Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects floor amendment to create separate 'fright or alarm' offense in locker‑room bill
Summary
Senate Bill 1083 — changes to indecent‑exposure and invasion‑of‑privacy laws for locker rooms — prompted contentious debate over drafting and prosecutorial concerns. An amendment that would have created a separate offense for "conduct causing a fright or alarm" failed 9–24–1 on the floor.
Senate Bill 1083, which would amend indecent‑exposure law and close a gap in West Virginia’s invasion‑of‑privacy statute for locker‑room photography and similar conduct, drew extended floor debate and a failed amendment on March 2.
Senator from Brooke, a sponsor of the amendment, argued the change would close a prosecutorial loophole and "stop biological males from entering into or females from entering into the locker room of the opposite sex and engage in conduct, including the removal of an article of clothing." The sponsor framed the amendment as both a privacy protection and a preventive measure against predatory conduct.
Legal and drafting concerns were voiced by other floor members and by senators who cited a letter from prosecutors raising constitutional questions. As the junior senator from the fifteenth explained, prosecutors worried that inserting new locker‑room language into the existing indecent‑exposure statute could create a separate crime with different elements and cause confusion in enforcement and jury instructions. The junior senator from the fifteenth said the bill as drafted preserves the public understanding and stigma of the offense and retains mechanisms for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.
The amendment’s author responded that its language was drawn from existing statutory text and aimed to close a gap in which certain intrusive photography would not presently be a crime. The measure’s supporters argued it would give victims recourse and avoid situations in which intrusive conduct—such as surreptitious photos—was not covered by current law.
On the roll call, the amendment proposing a stand‑alone offense was defeated, 9 yays, 24 nays, 1 absent; the presiding officer declared the amendment rejected. Sponsors and opponents both said they wanted a workable, constitutionally sound statute; the disagreement focused on whether to create a new codified offense or to retain locker‑room conduct within the indecent‑exposure framework with clarified language.
Floor discussion referenced prosecutorial input, text‑drafting tests about criminal elements, and policy concerns about how the statute would be understood by jurors and the public. The Senate then proceeded with other calendar items.
