POLISCOPE
Back to bills

The civic record

Read. Follow. Verify.
Did Not Advance

West Virginia Bill Expands Castle Doctrine Protections and Legal Defenses for Using Defensive Force

Original title: Relating to deadly force

Last action · January 28, 2026: To House JudiciarySponsors: Margitta Mazzocchi and 9 others

Introduced
Committee
Floor Vote
Passed
Law

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

What This Bill Proposed

House Bill 4878 broadens protections for individuals using reasonable and proportionate force, including deadly force, in defense of self, home, and property without a . The measure establishes a complete defense against civil and criminal prosecution for lawful acts of self-defense and provides for the recovery of legal fees and court costs if actions are dismissed or result in acquittal.

Why it matters

Residents defending their homes, , or persons gain statutory immunity from civil lawsuits and criminal charges alongside eligibility to recoup legal expenses when cleared, while intruders or attackers face explicit bars from recovering damages.

Background
  • House Bill 4878 was introduced during the 2026 regular session of the West Virginia Legislature and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. context
  • The castle doctrine is a legal principle that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting them to use force, up to deadly force, to defend themselves against an intruder. context

Who It Would Have Affected

Groups the bill's text would have affected, as described in the record. Being affected is not a position for or against it.

Directly affected

Lawful occupants and property owners

Individuals gain explicit immunity from civil and criminal prosecution when using permitted defensive force and become eligible to recover legal fees and costs.

Directly affected

Intruders or attackers

Individuals engaged in unlawful entry or attacks face authorized defensive force and are barred from bringing successful civil actions against lawful occupants.

Directly affected

Law-enforcement officers

The statute explicitly notes that its provisions do not authorize or justify resisting or obstructing a law-enforcement officer acting in the course of duty.

Key Facts

You don't have to trust us. Each fact below is taken straight from the official document - click any one to see the exact passage, highlighted in the original.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does a resident have a duty to retreat from an intruder inside their home?
No. A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a from an intruder or attacker.
Can a person recover legal fees if they are sued civilly by an intruder?
Yes. A court of proper jurisdiction may award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and expenses incurred by a person in defense of a civil action filed by an intruder when the action is dismissed or a verdict is rendered in favor of the defending person.
Who is excluded from receiving these civil and criminal defense protections?
The protections are not available to anyone who is attempting or committing a felony, escaping from a felony, or who initially provokes the use of force without withdrawing from physical contact.

What else do you want to know?

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Where This Stands

This bill did not become law - Died at adjournment · in House committee.

Procedural history

4 actions
  1. Jan 28, 2026HouseCommittee
    To House Judiciary
  2. Jan 28, 2026HouseIntroduced
    Introduced in House
  3. Jan 28, 2026HouseCommittee
    To Judiciary
  4. Jan 28, 2026HouseIntroduced
    Filed for introduction

Version history

Only one version on file - nothing to compare yet. As later stages (committee substitute, engrossed, enrolled) are captured, the redline appears here.

View official text →

Lobbying Activity

No state lobbying filings in our records match this bill. Federal lobbying reports (LDA) cover Congress, so they are not listed on state bills.

Full breakdown

Who this bill affects and the strongest case for and against it, written only from the bill’s own text.

Sponsors

Discoveries

1 pattern noticed across the record

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift95% confidence

Expansion of Immunity to Curtilage and Defense of Property

The bill extends existing castle doctrine protections beyond the physical interior of a residence to the surrounding curtilage and broadens financial remedies through the recovery of legal fees.

Connected Entities

T. Howell, Bill Ridenour, Laura Kimble and 8 more
PersonT. Howell“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonBill Ridenour“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonLaura Kimble“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonJim Butler“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonCorby Dillon“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonKathie Hess Crouse“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
OrganizationWest Virginia Legislature“Legislative body considering the bill”Map →
PersonChuck Horst“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonJoe Funkhouser“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonMargitta Mazzocchi“Lead sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →
PersonChris Phillips“Co-sponsor of House Bill 4878”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.wvlegislature.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance20
    Lowered because this bill did not pass (its text scored 75)
  • Controversy65
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment10
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz40
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record