AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29; Title 38; Title 39; Title 40 and Title 67, relative to criminal justice.
HB0792, titled the “Tennessee Sexual Violence Justice Act,” makes a broad set of changes to Tennessee law aimed at improving the response to sexual assault and related crimes. The bill requires law enforcement personnel who investigate sexual assault to complete annual POST-approved sensitivity training, with curriculum developed alongside sexual violence prevention organizations, victim advocates, and healthcare providers. It also requires trauma-informed, victim-centered instruction in initial and in-service police training, and sets standards for instructors and POST rules to support those requirements.
The bill also imposes new timelines and procedures on the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for sexual assault evidence collection kits. Beginning July 1, 2025, TBI would have to test kits within 90 days of receipt, test previously untested kits submitted before that date by January 1, 2026, and report annually on testing backlogs and performance. The bill further directs TBI to develop CODIS-eligible DNA profiles when possible, enter profiles into DNA databases, and outsource testing if state labs cannot meet the deadline. It extends the retention period for sexual assault evidence kits from 10 years to 25 years.
HB0792 also revises the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act to make it easier for victims of domestic violence, sexual offenses, human trafficking, and stalking to qualify for compensation. It lengthens filing deadlines in some cases, relaxes cooperation and reporting requirements for certain victims, allows alternative documentation such as protection-order filings or medical-provider reports, and provides a waiver when filing delays are caused by delayed kit testing or DNA matching. The bill additionally gives Sexual Assault Response Teams oversight authority over local law enforcement handling of sexual assault investigations and requires annual reporting to the General Assembly.
In terms of state-law impact, the bill would significantly expand duties for POST, TBI, local law enforcement, SARTs, and the Department of Revenue, while also creating a voluntary tax-refund allocation to help fund training and expedited forensic testing. It would amend statutes in Titles 29, 38, 39, 40, and 67, affecting criminal procedure, evidence handling, victim compensation, and tax administration. The effective date is July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available history is cautious but not opposed: the bill received a 7-0 vote in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee to be deferred to summer study, suggesting interest in the policy goals but a desire for further review before advancing. No committee transcript is available, so specific debate points are not recorded. The main likely areas of contention are the cost and feasibility of the 90-day testing mandate, the staffing and training burden on law enforcement and POST, the need for outsourcing if TBI cannot keep pace, and the expanded oversight and compensation provisions for victims.
The bill would amend Tennessee statutes governing law enforcement training, sexual assault evidence kit testing, victim compensation, and tax refund allocations. It creates new POST training requirements for officers handling sexual assault cases, imposes mandatory TBI testing deadlines and reporting obligations for sexual assault kits, extends evidence retention periods, and broadens eligibility and documentation rules for compensation claims involving domestic violence, sexual offenses, human trafficking, and stalking. It also authorizes SART oversight of investigations and establishes a voluntary tax-refund funding mechanism for training and forensic testing.
The available vote history suggests the bill’s policy goals were received favorably enough to avoid outright rejection, but the subcommittee chose to defer it to summer study rather than advance it immediately. That indicates general support for improving sexual assault response and victim services, paired with caution about implementation details. Because there are no transcript excerpts, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show stronger support or opposition.
Likely points of contention include whether TBI and local agencies can realistically meet the 90-day kit-testing deadline, whether the state has sufficient resources for annual officer training and expanded forensic testing, and whether outsourcing to private labs is practical or cost-effective. Another area of concern may be the bill’s expanded exceptions to compensation claim requirements and its limits on questioning victims, which could be viewed by some as necessary trauma-informed protections and by others as reducing administrative safeguards. The new oversight role for SARTs over law enforcement investigations may also raise questions about authority and local control.