Delaware Code

11 Del. C. § 1259 (2026)

Sexual relations in detention facility; class G felony [Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section DE-DELCdelcode.delaware.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
62 Del. Laws, c. 282, §  167 Del. Laws, c. 130, §  870 Del. Laws, c. 186, §  177 Del. Laws, c. 241, §  1repealed by 81 Del. Laws, c. 389, § 2, effective Aug. 29, 2018.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2023 · leading case: Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Del. 1999).
Carrigan v. Davis, 70 F. Supp. 2d 448 (D. Del. 1999). · cites it 4× “However, a violation of 11 Del.Code § 1259 does not establish a violation of a constitutional right for purposes of establishing a Section 1983 violation, and the Court does not refer to this statute to elevate it to a constitutional level.”
Carrigan v. State of Del., 957 F. Supp. 1376 (D. Del. 1997). · cites it 2× “The seriousness of these policies is emphasized by their embodiment in 11 Del.Code § 1259, which criminalizes employee and/or inmate sexual relations in a detention facility.”
Daniels v. Delaware, 120 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D. Del. 2000). · cites it 2× “Further, these policies are reinforced by the Department of Correction Training Materials, as well as by 11 Del.C. § 1259, which criminalizes employee and/or inmate sexual relations in a detention facility.”
Franklin v. Franklin Cnty., Kentucky (E.D. Ky. 2023). “1, 2003) (“That an inmate cannot assert consent as a defense to the crime articulated in 11 Del. C. § 1259 does not mean that an inmate can avoid the consequences of consent in a civil suit.”
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.