AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 32, Part 1, relative to expunction of criminal records.
HB1346 amends Tennessee’s expunction law to create a new, limited pathway for certain people to clear a criminal record beginning July 1, 2025. The bill adds a new subsection to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-32-101 defining an “eligible petitioner” as someone seeking expunction of an offense that is otherwise expungeable under existing law, but only if that offense occurred at least 10 years after the person’s conviction for a DUI offense under § 55-10-401. The petitioner must also have completed every part of the sentence for the offense, including fines, restitution, court costs, incarceration or probation, and any supervised or unsupervised release conditions.
The bill is narrow in scope and allows only one petition under this new provision. It also bars anyone who has already received an expunction under other parts of the statute and limits eligibility to people who have been convicted of a DUI offense no more than once. Existing procedural provisions in § 40-32-101(g) are incorporated for filing and processing the petition, meaning the new expunction route follows much of the same framework as other expunction requests.
The bill’s impact would be to expand record-clearing opportunities for a small class of individuals with older, otherwise eligible offenses and a limited DUI history. In practical terms, it would affect criminal records, court clerks, prosecutors, and petitioners seeking relief from the long-term consequences of a conviction, while leaving the broader expunction structure intact. Because the bill is tied to Tennessee’s expunction statute, it would modify state criminal record law rather than create a separate standalone process.
The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support in committee, with each recorded vote passing 8-0, 19-0, 12-0, and 27-0 at successive House stages. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed favorably and as a relatively modest reform. No committee transcripts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader disagreement.
There is little visible contention in the available materials, but the bill’s main policy line is the balance between second-chance relief and DUI-related restrictions. Supporters likely view it as a targeted expunction opportunity for people who have stayed crime-free for a long period after a DUI conviction, while any concern would center on whether the DUI-related eligibility limits are too permissive or too restrictive. The unanimous committee votes indicate that, at least in the House committees, those concerns did not generate opposition.
HB1346 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-32-101 by adding a new expunction category for a narrowly defined class of petitioners. It would allow certain otherwise expungeable offenses to be expunged if they occurred at least 10 years after a DUI conviction under § 55-10-401, provided all sentence obligations are complete and the petitioner has not previously received an expunction under the cited subsections. The bill would affect criminal record expunction procedures, court administration, and individuals seeking relief from the collateral consequences of older convictions.
The recorded committee votes show unanimous support at every stage listed, indicating a generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The absence of recorded dissent or transcript debate suggests the measure was seen as a limited, technical, and noncontroversial expansion of expunction eligibility. Overall, the bill appears to have been received as a targeted second-chance reform rather than a broad criminal justice overhaul.
No explicit contention appears in the provided committee materials, and all recorded votes were unanimous. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the eligibility restriction tied to DUI convictions: the bill extends expunction relief only to people whose eligible offense occurred at least 10 years after a DUI conviction and who have had no more than one DUI conviction. Any disagreement would likely focus on whether that restriction appropriately balances public safety and rehabilitation, but no specific opposing arguments are documented here.