Tennessee House Bill HB0626

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/25
• Refer: 2/5/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6; Title 38 and Title 40, relative to orders of protection.

Summary

HB0626 amends Tennessee law to require law enforcement officers to take action when they become aware that a person in their presence is subject to an order of protection that has been entered but not yet served. In that situation, the officer must take appropriate steps to help ensure service of the order, including notifying the sheriff’s department of the person’s immediate location and any other information that could assist in serving the order. The bill also requires the Tennessee Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission to include instruction on this duty in its training curriculum for peace officers. The measure is aimed at improving enforcement of protection orders and speeding service so that protected parties receive the benefit of the court order more quickly.

Impact

The bill adds a new enforcement-related duty to Title 38 and indirectly affects the administration of orders of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6. It does not change who may obtain an order of protection or the standards for issuing one; instead, it changes how law enforcement responds when an unserved respondent is encountered. It also requires POST training updates so officers are instructed on the new procedure, affecting law enforcement agencies, sheriffs’ departments, and officers statewide.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented debate or recorded opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a straightforward public-safety and domestic-violence enforcement bill intended to improve compliance with existing protection orders. Its framing suggests a generally supportive policy goal centered on victim protection and more effective service of court orders.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of concern, if raised, could include the practical burden on officers and sheriffs’ departments, the scope of what counts as “appropriate steps” to facilitate service, and whether the mandate could create training or operational costs. However, the record supplied here does not identify any legislator, agency, or stakeholder as opposing or supporting those issues.