Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 14-8-2 (2026)

Authority to Adopt Regulations and Policies to Implement Program.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The board is authorized to adopt regulations and policies permitting the commissioner to extend the limits of the place of confinement of an inmate, as to whom there is reasonable cause to believe he will know his trust, by authorizing him, under prescribed conditions, to leave the confines of that place unaccompanied by a custodial agent for a prescribed period of time to work at paid employment while continuing as an inmate of the institution or facility in which he shall be confined except during the hours of his employment or seeking of employment and traveling thereto and therefrom. Inmates shall participate in paid employment at the discretion of the board.

(b) The board may adopt regulations as to the eligibility of those inmates who are classified as minimum security risks for the extension of confinement or the entering into agreement between the board and any city, county or federal agency for the housing of these inmates in a local place of confinement. The board shall, as the need becomes evident, designate and adapt facilities in the state prison system to accomplish the purpose of this article.

(Acts 1971, 3rd Ex. Sess., No. 307, p. 4595, §§2, 3.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Frederick Francis v. Robert Fox, Elaine Lewis, Marian Shinbaum, John M. Shaver & Paul Whaley, 838 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Frederick Francis v. Robert Fox, Elaine Lewis, Marian Shinbaum, John M. Shaver & Paul Whaley, 838 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “See Ala.Code § 14-8-2 (1982). 1 Francis was denied work-release both times by the Central Review Board of the Department of Corrections’ Classification and Records Division because his crime involved serious physical injury to his victim and the Board expected negative community…”
Thomas v. Merritt, 167 So. 3d 283 (Ala. 2013). · cites it 3× “Thus, costs that are dependent on the fact that the work-release inmate is still, in actuality, confined in a penal institution, despite his or her temporary release for employment purposes pursuant to § 14-8-2, would be costs ‘incident’ to the inmate’s confinement.”
Alabama Dep't of Corr. v. Merritt, 74 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Thus, costs that are dependent on the fact that the work-release inmate is still, in actuality, confined in a penal institution, despite his or her temporary release for employment purposes pursuant to § 14-8-2, would be costs "incident" to the inmate's confinement.”
Joseph G. Givens v. AL Dept. of Corr., 381 F.3d 1064 (11th Cir. 2004). “See Ala.Code § 14-8-2. This authority is constrained by several relevant limitations.”
Suggs v. Suggs, 54 So. 3d 921 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Because the father is not expected to be released back into the community and is serving a 150-year sentence, it appears that he is not eligible for paid employment under § 14-8-2. . The main opinion suggests that the father has some other assets or income from which to pay…”
Bruce Talmadge Whitehorn v. E.L. Harrelson Mr. Green D. Foster, E. Potts, Counselors, 758 F.2d 1416 (11th Cir. 1985). “Ala.Code § 14-8-2(a) (1975). The court concluded that the statute did not limit the Board’s discretion to determine who would be eligible to participate in the work release program; therefore, the plaintiff had no protected interest in participating in the program.”
Ex Parte Alabama Dep't of Corr., 1100129 (Ala. 5-13-2011), 74 So. 3d 25 (Ala. 2011). · cites it 2× “’ § 14-8-2(a), Ala. Code 1975. Work-release inmates are confined in their respective prisons during the hours they are not at work.”
Ex Parte Berry, 794 So. 2d 307 (Ala. 2000). “Section 14-8-2(a), Ala.Code 1975, allows inmates to leave the prison facility and work at paid employment "at the discretion of the [B]oard [of Corrections].”
Harris v. Thigpen, 727 F. Supp. 1564 (M.D. Ala. 1990). “CODE OF ALABAMA [1975], § 14-8-2(a), frames work release in discretionary terms.”
Bryant v. State, 494 So. 2d 874 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Our Board of Corrections, pursuant to § 14-8-2, Code of Alabama 1975, is “authorized to adopt regulations and policies permitting the commissioner to extend the limits of the place of confinement of an inmate,” and is authorized to “adopt regulations as to the eligibility of…”
Pettco Enter., Inc. v. White, 896 F. Supp. 1137 (M.D. Ala. 1995). · cites it 2× “Ala.Code § 14-8-2 (1975). In certain circumstances, the Alabama Code also authorizes inmates to leave a State correction institution for the purpose of seeking employment or future housing or participating in certain educational programs.”
Robey v. Alabama Dep't of Corr., 155 So. 3d 221 (Ala. 2014). · cites it 2× “Robey argues that an ADOC rule is in conflict with § 14-8-2(a), Ala.Code 1975, which provides as follows: “The [Department of Corrections] is authorized to adopt regulations and policies permitting the commissioner [of Corrections] to extend the limits of the place of…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Ala. Code § 14-8-2(a): 9 cases
Thomas v. Merritt, 167 So. 3d 283 (Ala. 2013). “Thus, costs that are dependent on the fact that the work-release inmate is still, in actuality, confined in a penal institution, despite his or her temporary release for employment purposes pursuant to § 14-8-2, would be costs ‘incident’ to the inmate’s confinement.”
Alabama Dep't of Corr. v. Merritt, 74 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Thus, costs that are dependent on the fact that the work-release inmate is still, in actuality, confined in a penal institution, despite his or her temporary release for employment purposes pursuant to § 14-8-2, would be costs "incident" to the inmate's confinement.”
Bruce Talmadge Whitehorn v. E.L. Harrelson Mr. Green D. Foster, E. Potts, Counselors, 758 F.2d 1416 (11th Cir. 1985). “Ala.Code § 14-8-2(a) (1975). The court concluded that the statute did not limit the Board’s discretion to determine who would be eligible to participate in the work release program; therefore, the plaintiff had no protected interest in participating in the program.”
Frederick Francis v. Robert Fox, Elaine Lewis, Marian Shinbaum, John M. Shaver & Paul Whaley, 838 F.2d 1147 (11th Cir. 1988). “See Ala.Code § 14-8-2 (1982). 1 Francis was denied work-release both times by the Central Review Board of the Department of Corrections’ Classification and Records Division because his crime involved serious physical injury to his victim and the Board expected negative community…”
Ex Parte Alabama Dep't of Corr., 1100129 (Ala. 5-13-2011), 74 So. 3d 25 (Ala. 2011). “’ § 14-8-2(a), Ala. Code 1975. Work-release inmates are confined in their respective prisons during the hours they are not at work.”
Ala. Code § 14-8-2(b): 1 case
Bryant v. State, 494 So. 2d 874 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “Our Board of Corrections, pursuant to § 14-8-2, Code of Alabama 1975, is “authorized to adopt regulations and policies permitting the commissioner to extend the limits of the place of confinement of an inmate,” and is authorized to “adopt regulations as to the eligibility of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.