AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 40 and Title 41, relative to state inmates.
Summary
SB1914 amends Tennessee law governing state inmates housed in local jails. The bill provides that when an inmate is in a local jail and participating in a work release or re-entry program, the Department of Correction may not remove that 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 bill limits the Department of Correction’s discretion to transfer certain inmates out of local jail settings while they are successfully participating in structured work-release or re-entry programming. It is aimed at preserving continuity in those programs and keeping eligible inmates in the local facilities where the programs are being administered.
Impact
The bill adds a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 41, Chapter 22, Part 1, creating a statutory restriction on when the Department of Correction may relocate inmates from local jails to state facilities. It affects state inmates housed in local jails, local jail administrators, and the Department of Correction by protecting participation in work-release and re-entry programs unless specified performance or disciplinary conditions are not met.
Sentiment
The available voting history shows strong support for the bill, with a unanimous 9-0 recommendation in the Senate State & Local Government Committee and a 33-0 floor vote on the motion to adopt. No committee transcript is available, but the recorded votes indicate broad agreement and little visible opposition.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. The only implied policy issue is the balance between the Department of Correction’s authority to manage inmate placement and the desire to keep inmates in local work-release or re-entry programs. Any concern would likely center on whether the new restriction limits correctional flexibility, but the unanimous votes suggest that concern was not significant in the legislative process.