Relating to bail in cases involving terroristic threats to schools or children
Summary
HB 4996 amends West Virginia’s criminal code section on falsely reporting emergencies to add a new offense for communicating threats to commit a crime of violence. The bill defines key terms such as “crime of violence,” “threat,” and “severe public alarm or inconvenience,” and it makes it a felony to intentionally communicate a violent threat that causes, or is made with reckless disregard for causing, severe public alarm or inconvenience. The measure also keeps the existing misdemeanor offense for false emergency reports and clarifies that repeat violations or violations causing bodily injury can be punished more severely.
The bill also authorizes courts to impose residency and employment restrictions on people charged with or convicted of the new threat offense while they are on pretrial release or other forms of supervised release. In addition, it allows courts to order reimbursement of emergency response costs and states that inability to carry out the threatened violence is not a defense. The offenses created by the bill are expressly separate from other crimes in the code, and the law does not apply to authorized emergency drills.
Impact
The bill amends and reenacts West Virginia Code §61-6-20, expanding the statute from false emergency reporting to include a standalone felony offense for threatening a crime of violence. It increases potential criminal exposure by creating new felony penalties, adds court authority to impose 1,000-foot residency and employment restrictions in specified cases, and permits cost recovery for emergency response agencies. The measure affects defendants accused of terroristic threats, false reports, and related conduct, as well as law enforcement, emergency responders, courts, and victims or threatened persons.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had strong bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the House 94-0, the Senate 32-0, and the House again 94-0 after the Senate amended the title, indicating broad agreement on the need to address threatening conduct and emergency-related disruptions. The available record does not include committee debate, but the unanimous votes suggest the bill was viewed favorably across both chambers.
Contention
No recorded floor or committee opposition appears in the provided materials, so there is no documented controversy in the voting history. The likely policy issues raised by the text itself are the breadth of the new “threat” definition, the felony penalties, and the court-imposed residency and employment restrictions for people on release. The bill’s caption references bail in cases involving terroristic threats to schools or children, suggesting the practical focus was on threats affecting schools, children, and public safety, but the enacted text is broader and covers threats of violence generally.