WV · state guide

West Virginia background screening law

How the courts here are organized

West Virginia is a court-record state and the organizing unit is the circuit, not the county. The Judiciary's own description is direct about the trial tier: "The circuit courts are West Virginia's only general jurisdiction trial courts of record. Circuit courts have jurisdiction over all civil cases involving a certain amount of money; all civil cases in equity; proceedings in habeas corpus, mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and certiorari; all felonies; and certain misdemeanors." A conviction record in West Virginia is therefore a circuit court record, and the circuit clerk's office is where it lives.

The circuits are drawn across county lines and were reapportioned for 2025. Section 51-2-1(a) governs "Beginning on the effective date of this subsection and until December 31, 2024" and divides the state into 31 circuits; subsection (b) then provides that "Effective January 1, 2025, the state shall be divided into the following judicial circuits", and the list that follows runs from the first to the thirtieth. The judge counts in that list sum to 80. The Judiciary states the same figures in the same words, "West Virginia's 55 counties are divided into 30 circuits with 80 circuit judges", and adds that the circuit size and the number of judges are set by the Legislature. Fourteen of the thirty are a single county, among them Cabell, Kanawha, Wood, Fayette, Raleigh, Monongalia and Jefferson; the other sixteen draw two or more counties together, and the thirtieth, Monroe and Summers, has one judge, for whose unavailability § 51-2-1(c) gives the Raleigh County circuit court concurrent jurisdiction.

Magistrate courts sit below the circuit courts and take most of the volume. The Judiciary says magistrates "have jurisdiction over civil cases in which the financial amount in dispute is not more than $20,000", that they "hear misdemeanor cases and conduct preliminary examinations in felony cases", and that in criminal matters they "issue and record affidavits, complaints, arrest warrants, and search warrants, as well as set bail and make decisions concerning proposed plea agreements, the collection of courts costs, cash bonds, and fines." Appeals from magistrate court go to the circuit court. The Judiciary's magistrate page states that there are 169 magistrates, "at least two magistrates in every county, and thirteen in the largest county, Kanawha"; the same Judiciary's overview page states 158 and ten in Kanawha. The statute sets the circuits and the circuit judges; it does not fix a statewide magistrate total in the section read for this page.

Family courts are a separate tier created by constitutional amendment. Voters approved the amendment in November 2000 and the courts "went into effect on January 1, 2002". They hear "divorce; annulment; separate maintenance; paternity; grandparent visitation; issues involving allocation of parental responsibility; and family support proceedings", and they "hold final hearings in domestic violence civil proceedings". The family court page states that there are 48 family court judges serving 27 family court circuits; the overview page states 47 in 27 circuits. Family court decisions in domestic violence proceedings are appealed to the circuit court, and family court appeals generally go to the circuit court or to the Supreme Court depending on the case type.

The appellate tier has two courts. From a circuit court, "Appeals from circuit courts in criminal, juvenile, abuse and neglect, and domestic violence cases go to the Supreme Court, while appeals from circuit courts in civil cases go to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA)." The ICA has three judges, elected in nonpartisan elections for ten-year terms, and it was established by the Legislature in 2021 and "began operating July 1, 2022". The Supreme Court of Appeals receives about three thousand appeals a year. The whole structure is unified: the 1974 Judicial Reorganization Amendment, effective 1 January 1976, "ended the justice of the peace system and established a unified court system, uniting all state courts, except municipal courts, into a single system supervised and administered by the Supreme Court of Appeals".

Both record routes are statewide in name. The Judiciary's record access page offers two searches and describes them in one line each: "Search circuit court records from all fifty-five counties statewide" and "Search magistrate court case information from all fifty-five counties statewide". Neither portal resolved from the environment this research ran in, so the page states what each portal covers and does not describe its terms, fees or coverage depth.

