AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40, relative to public safety.
SB0547 creates a new Tennessee Code Annotated section authorizing counties, by a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body, to impose an additional $12.50 cost on misdemeanor and felony court cost bills. The charge is collected by court clerks in criminal cases and is directed either to county government or, in multiple-county judicial districts, to the executive director of the district attorneys general conference for supplemental funding of the district attorney general’s office. The bill excludes nonmoving traffic violations and specifies that the new cost does not take priority over restitution or the criminal injuries compensation fund privilege tax.
The bill also requires that the money be used for support services that promote public safety, at the discretion of the district attorney general for the relevant judicial district. It makes the new assessment supplemental to, and not a replacement for, existing funding for district attorneys general, and it allows unspent funds to carry forward rather than revert to the state general fund. Annual reporting requirements are added for district attorneys general and the district attorneys general conference, with reports going to legislative committee chairs and finance committees.
In practical terms, the bill affects criminal court cost collection and local funding streams for prosecution-related public safety services. It amends Title 40 and interacts with existing statutes governing district attorneys general and criminal case costs, while giving counties a new optional revenue mechanism tied to criminal prosecutions. Because the assessment is local-option and requires county legislative approval, its implementation depends on county action rather than automatic statewide adoption.
The overall sentiment appears generally supportive, as reflected by the bill’s advancement through committee and passage on the floor with substantial majorities in both chambers. The votes suggest broad legislative approval, though not unanimity, indicating some reservations. No committee transcript is available, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the structure of the bill suggests the main policy goal was strengthening public safety and prosecutorial support funding at the local level.
The most likely points of contention are the added financial burden on criminal defendants, the use of court costs to fund prosecutorial and public safety functions, and the discretion given to district attorneys general over how the funds are spent. Opponents may also object to the fact that the charge is imposed in misdemeanor and felony cases broadly, even though it excludes nonmoving traffic offenses, while supporters are likely to emphasize that the fee is local-option, supplemental, and earmarked for public safety-related support services.
The bill adds a new local-option court cost in criminal cases under Title 40, section 40-3-106, allowing counties to generate dedicated revenue for public safety and district attorney general support services. It changes how misdemeanor and felony cost bills are handled by requiring clerks to collect an additional $12.50 assessment, with special remittance rules for multiple-county judicial districts. It also creates reporting obligations and clarifies that the new revenue is supplemental to existing funding and does not displace restitution or the criminal injuries compensation fund privilege tax.
The legislative sentiment appears broadly favorable. The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 8-1 and later cleared floor votes with comfortable margins, including 25-5 on third consideration and 73-23 on final passage. That pattern suggests strong support for the bill’s public-safety funding purpose, while the nontrivial minority of dissenting votes indicates some concern about the policy’s cost and structure.
The main areas of contention are likely the imposition of an added fee on criminal defendants, the use of court costs to fund prosecutorial operations, and the discretion afforded to district attorneys general over spending. Critics may view the assessment as an additional financial penalty in criminal cases or as a funding mechanism that depends on convictions and court activity, while supporters are likely to argue that it is a modest, locally approved, supplemental source of funding for public safety services. The absence of committee transcripts limits the ability to identify specific speakers or arguments, but the vote split shows that some lawmakers had reservations.