Crimes and offenses, custodial sexual misconduct further provided for
Summary
SB81 would expand Alabama’s custodial sexual misconduct law by broadening who can be prosecuted for sexual conduct with people in custody. Under current law, the offense applies to certain employees; this bill would extend it to any person who has access to a person in custody because of their profession, as well as to probation and parole officers who have supervisory, disciplinary, or custodial authority over the person. The bill also keeps the existing rule that consent is not a defense when the person is in custody or under probation/parole supervision.
The bill defines the offense as custodial sexual misconduct and classifies it as a Class C felony. It applies to people in the custody of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Youth Services, a sheriff, a county, or a municipality. If enacted, it would amend Section 14-11-31 of the Code of Alabama 1975 and take effect on October 1, 2025.
Impact
SB81 would broaden the scope of Alabama criminal law governing sexual misconduct in custodial settings by expanding the category of prohibited actors beyond employees to include any professional with access to a person in custody, and by expressly covering probation and parole officers. It would increase potential criminal liability for professionals working in or around correctional, detention, and supervision systems, while preserving the existing non-consent rule for incarcerated or supervised individuals. The bill would amend Section 14-11-31, Code of Alabama 1975, and create or reinforce felony exposure for violations.
Sentiment
The available record suggests the bill was introduced as a public-safety and anti-exploitation measure, with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. Its framing indicates support for strengthening protections for people in custody and under supervision by closing perceived loopholes in the existing law. However, because the bill was later listed as indefinitely postponed, it appears it did not advance, and there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the supplied record beyond the bill’s protective purpose.
Contention
The main policy issue is the breadth of the expansion: the bill reaches beyond direct custodial employees to any person who has access by virtue of their profession, which could include a wider range of contractors, service providers, or professionals. Another point is the inclusion of probation and parole officers under a separate subsection, making clear that supervisory authority alone can trigger liability. Potential concerns likely center on how broadly “access by virtue of profession” would be interpreted and whether the felony penalty is appropriately calibrated, but no specific objections are recorded in the provided materials.