# Hensler v. Cross

> West Virginia Supreme Court · December 13, 2001 · 210 W. Va. 530

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855548

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael M. HENSLER, Petitioner Below, Appellant, v. David B. CROSS, Sergeant T.R. Cox, Magistrate Michael Allman and Magistrate Michael Fuscardo, Respondents Below, Appellees
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 13, 2001
- **Citations:** 210 W. Va. 530; 558 S.E.2d 330
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Starcher
- **Judges:** Maynard, Starcher
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855548

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[t]he Sex Offender Registration Act, W. Va. Code §§ 15-12-1 to 10, is a regulatory statute which does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.”
- recognizing Sex Offender Registration Act as regulatory and one that does not enhance or increase punishment
- recognizing purpose of sex offender registration is “to protect the innocent public from sex offenders[.]”

## Opinion text

STARCHER, Justice,
concurring:
(Filed Dec. 13, 2001.)
I concur in the Court’s judgment because as the majority opinion demonstrates, the law is fairly well settled that most sexual offender registration statutes, being essentially civil regulatory statutes, are not subject to an ex post facto analysis.
However, as civil statutes, these statutes are subject to other constitutional scrutiny, including substantive and due process scrutiny. A statute which fails to allow a person to make an individualized showing that their registration is no longer appropriate may be constitutionally infirm. Nothing in the majority opinion would preclude the presentation and consideration of such a case. Our law, even at its fiercest and most protective, must also serve the purpose of rehabilitation. I personally feel that “lifetime” registration without even the possibility of “unregister-ing” upon proof of full rehabilitation is wrong as a policy matter, and it may be constitutionally wrong as well.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9855548. Public record. Not legal advice.