A West Virginia search has to be scoped to circuits, and the county list is the wrong index for it. Section 51-2-1(b) draws 30 circuits out of 55 counties, and the mapping is not one to one in either direction: most counties sit in a circuit with at least one other county, and a handful of circuits are a single county. A vendor that runs West Virginia county by county will duplicate work in the multi-county circuits and will miss nothing only by accident, because the record is filed by the circuit clerk rather than by the county clerk. The practical consequence is that the circuit is the unit to price and to reconcile, and the county is an address inside it.

The Judiciary's own site disagrees with itself on three counts, and the page carries both figures rather than a single confident number. The circuit court page states "30 circuits with 80 circuit judges", which matches § 51-2-1(b) as it stands today. The overview page at /lower-courts still states "thirty-one circuit courts in West Virginia with a total of seventy-five circuit judges", which matches § 51-2-1(a) and the position before 1 January 2025. On the lower tiers, the magistrate page says 169 magistrates with thirteen in Kanawha while the overview says 158 with ten, and the family court page says 48 judges while the overview says 47. Both pages carry the same recent copyright line, so the divergence is editorial rather than archival. Where the statute is the source, the page follows the statute; where it is not, the page reports both figures with the page each came from.

The repository route and the court route answer different questions and neither is a West Virginia criminal history on its own. A State Police response under § 15-2-24(d) is a bureau record, released on the superintendent's approval and the subject's written and acknowledged authorization, and it is the fingerprint-bearing record that the Rap Back retention at (k) is built on. A court search is a circuit court matter, with the magistrate court holding the earlier stage of a felony and the misdemeanor dispositions, and with appeals leaving the circuit for the Supreme Court or the Intermediate Court of Appeals. An employer or a screening firm that reports "West Virginia" without saying which of the two answered has not said anything a reader can check.

The mandate for the written authorization is not a formality, and it is the part of a West Virginia file that is most often missing. Section 15-2-24(d) requires the authorization to be signed and acknowledged by the person whose record is sought, and § 30-1D-1(c)(4) uses the same condition for license check results, adding a court order as the only other route to a private entity. A file that holds a record without that document cannot show that the release was authorized, whatever the record says. The page states the condition because it is the state's actual access rule, and the operational answer on this page is to keep the signed authorization with the report rather than with the requisition.

Access to the record systems themselves was limited in this pass and the page says so rather than describing mechanics it did not see. The two Judiciary portals named on the record access page, one for circuit court records and one for magistrate case information, did not resolve from this environment: the circuit portal returned a Cloudflare challenge and the magistrate host did not accept a connection. The circuit clerk offices hold the trial records and are the fallback route, and the judiciary's structure pages confirm the tiers and the appeal paths but not the coverage, the fees or the turnaround of either portal. What is verified is the structure and the two search entry points; what is not is what sits behind them.

The federal baseline

Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.

What follows is only the overlay: what West Virginia adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.

What West Virginia law adds

Reporting limits at a glance

Every figure below is against West Virginia law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.

Adverse action here

The federal sequence applies unchanged: pre-adverse action notice with a copy of the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to dispute, then the adverse action notice with the agency’s details and a dispute route. The FCRA article sets it out in full.

West Virginia adds no state notice duty to that sequence. There is no state requirement to give notice before a criminal history report is requested, no state pre-adverse action notice, no state adverse action notice form and no state lookback rule that would narrow what the report may contain, so for a conviction report nothing in the state's own law adds a step to the federal sequence. That is a finding about the instruments read rather than a clearance, because the state does regulate the release, and that regulation sits earlier.

The state overlay sits earlier, at the point the record is obtained. Section 15-2-24(d) permits the Criminal Identification Bureau to furnish records to a private organization only with the superintendent's approval and only where the request "must be accompanied by a written authorization signed and acknowledged by the person whose fingerprints, photographs, records or other information is to be released." A letter that relies on a State Police record without that signed and acknowledged authorization on file is relying on a release the section did not authorize, and the same condition is repeated for license check results at § 30-1D-1(c)(4), where the only other route to a private entity is a court order.

