Tennessee House Bill HB1475

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/6/26
• Refer: 1/14/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, relative to evidence.

Summary

HB1475 would significantly narrow Tennessee’s exclusionary rule for criminal cases. The bill provides that evidence otherwise admissible generally may not be excluded simply because it was obtained in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Tennessee Constitution, or state or federal law, unless very specific conditions are met. Those conditions require deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent, or systemic police misconduct that violates the Fourth Amendment, and the refusal to suppress must also conflict with a clearly established U.S. Supreme Court holding. The bill also bars Tennessee courts from recognizing or enforcing any state-law exclusionary rule broader than the federal rule as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, it creates a direct, immediate interlocutory appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court whenever a trial court grants a motion to suppress evidence, requires the trial court proceedings to be stayed during the appeal, and allows the state to seek U.S. Supreme Court review by certiorari if the Tennessee Supreme Court affirms suppression. The act would apply only to actions occurring on or after July 1, 2026.

Impact

HB1475 would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Title 40 by changing the standards governing suppression of evidence and appellate review of suppression orders. It would limit Tennessee courts’ ability to exclude evidence under state law beyond the federal exclusionary rule, while also creating a new expedited appeal path for the state in suppression cases. The practical effect would be to make it harder for criminal defendants to suppress evidence and to give prosecutors a stronger mechanism to challenge suppression rulings.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a law-enforcement- and prosecution-friendly approach to evidence admissibility, with an emphasis on limiting suppression remedies and accelerating appellate review. The absence of discussion or vote history means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on the exclusionary rule, especially its prohibition on state-law suppression rules broader than federal constitutional requirements. Critics would likely argue that it weakens remedies for unlawful searches and seizures and reduces protections for criminal defendants, while supporters would likely frame it as preventing guilty parties from avoiding prosecution because of technical or non-egregious police errors. A second likely area of dispute is the mandatory stay and expedited direct appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which could delay criminal proceedings and increase appellate litigation.