Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-919 (2026)

Sexual exploitation by a medical care provider. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sexual exploitation by a medical care provider. 

(a) Any person acting or holding himself out as a physician, surgeon, dentist, psychotherapist, chiropractor, nurse or other medical care provider as defined in this section, who engages in an act of sexual contact with a patient or client, is guilty of sexual exploitation by a medical care provider. For the purposes of this section, consent of the patient or client receiving medical care or treatment shall not be a defense. This section does not apply to sexual contact between a medical care provider and the provider’s spouse, or a person in a domestic relationship who is also a patient or client. Violation of this section is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one (1) year, or both.

(b)  For the purposes of this section:
(1)  "Intimate part" means the sexual organ, anus, or groin of any person, and the breast of a female.
(2)  "Medical care provider" means a person who gains the trust and confidence of a patient or client for the examination and/or treatment of a medical or psychological condition, and thereby gains the ability to treat, examine and physically touch the patient or client.
(3)  "Sexual contact" means the touching of an intimate part of a patient or client for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, and/or the touching of an intimate part of a patient or client outside the scope of a medical examination or treatment.
(4)  "Touching" means physical contact with another person, whether accomplished directly, through the clothing of the person committing the offense, or through the clothing of the victim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: State v. McKeeth, 38 P.3d 1275 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. McKeeth, 38 P.3d 1275 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “I.C. § 18-919. On September 16, 1999, the complaint was amended to include an additional three counts of sexual exploitation by a medical care provider (Counts IV-VI).”
Hall v. Rocky Mtn Emergency Physicians, 312 P.3d 313 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 8× “In 1996, the Legislature enacted I.C. § 18-919, 3 which clearly and unambiguously draws a line that health care providers may not cross, providing: 3 The Board of Medicine has adopted a statewide standard of care that is virtually identical to that prescribed by this statute.”
Pines, D.O. v. State Bd. of Med., 351 P.3d 1203 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 13× “Instead, it analyzed the require *753 ments of I.C. §§ 18-919, 54-1814(21), and IDAPA 22.”
State v. Turpen, 216 P.3d 627 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “In January of 2004, he was charged with the misdemeanor offense of sexual exploitation by a medical care provider in violation of I.C. § 18-919. Turpén entered a plea of not guilty and the case went to trial before a jury in June of 2004.”
Hall v. Rocky Mtn Emergency Physicians (Idaho 2013). · cites it 4× “In 1996, the Legislature enacted I.C. § 18-919, 3 which clearly and unambiguously draws a line that health care providers may not cross, providing: 3 The Board of Medicine has adopted a statewide standard of care that is virtually identical to that prescribed by this statute.”
McKeeth v. State, 84 P.3d 575 (Idaho Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “The conditional plea agreement reads: William McKeeth, defendant herein, agrees to enter a conditional plea of guilty pursuant to ICR 11(a)(2) to the six counts of I.C. § 18-919 as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.”
— Idaho Code § 18-919(a) — 1 case
Pines, D.O. v. State Bd. of Med., 351 P.3d 1203 (Idaho 2015). “Instead, it analyzed the require *753 ments of I.C. §§ 18-919, 54-1814(21), and IDAPA 22.”
— Idaho Code § 18-919(b)(2) — 1 case
Pines, D.O. v. State Bd. of Med., 351 P.3d 1203 (Idaho 2015). “Instead, it analyzed the require *753 ments of I.C. §§ 18-919, 54-1814(21), and IDAPA 22.”
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.