AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40 and Title 41, relative to state inmates.
Summary
HB1839 amends Tennessee law governing state inmates housed in local jails. The bill provides that, when an inmate is participating in a work release or re-entry program, the Department of Correction may not remove the inmate from the local jail and transfer the inmate to a state facility unless the inmate has failed to meet work-release or in-house duty requirements, or the inmate’s disciplinary record justifies removal from the program.
In practical terms, the measure limits the department’s discretion to relocate certain inmates and helps preserve participation in local jail-based work release and re-entry programming. It applies only to inmates already housed in local jails and participating in those programs, and it creates a statutory protection against transfer absent specified performance or discipline-related reasons.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 41, Chapter 22, Part 1, affecting the Department of Correction’s authority over inmates in local jail work release and re-entry programs. It narrows when the department may move such inmates to state facilities, thereby affecting local jails, correctional administrators, and inmates enrolled in these programs by making continued placement in local custody the default unless program compliance or discipline issues arise.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received very favorably. It advanced unanimously through subcommittee and full committee and passed the House on third consideration by consent calendar with no recorded opposition, indicating broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy in the legislative record provided.
Contention
No significant contention is reflected in the available materials. The only substantive policy issue apparent from the text is the balance between Department of Correction discretion and the stability of local jail-based work release and re-entry placements. Supporters likely favored preserving program participation and continuity, while any potential concern would center on limiting the department’s ability to manage inmate placement, but no opposing arguments or dissenting votes are shown.