This Tennessee bill (HB 587) expands the state's definition of racketeering activity to include organized retail crime (like large-scale shoplifting) and carrying a firearm during a dangerous felony. It also explicitly adds carjacking to the list of activities classified as racketeering. These changes will affect law enforcement investigations and prosecutions of these specific crimes. The law takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB 1352 changes Tennessee law to classify aggravated sexual battery as a Class A felony (a more serious offense) when the victim is under 18 years old or is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless - previously, it was a Class B felony. The bill mandates that defendants in these cases must be sentenced within Tennessee’s Range II sentencing range (the minimum for Class A felonies), though judges may impose a higher Range III sentence if appropriate. This affects all convictions for aggravated sexual battery meeting these victim criteria and takes effect July 1, 2025.
HB 547 requires court clerks in Tennessee to add a $12.50 fee to every misdemeanor and felony cost bill. The collected funds must be paid to the county government (or the district attorney general’s office in multi-county districts) to support public safety services, with the district attorney general having sole discretion over how to use the money. The bill takes effect only after a two-thirds vote by the county legislative body, and district attorneys must submit annual reports detailing fund usage. It does not apply to non-moving traffic violations and is supplemental to existing funding for district attorneys.
HB 1090 requires Tennessee's Department of Correction to study the challenges of building and operating reentry facilities for eligible inmates transitioning back into the community. The bill mandates that the department submit an annual report by February 1st detailing its findings. This law directly affects the Department of Correction, which must now conduct this study and report its results each year, without creating new facilities or changing inmate eligibility.
SB 455 would have removed a restriction on Tennessee's parole board, allowing it to deny parole based solely on the seriousness of an offense for *any* crime - not just specific offenses previously covered. This change would directly affect incarcerated individuals in Tennessee whose parole eligibility is reviewed by the board. The bill amended Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-503(b)(2)(A) to remove the phrase requiring parole denial to "depreciate the seriousness of the crime," broadening the board's authority. The bill was signed by legislative leaders but vetoed by the Governor on May 5, 2025, so it did not become law.
SB 280 provides legal immunity to Tennessee law enforcement officers who cause property damage or personal injury during official duties, if the injured person was convicted of resisting arrest (under §39-16-602) at the time of the incident. The bill directly affects individuals convicted of resisting arrest, as it prevents them from filing civil lawsuits against officers for injuries or damage sustained during the arrest. Key provisions include exceptions for gross negligence or willful misconduct by officers, and the immunity does not apply to bystanders or others not convicted of resisting arrest. This law changes civil liability standards by shielding officers from lawsuits in specific cases where the injured party was engaged in conduct leading to a resisting arrest conviction.
SB 304 allows video recordings of children's interviews with forensic interviewers to be used as evidence in court for cases involving sexual or physical violence against children. The bill requires either the child or the forensic interviewer to swear under oath that the recording is accurate, and the child must be available for cross-examination. It also clarifies that interviews conducted by qualified professionals - such as those employed by accredited child advocacy centers or federal agencies - meet admissibility standards. This change directly affects child victims in criminal cases, streamlining evidence presentation while maintaining judicial safeguards.
HB 583 allows video recordings of child forensic interviews (in cases involving sexual or physical violence) to be used as court evidence, provided a trained interviewer confirms the recording's accuracy and the child is available for cross-examination by the defense. It amends Tennessee evidence law to require the child or interviewer to verify the recording's truthfulness under oath. The bill specifically clarifies that interviews conducted by qualified child advocacy centers (meeting certain standards) or federal agencies are admissible. This directly affects child victims in criminal cases where such video evidence is relevant, ensuring their statements can be presented without requiring repeated testimony.
Tennessee Senate Joint Resolution 25 proposes a constitutional amendment that would remove the right to bail for specific serious offenses when evidence is strong. It targets charges including terrorism, second-degree murder, aggravated rape of a child, aggravated rape, grave torture, and any other offense where a conviction would require serving at least 85% of the sentence before release. Judges would be required to document their bail decisions for these cases, and the amendment would take effect on November 3, 2026. The proposal must be approved by voters in the 2026 general election to become part of Tennessee's constitution.
HB 762 establishes rules for using certified facility dogs to support witnesses, especially victims, during court testimony to reduce stress and improve testimony accuracy. The bill sets specific standards for dogs (including training, health checks, and $500,000 liability insurance) and handlers (requiring legal procedure training), and requires courts to approve their use via a motion before proceedings. During testimony, dogs must wear visible identification, handlers must stay visible to the witness (outside jury view), and courts must inform juries that the dog’s presence doesn’t affect the case. Courts must also take steps to minimize jury visibility of the dog during testimony.
