Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (2026)

Destruction or release of records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 992,s 3, eff. 5/21/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 992,s 2, eff. 5/21/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 962,s 5, eff. 5/9/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 962,s 4, eff. 5/9/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 962,s 3, eff. 5/9/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 962,s 2, eff. 5/9/2024.

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 962,s 1, eff. 5/9/2024.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 315, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 43, s 1, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 392, s 1, eff. 5/11/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 330, s 1, eff. 5/5/2023.

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 137, Secs.s 1, s 2eff. 4/6/2023.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1115, s 15, eff. 7/1/2022.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1027, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.

Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 677, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 545, s 5, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 539, s 5, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 494, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 539, Secs.s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 12, s 13, s 14, s 15, s 16eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 430, s 3, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 361, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 200, Secs.s 1, s 5eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 200, Secs.s 2, s 3, s 6, s 7, s 8, s 9eff. 7/1/2019.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 876, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 586, s 3, eff. 7/1/2018.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 487, s 1, eff. 6/6/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 358, s 1, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 199, s 8, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 298, s 1, eff. 5/5/2017.

Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 199, s 7, eff. 7/1/2017.

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 960, s 1, eff. 4/27/2016.

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 893, s 1, eff. 4/27/2016.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 89, s 2, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2015 Tenn. Acts, ch. 89, s 1, eff. 7/1/2015.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1008,s 1, eff. 5/22/2014.

