AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4 and Title 8, relative to district attorneys general.
HB2466 requires each district attorney general in Tennessee to file an annual report by March 1 with the governor, legislative leaders, the relevant House and Senate committee chairs, and the district attorneys general conference, and to make the report available to the public upon request. The report must include aggregate, non-personally identifying data for the prior year, broken down by offense, covering the number of indictments filed, the number of cases transferred for pro tem prosecution, and the number of dispositions entered in criminal or circuit court, including dismissals, pretrial diversions, plea agreements, trial outcomes, and sentences imposed.
The bill also directs clerks of courts with misdemeanor and felony jurisdiction to give district attorneys general and the district attorneys general conference direct and unlimited access to case management or reporting systems so they can collect, analyze, and report the required data. It expressly says district attorneys general do not have to use any particular physical or digital system to maintain the data, allowing local offices to track information in whatever way best fits their criminal justice systems. The act takes effect July 1, 2026.
HB2466 amends Tennessee Code Annotated Titles 4 and 8 to create new reporting and data-access obligations for district attorneys general and court clerks. It expands state-level transparency and data collection requirements by mandating annual aggregate reporting on prosecution activity and by giving prosecutors and the district attorneys general conference access to court case management systems for reporting purposes. The bill affects district attorneys general, the district attorneys general conference, and clerks of courts handling misdemeanor and felony cases, while not imposing a specific data system or format on local offices.
The bill appears to have broad support in the legislative process, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee recommendations and strong floor passage in the House. The recorded votes show no opposition in committee and only limited dissent on the floor, suggesting the measure was generally viewed favorably as a transparency and administrative reporting bill. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history indicates overall positive sentiment.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s requirement that court clerks provide district attorneys general and the district attorneys general conference direct and unlimited access to case management or reporting systems and cooperate on data requests. That access mandate could raise concerns about workload, system security, privacy, or administrative burden for clerks and local courts, even though the bill limits reporting to aggregate, non-personally identifying information. Another possible issue is the scope of the reporting obligation itself, which adds a statewide data collection duty to local prosecutorial offices, though the bill’s allowance for flexible data-keeping methods appears designed to reduce resistance.