Tennessee House Bill HB1552

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/15/26
• Refer: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/11/26
• Chaptered: 3/16/26
• Passed: 3/16/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 38, Part 6, relative to the address confidentiality program.

Summary

HB1552 amends Tennessee’s address confidentiality program, which is designed to help protect the location information of certain vulnerable people by keeping their addresses out of public records. The bill makes three targeted changes to the program’s eligibility and administration rules. First, it expands a family relationship reference in the definition section by changing “parent, or” to “parent, sibling, or,” which broadens the listed family connections relevant to the program. Second, it adds the state’s registry of persistent domestic violence offenders as a qualifying source of information or category within the program’s eligibility framework. Third, it removes the phrase “within this state” from a provision governing the program, which appears to broaden the geographic scope of that requirement. Overall, the bill appears to strengthen and refine protections for people seeking confidentiality of their addresses, especially those affected by domestic violence. By linking the program to the persistent domestic violence offender registry and adjusting the statutory language, the bill likely makes the program more responsive to safety concerns and easier to apply in a broader set of circumstances. It takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, Chapter 38, Part 6, specifically the address confidentiality program statutes in Sections 40-38-601, 40-38-603, and 40-38-604. Its practical effect is to broaden and clarify who may be covered or considered under the program and to update the statutory references used in administering confidentiality protections. The changes primarily affect victims of domestic violence and others eligible for address protection, as well as the agencies that administer and enforce the program.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong bipartisan support and no recorded opposition in committee, with unanimous or near-unanimous favorable votes in both the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee and the House Judiciary Committee. There are no committee transcripts indicating controversy or debate. The overall sentiment appears supportive, with the bill viewed as a protective and noncontroversial update to an existing safety program.

Contention

No specific points of contention are evident in the available record. The bill moved forward unanimously in committee, suggesting little disagreement over its purpose. If any issue were to arise, it would likely concern the scope of the address confidentiality program and the effect of tying eligibility or administration to the persistent domestic violence offender registry, but no opposition or concerns are documented in the provided materials.