WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 626

Law Enforcement - As introduced, requires a law enforcement officer who becomes aware that an order of protection has been entered against a person in the officer’s presence but has not been served on the person to take appropriate steps to facilitate service of the order of protection, including notifying the sheriff’s department of the person’s immediate location; requires the curriculum of the Tennessee peace officer standards and training commission to include instruction on such requirements. - Amends TCA Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6; Title 38 and Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by G.A. Hardaway

Requires police to actively serve unserved protection orders and notify sheriffs of subjects' locations; mandates training on procedure.

Action Def. in s/c Criminal Justice Subcommittee to 3/25/2026
#lawenforcement
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 626

Legislative bill overview

HB 626 requires law enforcement officers to take active steps to serve orders of protection when they encounter a person who has an unserved protective order against them. The bill mandates that officers notify the sheriff's department of the person's location to facilitate service and requires training on these procedures through the Tennessee peace officer standards and training commission.

Why is this important

Orders of protection are civil remedies designed to protect victims from harassment, stalking, or domestic violence. If unserved orders remain unknown to the restrained person, they cannot comply with restrictions and victims lose legal protection. This bill aims to close a gap where officers might be aware of an order but take no action to ensure the person is formally notified, potentially leaving victims vulnerable.

Potential points of contention

  • Resource allocation: Requiring officers to actively locate and facilitate service may impose administrative burdens on law enforcement, particularly in rural areas with limited sheriff's department capacity
  • Procedural clarity: The bill does not specify what constitutes "appropriate steps" or define liability if service attempts fail, potentially creating ambiguity in enforcement and legal disputes
  • Privacy concerns: Requiring officers to report a person's immediate location to the sheriff's department raises questions about data collection, retention, and use beyond the stated purpose

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

Sign in to ask a question.