The Idaho House Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee voted unanimously on Feb. 27 to advance legislation that would expand the state’s “sexual contact with a prisoner” law, sending House Bill 696 to the full House for a vote expected this week.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Marco Erickson, R-Idaho Falls, would broaden the law’s definition of prohibited contact beyond genital touching to cover any willful physical contact made with sexual intent — a change lawmakers said is needed to hold correctional officers accountable for a range of abusive conduct the current statute does not reach.

An InvestigateWest investigation published in October 2025 found 37 Idaho prison workers accused of sexual misconduct toward incarcerated women over the last decade. Only three were criminally charged with sexual contact with a prisoner, and just one received a prison sentence — which he avoided after completing a nine-month rehabilitation alternative offered by the Idaho Department of Correction.

The gap in current law

Idaho’s “sexual contact with a prisoner” law, enacted in 1993, made it a felony for correctional officers to have sexual contact with inmates — among the first such laws in the country. But the statute covers only contact involving genitals: staff touching an inmate’s genitals, or compelling an inmate to touch theirs. That narrow definition falls short of the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, which prohibits all inappropriate touching and extends to suggestive comments and voyeurism by prison staff.

House Bill 696 would replace that narrow definition with language covering “any willful physical contact, over or under the clothing, when the physical contact is done with the intent of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passion, or sexual desires of the actor or any other person.” The existing statute’s maximum penalty — life imprisonment, with no mandatory minimum — would remain unchanged under the bill.

Former prosecutors told InvestigateWest that the statute’s current scope is part of why criminal accountability has remained rare even in cases where officers appear to have confessed.

Survivor testimony

Andrea Weiskircher, who accused five prison workers of sexually abusing her while she was incarcerated, testified at the Feb. 27 hearing in support of the bill.

“Five individuals who were entrusted with complete authority over my life, my housing, my movement, my discipline, my safety, they use that authority to exploit and violate me,” Weiskircher told lawmakers. “Because of the way Idaho’s current laws are written none of my perpetrators will ever be held accountable. They are free. They are able to work in other correctional facilities, and as the law stands today, I will never see justice.”

Boise attorney and women’s rights advocate Audrey Numbers also testified.

“Idaho incarcerates more women per capita than any state in the United States by a huge percentage, a great deal, yet we do not properly protect and care for the women who are incarcerated in Idaho,” Numbers said. “We need to do much more to protect and care for them. This bill is just at least a small step toward providing them some additional protection from exploitation and abuse by guards ostensibly hired to protect them.”

Erickson described the accused officers in stark terms when explaining his motivation for introducing the bill.

“In my mind, these guys, or girls, are predators,” Erickson told InvestigateWest. “I don’t want to put more people in prison, but I want to deter them from doing this, and I think this is how we have to do that.”

Federal and state laws governing prison sexual contact recognize that inmates cannot meaningfully consent to sexual requests from guards. Idaho’s law requires only proof that the contact occurred — not proof of nonconsent — because incarcerated people are under the authority of the staff they would need to refuse.

Existing sexual battery statutes in Idaho also prohibit touching the groin, inner thighs, buttocks, breasts, or genital area of any person without consent. But those charges require prosecutors to prove lack of consent, a higher bar. Unlike the sexual-contact-with-a-prisoner law, the sexual battery statutes do not account for the power differential inherent in the guard-inmate relationship, making them a less reliable avenue for prosecution in correctional settings, according to the AP/InvestigateWest report.

During the Feb. 27 hearing, Rep. Chris Mathias, D-Boise, relayed a constituent’s question about whether an expanded definition would turn a hug between a guard and inmate into a life-eligible felony. Erickson said it would not.

“No, that would not be the case,” Erickson said, “because a simple hug is not for the purpose of sexual gratification.”

Department of Correction support

Tina Transue, the Idaho Department of Correction’s government relations advisor, expressed support for the bill at a March 4 meeting of the Board of Correction. Transue told InvestigateWest the legislation “gives us more teeth” and “brings us more in line with” the Prison Rape Elimination Act.

Erickson told lawmakers that Department of Correction Director Bree Derrick supports the bill. The department itself said it does not comment on pending legislation. Idaho State Police, the agency that investigates criminal allegations against prison staff, did not respond to requests for comment; the bill’s expanded definition could result in more police investigations and prosecutions of accused prison workers.

Legislative path and what comes next

The bill must pass the full Idaho House, then the Senate, and be signed by the governor before taking effect. The House is expected to vote this week.

Erickson said he views House Bill 696 as only an initial step. He said he plans to introduce additional legislation next year aimed at strengthening internal investigations of officers accused of sexual abuse.

“This was the easiest, quickest fix, but next year there will possibly be some other things that make sure that the internal investigations are happening a little stronger,” Erickson said. “And Idaho State Police has indicated that they’re going to ramp up their efforts on that as well.”

Joseph Filicetti, who drafted the 1993 law as an Ada County deputy prosecutor and now works as a defense attorney — including having represented one of the guards charged under the statute — said last year that the existing law does not do enough to protect people in custody.

Reporting by Whitney Bryen of InvestigateWest, distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.