Tennessee House Bill HB1026

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39 and Title 40, Chapter 32, relative to destruction of records.

Summary

HB1026 amends Tennessee’s record-destruction statute to add a new offense to the list of convictions that are eligible for destruction of records under Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 40-32-101(g)(1)(A). Specifically, it adds Section 39-16-402, which covers official misconduct, to the enumerated offenses. The practical effect is to make records related to that offense subject to the state’s record-destruction process, rather than leaving them outside the statute’s express coverage. The bill is narrow and technical in scope. It does not create a new criminal offense or change the elements of official misconduct; instead, it adjusts post-conviction record handling by expanding the statute governing destruction of records. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting a legislative intent to implement the change without delay.

Impact

HB1026 would amend Tennessee’s criminal records law in Title 40, Chapter 32 by adding official misconduct under Title 39 to the list of offenses covered by the record-destruction provision. This affects how courts and record custodians handle eligible records for that offense, potentially allowing destruction under existing procedures where it was not expressly authorized before. It does not alter the underlying criminal code definition of official misconduct, but it does affect the availability and management of related court records for affected defendants and agencies.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a routine, noncontroversial administrative adjustment to record-destruction law. Its narrow focus and technical nature suggest it was likely intended to clarify or align the statute rather than advance a broader policy change.

Contention

Because there are no transcripts or vote records, no specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concern were to arise, it would likely center on whether official misconduct should be eligible for record destruction at all, balancing record relief for affected individuals against transparency and accountability interests for public officials. However, that issue is not reflected in the available discussion materials.