One state rule does shape what a letter may say about an expunged matter, and it points in both directions. Where a check was required by state or federal law, § 61-11-26(l)(3) allows the employer to know an expunged conviction, so a report that carries one is not by itself evidence of a bad source. Where no mandate applies, (l)(1) provides that the proceedings "shall be considered, as a matter of law, never to have occurred" and that the person is not required to disclose them, so a letter that recites an expunged conviction the person was entitled to leave unsaid should be checked against the section before it goes out.

The person also has a statement right and a perjury shield. Under § 61-11-25(e) and § 61-11-26(l)(1) the person whose record is expunged "shall not have to disclose the fact of the record or any matter relating thereto on an application for employment", and under § 61-11-26(l)(2) that person "may not be found guilty of perjury or otherwise giving a false statement, under any provision of this code, because of that person's failure to recite or acknowledge the arrest, indictment, information, trial, or conviction", provided the person complies with (l)(1). The shield does not extend to an applicant for a law-enforcement-type position, who must disclose under the proviso to (l)(1) whether or not the conviction was expunged.

A Rap Back participant owes a communication that is easy to miss because it is not an adverse action at all. Section 15-2-24(k) requires participating agencies to "notify applicants and employees subject to a criminal history check that their fingerprint shall be retained by the CIB and the FBI". That notice is owed at the check, not at a decision, and a process that sends the federal disclosures without it has an incomplete file even where no adverse action follows.

Where a medical cannabis patient is involved, the decision has to rest on conduct rather than on status. Section 16A-15-4(b)(1) bars adverse action "solely on the basis of such employee's status as an individual who is certified to use medical cannabis", while (b)(2) preserves discipline "for being under the influence of medical cannabis in the workplace or for working while under the influence" where the conduct falls below the standard of care for the position. A file that records the certification but not the conduct is a file that supports the wrong conclusion.

Screening in West Virginia: what your process needs

• Do not look for a West Virginia inquiry rule. There is none, in either sector, and a process that waits for a conditional offer is applying a rule the state has not enacted rather than one it has.
• Read the release condition before the requisition. Section 15-2-24(d) requires the request to be accompanied by "a written authorization signed and acknowledged by the person whose fingerprints, photographs, records or other information is to be released", and the authorization belongs in the file with the report.
• Apply the same condition to license check results. Under § 30-1D-1(c)(4) the results of a state and national criminal history record check "may not be released to or by a private entity except" to the subject, with the subject's written authorization, or under a court order, and they are not public records.
• Give the Rap Back notice where the program is used. Section 15-2-24(k) requires participating agencies to tell applicants and employees that their fingerprint will be retained by the Criminal Identification Bureau and the FBI, and the notice is owed at the check rather than at a decision.
• Check which expungement track applies before advising anyone on timing. Section 61-11-25 covers non-convictions and completed diversions at 60 days with no fee; § 61-11-26 covers convictions at one, two or five years with the civil filing fee plus $100 to the State Police records division; § 61-11-26a accelerates the conviction track and waives the $100.
• Do not treat the conviction track as available twice. Section 61-11-26(o) allows the relief "once" across § 61-11-26 and § 61-11-26a, so the timing of the first petition matters.
• Read § 61-11-26(l)(3) before writing an expunged conviction out of a file. Where the check was required by state or federal law, the employer "are authorized to have knowledge of any convictions expunged under this section", and the section says so notwithstanding anything else in the Code.
• Read the proviso to § 61-11-26(l)(1) before accepting a no-convictions answer for a law-enforcement-type role. An applicant for a position involving the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or incarceration of persons for violations of the law "shall disclose any and all convictions", expunged or not.
• Do not rely on a report that does not say which West Virginia record answered. A State Police bureau response and a circuit court record are different instruments with different content, and only the bureau record is the fingerprint-bearing one that Rap Back is built on.
• Scope the court search to circuits, not counties. Section 51-2-1(b) draws 30 circuits across 55 counties and most circuits hold more than one county, so the circuit is the unit to reconcile and the county is an address inside it.
• Use the current circuit figures. The 31-circuit apportionment in § 51-2-1(a) ran only until 31 December 2024, and the Judiciary's overview page still carries the pre-2025 counts of 31 circuits and 75 judges. The current statute and the Judiciary's circuit court page agree on 30 circuits and 80 circuit judges.
• Expect a magistrate court record for the early stage of a felony. Magistrates conduct preliminary examinations, set bail and issue warrants, and appeals from magistrate court go to the circuit court, so a felony can have a record at each tier.
• Do not cite Chapter 16 Article 49 for the health care screening regime. Its sections now render as repealed and the operative text is Chapter 16B, Article 15, which bars employment before the background check process is complete for covered providers and contractors.
• Do not refuse to hire a certified medical cannabis patient on the basis of status. Section 16A-15-4(b)(1) bars it, and the statute requires no accommodation of use on the premises and preserves discipline for being under the influence at work or working while under the influence.
• Check the licensing rules before treating a conviction as disqualifying for a license. Sections 21-1-6 and 30-1-24 permit disqualification from initial licensure only where the conviction "bears a rational nexus" to the occupation, and § 21-1-6(c) lets a person petition for a determination before applying.
• Ask before you assume on credit history, salary history and lookback. No West Virginia restriction was located in any of the three, and none was verified as absent.

