You made a mistake, one that started with a feeling and ended in a legal nightmare. While working as a correctional officer, you fell for an inmate. At first, it seemed harmless, just conversations that lingered too long, glances that meant more than they should have. But before you knew it, boundaries had been crossed. You told yourself it was real, that the connection meant something. But eventually, it became painfully clear: he was using you.

As the relationship progressed, you discovered that his affection wasn’t genuine. He was manipulating you as part of a plan to escape. You were already in too deep, but you couldn’t ignore what was happening. You made the difficult choice to report it to your supervisor. You knew there would be consequences for your career, your reputation, and even your freedom. But you also knew it was the right thing to do. You couldn’t let him try the same thing with someone else. The court recognized your cooperation and showed some leniency. You were offered a plea deal: plead guilty and avoid prison time. Weighing your options, you took the deal. But at the time, you didn’t fully understand the consequences of your guilty plea.

Only later did you realize that the plea required you to register as a sex offender. That’s when reality hit you, you’re now listed on the same registry as child predators and serial offenders. You’re subject to the same restrictions. You think: how can this be justice? How can your actions, misguided as they were, be equated under the law with the worst kind of offenders? It feels like a mistake, like the system didn’t account for context, for intent, for the gray areas of your situation. Still in disbelief, you turn to your lawyer and ask the question that keeps you up at night: Is this a mistake?

On April 25, 2025, the Alabama Supreme Court decided a similar case arising out of St. Clair County, Alabama. In Matthews v. State, the Court held that Briana Marquise Matthews, a correctional officer charged with custodial sexual misconduct, was required to register as a sex offender in Alabama. In that case, Matthews “asked to be relieved from the reporting requirements because her… convictions were based on consensual sexual encounters with an adult inmate[.] [S]he had no prior convictions or other criminal charges[.] [S]he did not have a propensity to reoffend, and she was not a danger to society.” Matthews v. State, No. SC-2024-0447, 2025 WL 1198358, at *1 (Ala. Apr. 25, 2025). Therefore, she argued that she should not be subject to registration as a sex offender. Id.

The Supreme Court of Alabama rejected this argument, finding that it did not conform with Alabama law. Section 15-20A-24 of the Alabama Code provides that individuals may seek relief from registering as a sex offender “if the sex offender proves by clear and convincing evidence that he or she satisfies, among other criteria.” Ala. Code § 15-20A-24; Matthews v. State, WL 1198358, at *4. However, the “among other criteria” language refers to a list of eligible offenses, “none of which included Matthews's custodial-sexual-misconduct convictions.” Matthews v. State, WL 1198358, at *5.

In response, Matthews argued that the State considered only “sexual misconduct”, which was included in the list of eligible offenses—and not custodial sexual misconduct. Therefore since her crime is similar she should be able to seek relief. However, the list of eligible offenses “was enacted as part of the same legislation that… declares custodial sexual misconduct as a sex offense” requiring registration as a sex offender. Id. Further, “[t]he Legislature is presumed to be aware of existing law and judicial interpretation when it adopts a statute.” Carson v. City of Prichard, 709 So. 2d 1199, 1206 (Ala. 1998). Therefore, the Alabama Supreme Court did not find Matthews’s argument valid under Alabama law.

Under Alabama law, custodial sexual misconduct requires an individual to register as a sex offender. However, this outcome is problematic. The Alabama Supreme Court made the correct decision based on a technicality; one it was compelled to follow due to the plain language of the statute enacted by the state legislature. Unless a law is unconstitutional, the Court does not have the power, and should not exercise the authority, to override it. In this case, the Court acted within its proper bounds and should not be criticized. The criticism should instead be directed at the legislature.

Sexual misconduct and custodial sexual misconduct are similar offenses. If one is eligible for relief from registration, the other should be as well. Matthews did not rape anyone, did not have sex with a minor, and, as she asserted, poses no risk to the public. There is no rational basis for subjecting her to the same restrictions as someone who poses a danger to children. Matthews should be held accountable for her offense but branding her with the lifelong stigma of being a registered sex offender is a cruel punishment for a crime in which, ultimately, she was the only victim.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.