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 671, Secs.s 1, s 2, s 3, s 4eff. 7/1/2014.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 443, s 1, eff. 7/1/2013.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 384, s 1, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1973, ch. 318, § 1; 1975, ch. 193, § 1; 1976, ch. 790, § 1; 1977, ch. 161, § 1; 1978, ch. 736, § 1; 1980, ch. 892, § 1, 2; 1982, ch. 756, § 1; T.C.A., §§ 40-2109, 40-4001; Acts 1987, ch. 335, §§ 1-4; T.C.A., § 40-15-106; Acts 1996, ch. 1079, §127; 1997 , ch. 455, § 1; 1998, ch. 1036, § 1; 1998, ch. 1099, § 7; 1999, ch. 496, § 1; 2000, ch. 645, §§ 3, 5; 2000, ch. 664, §§ 1 - 3; 2002, ch. 495, §§1 - 4; 2003 , ch. 50, §1; 2003 , ch. 175, § 1; 2005, ch. 429, § 12; 2006, ch. 650, §§1, 3; 2007 , ch. 363, §2; 2010 , ch. 951, §§1, 2; 2012 , ch. 951, §§ 1-3; 2012, ch. 1041, §3; 2012, ch. 1103, §§ 1, 2.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State v. Jennings, 130 S.W.3d 43 (Tenn. 2004).
State v. Jennings, 130 S.W.3d 43 (Tenn. 2004). · cites it 14× “” Following argument, the trial court denied the motion, holding that the scope of the ex-pungement statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101, did not encompass a finding of not guilty rendered in a bench trial.”
Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 15× “Corder argues that, because an unfavorable ruling could have resulted in punishment by the assessment of a fine or imprisonment for less than a year, the charge was actually a misdemeanor charge. She points out that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-11-110 provides for the…”
State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011). · cites it 27× “292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (Supp.2010)).”
State v. Burton, 751 S.W.2d 440 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “As the trial judge pointed out, the name of the witness was known to the defendant, the index to the minutes of the court reflected the name, and the matter could have been located as easily by the defendant as by the State.”
State v. Blanchard, 100 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (a)(6). 5 .We will assume for the purposes of this argument that the Appellant’s reference to a "successful appeal” means an appeal resulting in a reversal and dismissal of the conviction, as opposed to a reversal and remand for a new trial, or a…”
MacOn v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., 309 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8× “In Tennessee, two statutes address ex-pungement, namely, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101 8 and section 40-35-313(b).”
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “Secondly, we are doubtful that POST Commission decertification proceedings qualify as a “law enforcement purpose” under the intended meaning of § 40-32-101. It seems far more likely that the legislature intended this language to refer to actual police investigations, not…”
State of Tennessee v. Ray Rowland, 520 S.W.3d 542 (Tenn. 2017). · cites it 2× “Acts 292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 ), as recognized in State v.”
Pizzillo v. Pizzillo, 884 S.W.2d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Even though the pretrial diversion statute does not prevent the document’s use as evidence, we must also weigh the effect of the criminal court’s order directing that all public records with regard to the charges connected with the memorandum of understanding be expunged in…”
State v. Hanners, 235 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “In August 2005, the appellant moved for expungement of any records relating to the charge of child abuse, which the trial court denied relying on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101, as amended May 22, 2003.”
State v. Lawson, 291 S.W.3d 864 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (a)(3) (2003) (“Upon petition by a defendant in the court which entered a nolle prosequi in the defendant’s case, the court shall order all public records expunged.”
State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 40-32-101(c)(3), which relates to the arrest history of a potential witness, does not create a pretrial remedy for the discovery of this information.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(1)(F) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jacob Brown, II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a) — 1 case
State v. Willie Cole (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(1) — 10 cases
State v. Jennings, 130 S.W.3d 43 (Tenn. 2004). “” Following argument, the trial court denied the motion, holding that the scope of the ex-pungement statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101, did not encompass a finding of not guilty rendered in a bench trial.”
Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Corder argues that, because an unfavorable ruling could have resulted in punishment by the assessment of a fine or imprisonment for less than a year, the charge was actually a misdemeanor charge. She points out that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-11-110 provides for the…”
State v. Liddle, 929 S.W.2d 415 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. LW, 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Amado Rubio Tavera (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(1)(A) — 4 cases
State of Tennessee v. Jane Doe (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Davidson M. Taylor (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(1)(E) — 5 cases
State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011). “292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (Supp.2010)).”
State v. LW, 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Jane Doe (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Ann Dodd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(1)(E)(i) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ann Dodd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(3) — 6 cases
State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011). “292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (Supp.2010)).”
State v. Blanchard, 100 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (a)(6). 5 .We will assume for the purposes of this argument that the Appellant’s reference to a "successful appeal” means an appeal resulting in a reversal and dismissal of the conviction, as opposed to a reversal and remand for a new trial, or a…”
State v. Liddle, 929 S.W.2d 415 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
State v. LW, 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011).
State of Tennessee v. Amado Rubio Tavera (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(6) — 1 case
State v. Blanchard, 100 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (a)(6). 5 .We will assume for the purposes of this argument that the Appellant’s reference to a "successful appeal” means an appeal resulting in a reversal and dismissal of the conviction, as opposed to a reversal and remand for a new trial, or a…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(l) — 8 cases
Pizzillo v. Pizzillo, 884 S.W.2d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). “Even though the pretrial diversion statute does not prevent the document’s use as evidence, we must also weigh the effect of the criminal court’s order directing that all public records with regard to the charges connected with the memorandum of understanding be expunged in…”
State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011). “292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (Supp.2010)).”
Robinson v. Fulliton, 140 S.W.3d 304 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). “Corder argues that, because an unfavorable ruling could have resulted in punishment by the assessment of a fine or imprisonment for less than a year, the charge was actually a misdemeanor charge. She points out that Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-11-110 provides for the…”
State v. Blanchard, 100 S.W.3d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (a)(6). 5 .We will assume for the purposes of this argument that the Appellant’s reference to a "successful appeal” means an appeal resulting in a reversal and dismissal of the conviction, as opposed to a reversal and remand for a new trial, or a…”
State v. Hanners, 235 S.W.3d 609 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). “In August 2005, the appellant moved for expungement of any records relating to the charge of child abuse, which the trial court denied relying on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-32-101, as amended May 22, 2003.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(l)(D) — 1 case
Santini v. Rausch (M.D. Tenn. 2021).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(a)(l)(E) — 1 case
State v. L.W., 350 S.W.3d 911 (Tenn. 2011). “292 (codified as amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101 (Supp.2010)).”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(b) — 4 cases
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Secondly, we are doubtful that POST Commission decertification proceedings qualify as a “law enforcement purpose” under the intended meaning of § 40-32-101. It seems far more likely that the legislature intended this language to refer to actual police investigations, not…”
State v. Norris, 684 S.W.2d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
State v. Doe, 860 S.W.2d 38 (Tenn. 1993).
Flowers v. Traughber (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(b)(1) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(b)(l) — 1 case
Wright v. Tennessee Peace Officer Standards & Training Comm'n, 277 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “Secondly, we are doubtful that POST Commission decertification proceedings qualify as a “law enforcement purpose” under the intended meaning of § 40-32-101. It seems far more likely that the legislature intended this language to refer to actual police investigations, not…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(c)(1) — 1 case
Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(c)(3) — 8 cases
State v. Burton, 751 S.W.2d 440 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “As the trial judge pointed out, the name of the witness was known to the defendant, the index to the minutes of the court reflected the name, and the matter could have been located as easily by the defendant as by the State.”
State v. Killebrew, 760 S.W.2d 228 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). “T.C.A. § 40-32-101(c)(3), which relates to the arrest history of a potential witness, does not create a pretrial remedy for the discovery of this information.”
State v. Norris, 684 S.W.2d 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984).
Reid v. State, 9 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(c)(l) — 2 cases
Fann v. City of Fairview, 905 S.W.2d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Fann v. Brailey, 841 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(d)(1) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(f) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(A)(xxix) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(A)(xxxv) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(B) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ann Dodd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(B)(i) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(B)(xlv) — 2 cases
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(D) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(1)(E) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ann Dodd (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(14)(A) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(14)(E) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(2) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(2)(A) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(2)(B) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Ryan M. Delaby (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(2)(B)(i) — 1 case
Jaslene Washington v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2024).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(2)(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(g)(3) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Jacob Brown, II (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(k) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(k)(1) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(k)(1)(C) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(k)(1)(C)(i) — 1 case
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-32-101(k)(4) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.