HB228 amends Alabama Code Sections 15-11-1 and 15-13-3, repeals Section 15-13-3.1, and creates a consolidated framework for pretrial detention hearings. It moves some preliminary-hearing rights into the context of pretrial detention hearings, defines the class of serious felonies subject to detention review, and makes procedural changes governing timing, continuances, evidentiary rules, recordings, and written findings.
For practitioners, the bill matters because it narrows the path to release before trial for defendants charged with enumerated violent felonies, imposes clearer obligations on courts and prosecutors to justify detention, and assigns the Board of Pardons and Paroles a possible supervisory role for released defendants. The change will affect courtroom scheduling, public-defender workload, jail populations, and appellate review strategies.
At a Glance
What It Does
HB228 adjusts preliminary-hearing timing and allows a pretrial detention hearing to satisfy the statutory preliminary-hearing right. It lists specific serious felonies for which defendants must be held without bail pending a detention hearing unless the parties agree to conditions of release, sets timelines and limits on continuances, and relaxes formal evidentiary rules at those hearings.
Who It Affects
Prosecutors who must pursue detention hearings for enumerated offenses, defense counsel required to appear and defend at expedited hearings, sheriffs and county jails facing longer pretrial detention, the Board of Pardons and Paroles if courts impose supervised release conditions, and appellate counsel handling detention orders.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts more pretrial decisionmaking into an expedited, fact-intensive hearing where the prosecutor bears a heightened burden to show danger or flight risk, but where ordinary trial evidence rules do not apply. That combination changes advocacy tactics, record preservation priorities, and resource allocation for defenders and courts.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB228 makes two linked changes to Alabama pretrial procedure. First, it lengthens the window for a defendant to demand a preliminary hearing and explicitly allows a pretrial detention hearing to satisfy that right unless the court orders otherwise.
Second, it revises the statutory scheme for pretrial detention: a list of serious felonies triggers mandatory holding without bail until a detention hearing is held, unless the parties reach a bail agreement in advance.
The bill prescribes how and when detention hearings must be scheduled, with limits on continuances and an express rule that defendants remain detained during the interval unless the parties agree to bail. At the hearing the judge may consider wide-ranging evidence — the bill suspends ordinary trial admissibility rules for these proceedings — but requires that all relevant evidence be recorded.
The prosecuting attorney must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that no combination of release conditions will reasonably assure appearance or protect the safety of persons or the community.HB228 also details procedural safeguards: the defendant has the right to counsel (appointed if indigent), to testify, present and cross-examine witnesses, and to present evidence; judges retain discretion over who may testify; hearings must be recorded and preserved until appeal windows run; and if a judge denies bail, the statute requires written or on-the-record findings and an order entered within 48 hours. Appeals go to the Court of Criminal Appeals when there is an adequate record, with a circuit-court de novo option if not.Finally, the bill authorizes courts to require supervision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles as a condition of bond for enumerated offenses and directs the board to adopt implementing rules.
It repeals the separate statutory section that previously addressed pretrial supervision for certain offenders and includes conforming language to align this act with another recent act if both can be reconciled. The act becomes effective May 15, 2026.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Preliminary-hearing deadline: the bill changes the deadline for a defendant to demand a preliminary hearing from 30 days after arrest to 45 days.
Scheduling rule: a pretrial detention hearing for enumerated felonies must be set within 10 days of arrest; defendant-requested continuances generally cannot exceed five days and prosecuting-attorney continuances generally cannot exceed three days (excluding weekends/holidays), with a good-cause extension of up to 21 days available.
Burden of proof: the prosecuting attorney must prove by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions of release will reasonably ensure the defendant's appearance or protect community safety.
Decision record and timing: if the court denies bail, the judge must state or enter written findings of fact and reasons and must enter the order denying bail within 48 hours of the detention hearing; the hearing must be recorded and the record preserved until appeal time expires.
Statutory housekeeping: the bill repeals Section 15-13-3.1 (pretrial supervision of certain offenders), authorizes Board of Pardons and Paroles supervision as a bond condition, and sets the act's effective date as May 15, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Preliminary hearing timing and substitution by detention hearing
This amendment extends the defendant's absolute right to demand a preliminary hearing, increasing the time from 30 to 45 days after arrest. It also states that a pretrial detention hearing conducted under §15-13-3 satisfies the statutory preliminary-hearing right unless the court orders otherwise. Practically, that consolidates two formerly distinct processes: defense teams and prosecutors will often litigate probable cause and detention issues in the same expedited proceeding rather than in separate preliminary hearings.
Classes of offenses and when bail may be denied
The bill preserves an ineligibility rule for bail in capital-murder cases when the court believes, on the evidence, the defendant is guilty, and then enumerates a set of serious felonies (murder, first-degree kidnapping, first-degree rape and sodomy, sexual torture, first-degree domestic violence, first-degree human trafficking, first-degree burglary, first-degree arson, first-degree robbery, certain terrorism offenses, and aggravated child abuse) for which defendants must be held without bail pending a detention hearing. That categorical approach pushes detention decisions to the front end for those specified offenses, while still requiring a fact-specific showing at the hearing before denying release permanently.
