The House Judiciary Committee held a public hearing for a bill that could expand the circumstances under which bail could be denied to defendants who are in the country without legal documentation and are charged with violent offenses.
House Bill 348, introduced by Representative Chad Robertson, R-Heflin, would require courts to hold a pretrial detention hearing for certain defendants charged with violent crimes if they are determined to be unlawfully present in the United States.
At that hearing, a judge could deny bail after considering factors outlined in the bill, including public safety and risk of flight. The proposal builds on Aniah’s Law but would apply additional scrutiny when a defendant’s immigration status is at issue.
Supporters say the bill is about ensuring accountability and protecting victims. Opponents argue it raises significant constitutional concerns and could prove difficult in practice.
Jerome Dees, policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center in Alabama, told lawmakers that while bail is not guaranteed in every circumstance, it remains a constitutionally protected right under both federal and state law.
“Alabama is one of the states that has that enshrined in the Constitution. Not all states have it, but that is one right we’ve kind of gone above and beyond on, actually,” said Dees.
He explained that the bill appears to expand the list of offenses beyond those covered under Aniah’s Law without going through the constitutional amendment process required to deny bail for additional crimes in Alabama. When lawmakers originally debated Aniah’s Law, he said, they narrowed the definition of violent offenses before ultimately passing it as a constitutional amendment.
“This starts back with the broader definition of ‘violent offense,’ which is about 52 different offenses,” said Dees.
Dees also raised equal protection concerns, arguing that the bill creates a suspect classification by directing courts to treat defendants differently based on immigration status.
“The Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment, and the 14th Amendment … say ‘any person,’” said Dees. “That means any person, regardless of status, gets the benefit of that Eighth Amendment protection, which includes the right to non-excessive bail.”
Lawmakers pressed him on how the proposal would function in practice. Representative Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, noted that being undocumented is not an Alabama criminal offense but a matter of federal law.
“What sort of evidence would Alabama have available to it to substantiate whether or not someone is here as a documented citizen?” asked England.
Dees responded that local courts are not custodians of federal immigration records and would likely need a federal official to authenticate documentation of a person’s status. Producing that evidence within the 72-hour window for an initial detention hearing could be challenging, particularly for smaller jurisdictions.
Victims’ rights advocate and executive director of Victims of Crime and Leniency, Wanda Miller, testified in favor of the measure, framing it as a public safety issue and a matter of accountability. Miller said the moment of arrest is a pivotal milestone for crime victims.
“After an arrest, the first questions that we hear from victims is, ‘When is this person going to get out of jail? How much is the bond going to be? Is he going to walk out quicker than he walked in?’” said Miller.
Miller described the bill as similar in spirit to Aniah’s Law and emphasized that it applies to defendants charged with violent offenses, not minor crimes. She said the proposal would simply allow judges at a pretrial hearing to assess a defendant’s status to determine whether bail is appropriate.
Some lawmakers questioned whether judges already have the discretion to consider flight risk without singling out immigration status in statute. Dees noted that judges routinely weigh ties to the community and family when determining whether someone is likely to flee and that HB348 “definitely limits what the judicial discretion is” by narrowing bail access for a specific subset of defendants.
“Judges already have the ability to take in all of that information,” said Dees.
The committee did not take a vote on the legislation this week.
