WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 388

Bail, Bail Bonds - As introduced, requires a court or magistrate to impose global positioning monitoring as a condition of release for a defendant accused of certain offenses, unless the court or magistrate enters written findings that the defendant does not pose a threat to the victim or public safety; requires the administrative office of the courts to compile an annual report of the number of defendants subject to such an order. - Amends TCA Title 39; Title 40; Title 55; Chapter 969 of the Public Acts of 2024 and Chapter 1033 of the Public Acts of 2024.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Brent Taylor

Tennessee bill requiring GPS monitoring for bail release in certain cases unless judges document defendants pose no safety threat.

Passed on Second Consideration, refer to Senate Judiciary Committee
#bail #bailbonds
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 388

Legislative bill overview

SB 388 mandates that courts impose GPS monitoring as a condition of bail release for defendants charged with certain offenses, unless the judge explicitly documents in writing that the defendant poses no threat to victims or public safety. The bill requires courts to track and report annually on how many defendants receive such monitoring orders.

Why is this important

GPS monitoring affects defendants' freedom of movement before trial and raises questions about presumption of innocence versus public safety. The automatic nature of the requirement—requiring judicial justification only to avoid monitoring—reverses traditional burden-of-proof assumptions and will create significant new tracking infrastructure and costs for the court system.

Potential points of contention

  • Presumption of innocence: Making GPS monitoring the default rather than requiring prosecutors to justify it shifts the burden to defendants to prove they're low-risk, which may conflict with due process principles
  • Cost and equity concerns: GPS monitoring expenses may disproportionately burden low-income defendants who cannot afford bail, creating a two-tiered system where wealthier defendants can bail out without monitoring
  • Definition ambiguity: The bill references "certain offenses" but doesn't clearly specify which crimes trigger mandatory monitoring, leaving significant discretion in implementation and potentially creating inconsistent application across jurisdictions

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.