Tennessee House Bill HB1256

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 3/19/25
• Refer: 3/26/25
• Refer: 4/9/25
• Engrossed: 4/14/25
• Enrolled: 4/16/25
• Passed: 5/2/25
• Chaptered: 5/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 8; Title 10; Title 33; Title 36; Title 37; Title 38; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41; Title 49; Title 50; Title 55 and Title 70, relative to criminal justice.

Summary

HB1256 amends Tennessee’s criminal justice laws governing bench warrants, capiases, and failure-to-appear cases. The bill requires that when a court issues a bench warrant or capias for a defendant who fails to appear on a felony charge, or on a violent or sexual Class A or Class B misdemeanor as determined by the court, the defendant must be entered on any available state or federal fugitive database, including the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). It also applies when a defendant is charged with failure to appear. The bill sets deadlines for processing these warrants: if needed, the judicial official must sign the warrant by the end of the next business day, the clerk must transmit it by the end of the next business day after issuance, and the entering agency must enter it into the relevant database promptly. If the defendant is not entered into an available database within three business days of the entering agency’s receipt of the warrant or capias, the surety is relieved of liability on the undertaking. The bill also requires the district attorney general to decide within one business day whether to seek extradition if the defendant is apprehended outside Tennessee in a jurisdiction not covered by the database entry. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.

Impact

HB1256 changes procedures in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 40-11-139(d) and affects courts, clerks, law enforcement agencies, district attorneys general, and bail sureties. It expands and clarifies when fugitives must be entered into state or federal databases, imposes faster administrative deadlines for warrant processing, and creates a specific consequence for delayed entry by eliminating surety liability in certain cases. The bill is aimed at improving warrant tracking, interstate apprehension, and extradition decisions in criminal cases.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and moved through the legislative process with strong favorable votes. It was recommended for passage in subcommittee and committee, then passed the House overwhelmingly on third consideration, with only two no votes, and passed the Senate unanimously on third consideration. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a practical criminal justice administration bill rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

There is little evidence of major opposition in the available record, but the main policy tension is between enforcement efficiency and surety protections. The bill’s requirement that defendants be entered into fugitive databases quickly supports law enforcement and extradition efforts, while the three-business-day deadline creates a potential financial consequence for sureties if agencies do not act promptly. Any concern would likely center on administrative burden, due process for defendants, and the fairness of shifting risk to sureties when warrant-entry procedures are delayed.