# Haislop v. Edgell

> West Virginia Supreme Court · December 10, 2003 · 215 W. Va. 88

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856405

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas D. HAISLOP, Michael R. Reed, Thomas E. Johnson, II, Petitioners Below, Appellants, v. Gary EDGELL, Superintendent, WV Department of Public Safety; Ginny Conley, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney; And W.L. Rectenwald, Commander Wood County Detachment WV State Police, Respondents Below, Appellees
- **Court:** West Virginia Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 10, 2003
- **Citations:** 215 W. Va. 88; 593 S.E.2d 839
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Starcher
- **Judges:** McGraw, Starcher, Archer
- **Cited by:** 16 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/9856405

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that "[t]he application of W. Va. Code § 15-12-4 (2000), which requires life registration for certain sexual offenders, or W. Va. Code § 15—12—5 (2001
- observing that legislation which is civil “would not implicate the ex post facto clause,” whereas legislation which is punitive “would violate the clause.”

## Opinion text

STARCHER, C.J., concurring.
(Filed Dec. 10, 2003)
I join the Court’s unanimous opinion and write separately to highlight a distinct and important point made by the Court in its opinion — that our decision does not address the substantive due process and equal protection aspects of the Sex Offender Registration Act.
My own judgment is that in an appropriate case, substantive due process and equal protection would require that an offender who could clearly demonstrate rehabilitation be able to go before a circuit court and show that they have no risk of re-offending, and request removal of the registration requirement. That is, such an individual might have grounds to challenge provisions of the Act as applied to him or her. See majority opinion, 215 W.Va. at 100, 593 S.E.2d at 850. In such a case, a circuit court in the first instance should take evidence, make a full record, and rule on the substantive due process and equal protection issues. If such a case is ever brought, I hope that it is a case that has compelling equities and merit, so as not to poison the well of justice with “bad facts.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9856405. Public record. Not legal advice.