Photo Courtesy/WV Legislative Photography State Sen. Vince Deeds, R-Greenbrier, explains SB 196, updating penalties for drug trafficking, during a meeting of the House Judiciary Committee.

Photo Courtesy/WV Legislative Photography
A tribute to Lauren Cole, the namesake for SB 196 — Lauren’s Law — was placed outside the state Senate chambers in March.

CHARLESTON — A bill named for a victim of fentanyl poisoning and aimed at major drug kingpins and dealers was passed by the West Virginia House of Delegates Friday.

The House passed Senate Bill 196, Lauren’s Law, in a 98-1 vote Friday morning. SB 196 proposes increasing the severity of sentences for multiple drug offenses, including distributing large quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and fentanyl.

It also increases the minimum sentence for drug delivery resulting in death from three to 10 years and for failing to seek medical assistance for someone overdosing from one to two years. These increases were in tribute to Lauren Renee Cole, 26, of Morgantown, who died July 9, 2020, due to fentanyl poisoning. The two men who provided Cole the fentanyl-laced heroin were sentenced to 15 years in prison.

“A portion of this law relates to a young lady named Lauren Cole,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman JB Akers, R-Kanawha. “In the event that her family may be watching today, I urge passage of this bill, and we all have her family in our thoughts and prayers.”

The bill increases the minimum sentence for manufacturing, delivering or possessing with intent to manufacture or deliver Schedule I and Schedule II narcotics or methamphetamine and introduces mandatory minimum sentences and restrictions on alternative sentencing for conspiracies involving large quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl.

SB 196 also introduces mandatory minimum sentences for transporting large quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and fentanyl into the state, along with restrictions on probation, home incarceration and sentence suspension.

The House Judiciary Committee amended the bill, removing the knowledge requirement for the fentanyl enhancement relating to possession with intent to deliver certain drugs. It increases the penalties and amends weight requirements for the offense of conspiracy, clarifies the crime of drug delivery resulting in death, increases the penalty if the death was a result of an unlawful sale of controlled substances and increases the penalty for failure to render aid.

“This bill went through more than just a little bit of work. It went through significant changes in the Judiciary Committee,” Akers said. “The weights only apply in this bill to transportation and conspiracy crimes. That’s a significant change in the original version we got from the Senate. The Senate version involved weights with possession with intent crimes … That’s not what we have here.”

The House amendment also creates a new section of code relating to drug kingpins, defined as a person that finances or manages a drug conspiracy, and creates enhanced penalties for drug kingpins who engage in those conspiracies. It amends the recidivist section to reflect the new offenses and clarifies the crimes for which probation is not permissible.

Akers said this kingpin provision is similar to a Maryland law.

“Maryland, for example, has a provision, and it seems to have worked well in Maryland,” Akers said. “That’s if you’re a financier of a drug trade. So, again, mandatory minimums for someone who’s found to be a drug kingpin does seem to be effective in other states. This will be the first time we’ve had this provision of code in West Virginia, so I believe that was a good addition here.”

Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, was the lone nay vote on the bill. While he understood the intent of the bill was to go after major drug traffickers and distributors, Pushkin questioned whether the bill would result in a decrease in drug flow into the state.

“I know who we’re trying to go after here and I fully support that. You’re trying to go after the big fish,” Pushkin said. “I think when you cast such a wide net you’re going to catch some little fish as well.”

During a committee hearing on SB 196 last week, members heard from the bill’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Vince Deeds, R-Greenbrier, who said the intent is to focus on high-level narcotics dealers and distributors.

“We realized that there was a gap in delivering controlled substances, and that’s what this bill targets is the drug dealers that are delivering controlled substances, high-level controlled substances, the fentanyls, the LSD, the cocaine, the meth, those type of substances,” Deeds said. “According to our research done, comparing our penalties to the surrounding states, West Virginia is a lot softer. This bill ultimately just puts us on the same playing field as our surrounding states.”

Some members of the committee raised questions Monday about some of the drugs included in the bill, the increased penalties and the removal of some judicial leeway regarding sentencing.

“You’d mentioned this was really only targeting the hard core drugs,” said Del. Mike Hornby, R-Berkeley. “I’m not a lawyer, so I’m just asking: any other controlled substance classified in schedule I, II or III? Would that include marijuana?”

“That is a catch-all … that’s common language that’s used in the drug code,” Deeds said. “It’s just talking about the narcotic part of that bill.”

“I don’t read it that way at all,” said Del. Bill Flanigan, R-Ohio. “If you had a pound of hemp and you come across the state line with it, that’s considered a class I narcotic still by federal standards, but this is not in our state law.”

“Do these mandatory minimums take away judge’s discretion?” asked Del. Evan Hansen, D-Monongalia.

“Well, to some degree, it gives them a guideline because … it keeps all the circuit judges on the same playing field across the state,” Deeds said. “So, you don’t have a disparity between McDowell County and Mon (Monongalia) County and up north or anywhere else in the state. It levels the playing field.”

“Again, this is targeted for the individuals that deliver a high quantity of illicit drugs,” Deeds said in response to another question by House Minority Whip Shawn Fluharty, D-Ohio.

“I understand that’s your intent, but we have language in the bill that says otherwise, sir,” Fluharty said. “And that’s my concern here. What you want to do and what it actually does appears to be two different things.”

Deeds told committee members the bill was based on reviews by the West Virginia Fusion Center and West Virginia State Police of similar laws, but no study was done to determine whether higher penalties and mandatory minimums would curb drug trafficking.

“There are many different reasons why the drug crisis could be more serious in West Virginia. One of those reasons could be the penalties. But there’s lots of other reasons why drugs are prevalent in this state. And if you’re doing a study to try to understand whether the penalties are the main reason, that study would have to look at all the possible reasons before drawing a conclusion,” he said.