AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to offenses against first responders.
Summary
SB0979 creates a new criminal offense in Tennessee for approaching or remaining within 25 feet of a first responder after receiving a verbal warning not to approach, when the person knows or reasonably should know the individual is a first responder performing official duties and acts with intent to impede duties, threaten physical harm, or harass. The bill defines “first responder” broadly to include law enforcement officers, corrections officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and other emergency service personnel, and defines “harass” as a course of conduct causing substantial emotional distress and serving no legitimate purpose.
The offense applies only after a verbal warning and only when the first responder is lawfully performing official duties. A violation is classified as a Class B misdemeanor. The act is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025, and would amend Title 39 of the Tennessee Code Annotated by adding a new section addressing offenses against first responders.
Impact
The bill would add a new criminal provision to Tennessee’s Title 39, expanding protections for first responders by making certain post-warning approaches or proximity-based conduct a misdemeanor offense. It would affect individuals interacting with police, corrections staff, firefighters, EMTs, and other emergency personnel during active duty situations, and would give law enforcement and prosecutors a new tool to address interference, threats, and harassment directed at those responders.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears supportive of protecting first responders and their ability to perform official duties without interference. The measure is framed as a public safety and workplace-protection bill, with no documented opposition or amendments in the supplied record.
Contention
No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so no specific points of contention are documented in the record. Potential areas of debate, based on the bill’s language, could include the breadth of the 25-foot restriction, the subjective nature of intent to “harass,” and how the verbal warning requirement would be applied in real-world encounters involving members of the public, protesters, or bystanders.