WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 120

Criminal Offenses - As enacted, creates the offense of intentionally impeding or obstructing a member of the division of protective services from ingress to, egress from, or movement about a location where the member is responsible for a person protected by the division of protective services; creates the offense of intentionally refusing to vacate an area where access has been restricted by a member of the division of protective services for the purpose of maintaining the safety or security of the person being protected. - Amends TCA Title 4 and Title 39.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by William Lamberth

Tennessee law now criminalizes obstructing protective services personnel or refusing to leave DPS-restricted areas, effective July 2025.

Pub. Ch. 84
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 120

Legislative bill overview

HB 120 creates two new criminal offenses in Tennessee related to the Division of Protective Services (DPS). The bill criminalizes intentionally impeding or obstructing DPS members performing their protective duties, and intentionally refusing to vacate areas that DPS has restricted for security purposes. These amendments become effective July 1, 2025.

Why is this important

The bill directly affects anyone who might interact with individuals under DPS protection—typically high-risk individuals or those in witness protection scenarios. By creating criminal penalties for obstruction, the legislation aims to strengthen the ability of DPS personnel to perform their duties without interference. This has practical implications for security operations, law enforcement effectiveness, and the safety of protected persons.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope and clarity of "impeding": The language around what constitutes "intentionally impeding" movement could be broadly interpreted, potentially capturing unintentional interference or legitimate disputes over access restrictions
  • Due process concerns: Individuals might challenge whether refusing to vacate a restricted area—especially if the restriction was unclear or contested—warrants criminal prosecution rather than civil remedies
  • Application disparities: Without clear guidelines, DPS personnel may apply these new offenses inconsistently, raising concerns about whether enforcement will be equitable across different cases and populations

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

Sign in to ask a question.