Creating felony offense of using electronic device to threaten violence
SB473 amends West Virginia’s computer crime and abuse law to expand and clarify offenses involving threatening communications made through electronic devices. The bill keeps existing misdemeanor prohibitions on anonymous, harassing, obscene, and threatening communications, while adding definitions for terms such as “electronic communication device,” “crime of violence,” and “serious public alarm or inconvenience.” It also specifies where an offense may be deemed to occur, either where the communication originated or where it was received or intended to be received.
The central change is the creation of a new felony offense for using an electronic communication device to threaten a crime of violence when the threat causes an evacuation, serious public alarm, or serious inconvenience, or is made in reckless disregard of that risk. The bill sets felony penalties of a $2,500 to $10,000 fine and one to 10 years’ imprisonment, and it states that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or should have known the communication would be viewed as a threat. It also bars two defenses: that the offender lacked the ability to carry out the threatened violence, and that the conduct is already punishable under another code provision. In addition, people charged or convicted under the felony provision and released from custody are subject to a 3,000-foot stay-away restriction from the threatened location or the threatened person.
In practical terms, the bill would strengthen state law enforcement tools against bomb threats, violent threats, and similar electronic communications, while leaving the existing misdemeanor framework for harassment and obscene messaging in place. It would affect users of phones, computers, gaming devices, and other electronic communication devices, as well as courts, prosecutors, and defendants charged with threat-related offenses.
The available voting history suggests strong support: the Senate passed the bill 32-0. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader disagreement or amendment concerns. Based on the text and the unanimous vote, the bill appears to have been viewed as a public-safety measure aimed at deterring disruptive or dangerous threat communications.
The main points of potential contention in the text are the breadth of the felony standard and the post-release 3,000-foot restriction. The bill uses a “reasonable person” threat standard and includes reckless disregard language, which could raise concerns about overbreadth or application to ambiguous communications, while supporters would likely view those provisions as necessary to address modern electronic threats and emergency disruptions.
The bill would amend §61-3C-14a of the West Virginia Code, part of the West Virginia Computer Crime and Abuse Act, by adding a felony offense for threatening crimes of violence through electronic communication devices and by refining related definitions and penalties. It would preserve existing misdemeanor offenses for harassing, anonymous, obscene, and threatening communications, but increase penalties where the threat triggers evacuation, serious public alarm, or serious inconvenience. It also imposes a mandatory post-release exclusion zone for certain offenders and clarifies evidentiary and venue rules for prosecution.
The recorded sentiment is strongly supportive. The Senate passed SB473 unanimously, 32-0, indicating broad agreement that the bill addresses a serious public-safety issue. With no committee transcript available, there is no documented opposition in the provided materials, and the bill’s framing suggests it was treated as a targeted response to violent threats made through modern communication devices.
The most notable potential contention is whether the new felony offense is drawn too broadly, especially because it relies on what a reasonable person would view as a threat and covers communications made in reckless disregard of causing public alarm. Critics could also question the bill’s prohibition on defenses based on inability to carry out the threat or overlap with other criminal statutes, as well as the 3,000-foot stay-away condition for people on release. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue these provisions are necessary to deter bomb threats, school threats, and other disruptive electronic threats and to give law enforcement a stronger tool for prevention and prosecution.