West VirginiaLocal lawyers must handle hearings over drivers' chemical-test refusals
West Virginia requires the responsible county prosecutor or municipal lawyer to protect the state's interests at hearings reviewing drivers' alleged refusals of chemical tests.
What it does
County prosecutors or municipal lawyers must handle hearings about drivers' alleged chemical-test refusals. These rules do not make the Division of Motor Vehicles a party or require those lawyers to represent it.
Argument forGiving the responsible local lawyer clear duties could reduce confusion about who handles the state's side of a test-refusal hearing.
Argument againstDrivers without lawyers may find it harder to present their case when a government lawyer handles the state's side of the hearing.
More detail
The responsible county prosecutor or municipal lawyer must attend and handle the hearing to protect the state's interests. These hearings review a driver's alleged refusal of a chemical test recorded in a police officer's statement to the court. The driver must request the hearing within 30 days following the first court appearance. These rules do not make the Division of Motor Vehicles a party or require the local lawyer to represent it or its commissioner. The law took effect June 12, 2026.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Senate
- Passed House
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Jun 25Chapter 235, Acts, Regular Session, 2026Latest
- Apr 1Approved by Governor Patrick Morrisey 4/1/2026Major
- Mar 18To Governor 3/18/2026To Governor
- Mar 14Approved by Governor Patrick Morrisey 4/1/2026 - House JournalMajor
- Vote recorded Senate concurred in House amendments and passed bill. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 14Approved by Governor Patrick Morrisey 4/1/2026 - Senate JournalBecame Law
- Mar 14To Governor 3/18/2026 - Senate JournalMinor
- Mar 14Completed legislative action
- Mar 14Communicated to House
- Mar 14Senate concurred in House amendments and passed bill (Roll No. 658)
- Mar 14House Message received
- Mar 13Communicated to Senate
- Vote recorded PASSAGE. Result: pass.Lower
- Mar 13Title amendment adopted (Voice vote)
- Mar 13Passed House (Roll No. 539)Passed House
- Mar 13Read 3rd timeMinor
- Mar 13On 3rd reading, Special Calendar
- Mar 12Committee amendment adopted (Voice vote)
- Mar 12Amendment reported by the Clerk
- Mar 12Read 2nd timeMinor
- Mar 12On 2nd reading, Special Calendar
- Mar 11Read 1st timeMinor
- Mar 11Immediate consideration
- Mar 11With amendment, do passMinor
- Mar 10Markup Discussion
- Feb 20To House JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 20To JudiciaryMinor
- Feb 20Introduced in HouseMinor
- Feb 20House received Senate message
- Feb 19Ordered to House
- Vote recorded Passage. Result: pass.Upper
- Feb 19Passed Senate (Roll No. 147)Passed Senate
- Feb 19Read 3rd timeMinor
- Feb 19On 3rd reading
- Feb 18Read 2nd timeMinor
- Feb 18On 2nd reading
- Feb 17Read 1st timeMinor
- Feb 17On 1st reading
- Feb 16Reported do passMinor
- Feb 10To FinanceMinor
- Feb 10Committee substitute reported, but first to FinanceMinor
- Jan 22To JudiciaryMinor
- Jan 22Introduced in SenateMinor
- Jan 22To Judiciary then FinanceMinor
- Jan 22Filed for introductionIntroduced
Criminal JusticeTransportation