WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 547

Criminal Procedure - As enacted, requires the clerk of every court having jurisdiction of criminal offenses to include a $12.50 charge in every cost bill, to be remitted to the county government to provide support services for the purpose of promoting public safety at the sole discretion of the district attorney general; takes effect upon two-thirds vote of the county legislative body; requires a district attorney general receiving funding to submit an annual report. - Amends TCA Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026)

Tennessee adds $12.50 criminal court cost funneled to district attorneys' discretionary public safety spending with annual reporting requirements.

Pub. Ch. 369
#criminalprocedure
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 547

Legislative bill overview

SB 547 adds a $12.50 court cost to every criminal case handled by courts with criminal jurisdiction in Tennessee. These funds are remitted to county governments and directed to the district attorney general for public safety support services at their discretion. Implementation requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the county legislative body, and district attorneys receiving funds must submit annual reports.

Why is this important

This creates a new dedicated funding stream for prosecutorial discretionary spending tied to criminal proceedings. It effectively places a small tax on criminal cases that could generate meaningful revenue for DA offices while shifting some operational costs from general county budgets. The accountability mechanism (annual reporting) is limited, as it only requires disclosure without specifying what must be reported or how funds are evaluated.

Potential points of contention

  • Regressive funding mechanism: Low-income defendants disproportionately pay these fees, raising equity concerns about funding prosecution through those most likely to be criminalized
  • Prosecutorial discretion without guardrails: Granting DAs sole discretion over "public safety" spending lacks specific guidelines, allowing potentially broad or politically-motivated use of funds
  • Limited transparency and accountability: Annual reporting requirement lacks detail about metrics, outcomes, or how "public safety" services are defined or evaluated
  • County opt-in creates inconsistency: Two-thirds vote requirement means implementation varies by county, creating disparities in funding and potentially unequal access to services

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

Sign in to ask a question.