Related states

• Virginia. Virginia repealed its private-sector ban-the-box in 1985 and never replaced it, and it regulates the screening provider instead: a business screening service must register with the State Police to receive sealing notifications, must delete a sealed record regardless of the source it came from, must carry the record’s collection date on every dissemination, and is liable for $1,000 or actual damages. Its sealing sections moved to a new chapter on 1 July 2026 and its cannabis employer-disclosure ban was repealed the same day.
• Ohio. Ohio renumbered its sealing chapter, so the test most screening policies quote now has a different address: the "unless the question bears a direct and substantial relationship to the position for which the person is being considered" language sits at R.C. 2953.34(N)(2)(a), and R.C. 2953.33 is now the non-conviction provision covering a not-guilty finding, a dismissal, a no bill or a pardon, which the chapter heading records as "[Former R.C. 2953.52, amended and renumbered by S.B. 288, 134th General Assembly, effective 4/4/2023]". The state repository is narrower than the courts: R.C. 109.57(A)(1) has the superintendent hold felonies and a named set of misdemeanors, so an ordinary misdemeanor reaches a search only through the county courts. For cannabis, R.C. 3796.28(A)(5) gives an employer a defense rather than a duty.
• Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania limits how a conviction may be used rather than whether it may be asked about: 18 Pa.C.S. § 9125 lets an employer consider a felony or a misdemeanor conviction only to the extent it relates to the applicant’s suitability for the position applied for, and requires a written notice when a decision not to hire rests in whole or in part on criminal history record information, which the Third Circuit read in January 2026 to reach a conviction the applicant volunteered. The State Police repository answers against Pennsylvania law enforcement records only and never federal ones, a Pennsylvania court docket sits outside the state criminal history statute altogether, and the docket number that identifies a case carries a county code where a judicial district number would be expected. Philadelphia then bans the inquiry, reaching research conducted for an employer by a third party, and sets a seven-year felony and four-year misdemeanor window measured from the underlying arrest or release from incarceration, whichever is later, with ten business days to answer a provisional decision.

