warrant based on probable cause before accessing physical or digital property held by a third party, unless the property owner consents or there is an imminent threat or similar exigent circumstance. It also requires notice to the property owner and the third party when a warrant is executed, with a possible delay of up to 30 days if notice would jeopardize an investigation. Evidence obtained in violation of the act would be inadmissible in administrative, civil, or criminal proceedings, and an aggrieved person could seek relief, including damages and attorney’s fees, through an action under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.

Impact

If enacted, the bill would add a new statutory privacy and search-and-seizure framework governing government access to information and property held by third parties. It would affect law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and any government agent seeking records or property from businesses, service providers, or other third parties, and it would expand suppression and civil-remedy options for people whose shared physical or digital property is accessed without compliance with the act. The bill would also create new notice obligations and a warrant standard tied to probable cause for third-party-held information and property.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a privacy-protection and civil-liberties bill, with sponsors emphasizing constitutional security in property and digital information. The overall tone of the proposal is protective of individual privacy and skeptical of warrantless government access to third-party records.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s rejection of the federal “third party doctrine,” which law enforcement and prosecutors may view as limiting investigative tools for obtaining records from service providers and other intermediaries. Another likely dispute is the breadth of the definitions of “digital property” and “physical property,” which could sweep in a wide range of records and data used in ordinary commerce. The bill also raises concerns about operational burdens from warrant and notice requirements, while supporters would likely argue those requirements are necessary to protect privacy in the digital age.