Tennessee Senate Bill SB1820

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/20/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 10 and Title 41, relative to body cameras.

Summary

SB1820 requires the Tennessee Department of Correction to study the cost of equipping correctional officers and employees of prison contractors with body cameras at a specified adult correctional facility. The facility must be on public property, house inmates under the department’s custody, be served by a prison contractor, and be located in a county with a metropolitan form of government and a 2020 census population between 11,600 and 11,616. The study is limited to the cost of body cameras for staff working in that facility. The department must report its findings to the chairs of the Senate State and Local Government Committee and the House committee with jurisdiction over corrections by July 1, 2026. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, reflecting the legislature’s intent to move the study forward without delay.

Impact

The bill does not directly mandate the use of body cameras or change correctional operations statewide; instead, it creates a targeted study requirement within Title 41 for a narrowly defined correctional setting. Its legal effect is to direct the Department of Correction to evaluate costs and provide a report to legislative committees, which could inform future policy or appropriations related to correctional officer body cameras and prison contractor oversight.

Sentiment

The available committee votes show strong support and no recorded opposition, with the Senate State & Local Government Committee voting 9-0 and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee voting 11-0 to recommend passage with amendments. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed favorably as a limited, informational measure rather than a controversial policy change.

Contention

No committee transcript is available, and the recorded votes indicate no visible opposition in committee. The main practical issue implied by the bill is the narrow, location-specific scope of the study, which may reflect an effort to address a particular correctional facility or county without creating a broader statewide mandate. Any contention would likely center on cost, implementation, or whether the study should be expanded beyond the singled-out facility and contractor workforce.