What we do

West Virginia does not ask when you may ask. It asks who may release, and on what. Section 15-2-24(d) opens the Criminal Identification Bureau to any private organization on the superintendent's approval and then conditions every request on "a written authorization signed and acknowledged by the person whose fingerprints, photographs, records or other information is to be released", and § 30-1D-1(c)(4) repeats the same condition for license check results, with a court order the only other route. Section 61-11-26(l)(3) then cuts the other way for anyone under a statutory check mandate, who "are authorized to have knowledge of any convictions expunged under this section", so an expungement in this state is not the clean wall a form usually assumes. The courts run on 30 circuits across 55 counties with 80 circuit judges from 1 January 2025, and a circuit is not a county, so a search scoped county by county is scoped to the wrong unit. Our West Virginia work keeps the signed authorization with the report, says which of the two record systems answered, applies the right expungement clock, and treats the medical cannabis protection as a rule about status and not about conduct. If your current file cannot show the signed authorization, or reports West Virginia county by county, this is where that shows.

Sources

• W. Va. Code § 15-2-24, Criminal Identification Bureau, including the release condition at (d), the return of fingerprints at (h) and the Rap Back retention at (k), and § 15-2-24a, the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact and its savings clause for the State Police criminal records section
• W. Va. Code § 15-2-26, the State Police fund, which refers to fees for criminal history record reviews and challenges at (b)
• W. Va. Code § 61-11-25, expungement of non-convictions and completed diversions, including the non-disclosure rule at (e) and the fee waiver at (g)
• W. Va. Code § 61-11-26, expungement of convictions, including the exclusion list at (c), the burden at (h), the disclosure rules at (l), the fees at (n) and the once-only limit at (o)
• W. Va. Code § 61-11-26a, the accelerated expungement track through treatment or a job readiness course
• W. Va. Code § 16A-15-4, protections for patients and caregivers, with the employment provision at (b), and § 16A-15-9, applicability of the Medical Cannabis Act, which conditions permit issuance on a State Register notice
• W. Va. Code § 51-2-1, judicial circuits, with the 31-circuit apportionment at (a) and the 30-circuit apportionment at (b) effective 1 January 2025
• W. Va. Code § 21-1-6, use of criminal records as disqualification from authorization to engage in a licensed profession or occupation
• W. Va. Code § 30-1-24, use of criminal records as disqualification from authorization to practice, the rational nexus rule for the Chapter 30 boards
• W. Va. Code § 30-1D-1, criminal background checks required of new applicants, known as Lynette's Law, with the release restriction at (c)(4)
• W. Va. Code § 16B-15-3, prescreening and criminal background checks under the West Virginia Clearance for Access Act
• W. Va. Code § 4-3-6, authority to screen employees of the Legislature
• West Virginia Code, table of contents (wvcodeentire.htm), read live on 23 September 2026; 16,739 section titles, used for the statewide sweep behind the negatives
• West Virginia Judiciary, Lower Courts and its Circuit Courts, Magistrate Courts and Family Courts pages, read live; source of the court descriptions, the appeal paths and the diverging counts, together with the Court Record Access page naming the two statewide record searches
• West Virginia Office of Medical Cannabis, read live, describing the operating program, patient cards, dispensaries and industry licensing
• Route note: code.wvlegislature.gov returns HTTP 302 to fbi.gov for every path from this environment, and www.wvlegislature.gov 301-redirects all /wvcode/ paths into that host, so every Code section on this page was read through Internet Archive raw replay of the same URL using the id_ modifier, at the capture dates recorded in the research file. The one live route to the Code is the table of contents at www.wvlegislature.gov/wvcodeentire.htm, which was reachable and current. The publisher's current host renders every section of Chapter 5, Article 11 as "[Repealed.]", including § 5-11-1 "Short title", which is a content fault and not a repeal; § 5-11-9 was read instead from a 2021 capture of the publisher's older host. courtswv.gov was reachable live except for the two record portals: the circuit portal returns a Cloudflare challenge and the magistrate case search host does not accept a connection. The Legislature's own site search (search.wvlegislature.gov) and the Secretary of State's rule-making index both failed to connect, so no full-text search over the Code and no administrative rule text was available, and the Code sweep rests on section titles.

Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.