951.221
Sexual misconduct between detention facility employees and inmates; penalties.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
951.221 Sexual misconduct between detention facility employees and inmates; penalties.—
(1) Any employee of a county or municipal detention facility or of a private detention facility under contract with a county commission who engages in sexual misconduct, as defined in s. 944.35(3)(b)1., with an inmate or an offender supervised by the facility without committing the crime of sexual battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. The consent of an inmate to any act of sexual misconduct may not be raised as a defense to prosecution under this section.
(2) Notwithstanding prosecution, any violation of this section, as determined by the administrator of the facility, constitutes sufficient cause for dismissal of the violator from employment, and such person may not again be employed in any capacity in connection with the correctional system.
History.—s. 3, ch. 2001-92.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES— REPORT NO. 2013-06
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES— REPORT NO. 2013-06 (2014)
“(Defendant) was an employee of a [county or municipal detention facility] [private detention facility under contract with a county commission].”
Jordan v. State (2001)
“In keeping with the prior admonition, Jordan was subsequently charged with introduction of contraband into a county detention facility in violation of section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes (1999), a third degree felony, and the misdemeanor offense of possession of paraphernalia…”
Terri D. Franklin v. Glen Kimbrel (2015)
“See Fla. Stat. § 951.221 (1) (making sexual misconduct with an inmate (including sexual intercourse, see Fla.”
Lewis v. State (2005)
“Lewis appeals the sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of a violation of section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes (2002), sexual misconduct by a county or municipal detention facility employee.”
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases – Report No. 2013-06 (2014)
“§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. Consent is not a defense.”
Hanson v. Florida Department of Corrections (2025)
“§ 951.221(1). 3 matter of routine, investigations of sexual misconduct .”
— 951.221(1) — 5 cases
In Re STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES— REPORT NO. 2013-06 (2014)
“(Defendant) was an employee of a [county or municipal detention facility] [private detention facility under contract with a county commission].”
Jordan v. State (2001)
“In keeping with the prior admonition, Jordan was subsequently charged with introduction of contraband into a county detention facility in violation of section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes (1999), a third degree felony, and the misdemeanor offense of possession of paraphernalia…”
Lewis v. State (2005)
“Lewis appeals the sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of a violation of section 951.221(1), Florida Statutes (2002), sexual misconduct by a county or municipal detention facility employee.”
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases – Report No. 2013-06 (2014)
“§ 951.221(1), Fla. Stat. Consent is not a defense.”
Hanson v. Florida Department of Corrections (2025)
“§ 951.221(1). 3 matter of routine, investigations of sexual misconduct .”
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.