How quickly hearings must occur and how long continuances can last
HB228 sets a 10-day target from arrest to the pretrial detention hearing for listed offenses, with constrained continuances: defendant motions generally capped at five days and prosecutor motions at three days (Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays excluded). The statute permits a single good-cause continuance up to 21 days and further continuances only by joint motion. Importantly, defendants remain detained during continuances unless the parties agree otherwise, creating operational pressures on jail capacity and scheduling.
Hearing procedures, admissibility, recordkeeping, and appellate path
At the detention hearing the defendant has a full set of procedural rights — counsel, testimony, calling and cross-examining witnesses, and presenting evidence — but the bill waives ordinary trial admissibility constraints and directs the court to receive all relevant evidence. The hearing must be recorded (stenographic, electronic, or both) and preserved until appeal periods expire. If the court denies bail, the judge must give factual findings and reasons and must enter an order within 48 hours. Appeals go to the Court of Criminal Appeals if the record is adequate; otherwise an appeal proceeds de novo in circuit court, which affects appellate strategy and record-creation at the detention hearing.
Board of Pardons and Paroles supervision as a bond condition
The statute explicitly permits judges, as a bond condition for listed offenses, to require supervision by the Board of Pardons and Paroles and directs the board to adopt rules to implement that authority. That adds a state-level supervised-release option to the court's toolkit but also shifts administrative responsibility for oversight and rulemaking to the board.
Conforming provisions, repeal, and effective date
Section 2 attempts to reconcile this act with a prior Act (2025-273) if a related constitutional amendment becomes effective; Section 3 asks the Alabama Supreme Court to amend its rules accordingly; Section 4 repeals §15-13-3.1 (the prior statutory pretrial-supervision provision); and Section 5 sets the effective date as May 15, 2026. Those housekeeping provisions create transition questions for courts and supervising agencies.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Prosecutors: Gain a structured, expedited forum and clear statutory language to seek detention for a defined list of serious felonies, and a heightened but workable standard (clear and convincing) to justify pretrial detention.
- Victims and public-safety advocates: See faster detention decisions and stronger statutory support for holding dangerous defendants without bail while the state pursues charges.
- Board of Pardons and Paroles: Receives a new supervisory role for supervised-release bond conditions and the authority to promulgate implementing rules, expanding its portfolio.
- Courts seeking clarity: Trial judges obtain detailed statutory deadlines, recording and findings requirements, and a specified appellate route that can streamline judicial decisionmaking and appellate review.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants charged with enumerated felonies: Face a higher risk of prolonged pretrial detention because statutory rules require holding without bail until the hearing and allow denial upon a clear-and-convincing showing.
- County jails and sheriffs: Will likely host more detained defendants for longer periods, increasing housing, medical, and transportation costs for counties.
- Public defenders and appointed counsel: Must appear at more expedited detention hearings, prepare defense and factual materials quickly, and potentially shoulder increased appointment workloads.
- Board of Pardons and Paroles: Must absorb administrative burdens and likely staffing and rulemaking costs to implement supervision-as-bond where courts order it.
- Courts and clerks: Must create, preserve, and manage hearing records, enter written findings within 48 hours of denial, and handle expedited scheduling — all of which demand courtroom and clerk resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing community safety against the presumption of innocence and the right to pretrial liberty: HB228 empowers early detention for enumerated violent felonies and eases the prosecutor's path to deny release, while relying on hearings that admit broad evidence and require rapid judicial action—an operational trade-off between faster protective detention and safeguards that protect defendants from prolonged, poorly documented pretrial incarceration.
The bill tightens pretrial detention while loosening ordinary evidentiary safeguards for detention hearings. That combination raises two practical questions: first, whether judges will be comfortable denying bail based on evidence that would not be admissible at trial, and second, whether the record created under relaxed admissibility rules will satisfy appellate review — especially where the statute sends appeals to different forums depending on record adequacy.
Those dynamics place premium importance on rigorous, contemporaneous recordkeeping at the detention hearing.
Resources and timing are another risk. The statute's scheduling and continuance caps concentrate workload into narrow windows: public defenders must marshal witnesses and mitigation quickly; prosecutors must assemble proof sufficient to meet the clear-and-convincing standard; and jails will carry detained defendants during continuances.
The 48-hour mandate to enter a written order denying bail may be administratively difficult in counties with limited weekend or holiday staffing. Finally, repealing §15-13-3.1 removes a prior statutory pretrial-supervision framework and may create an implementation gap until the Board of Pardons and Paroles issues rules or local jurisdictions adjust practices.
There is also the technical drafting issue the bill addresses about reconciling its language with Act 2025-273 and an associated constitutional amendment—practical conflicts could arise if the two texts are not harmonized.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.