Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (2026)

Centralized record system - Reporting - Violations - Confidentiality of certain registration information - Immunity from liability - Public information regarding offenders

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

Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 770, s 4, eff. 7/1/2014.

Acts 2004, ch. 921, § 1; 2005, ch. 316, § 1; 2007 , ch. 531, §§ 1, 2; 2008 , ch. 1164, §§ 5, 6, 15; 2010 , ch. 1138, §§ 8-10; 2011 , ch. 483, § 14.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2015–2025 · leading case: Craven (E.D. Tenn. 2025).
Craven (E.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 7× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d).5 Because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
Wooden v. Lee (W.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 4× “Because Tennessee law requires that all sex offenders’ vehicle(s) be listed on the sex offender registry, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d)(15), there was “‘a[] conceivable basis’ that rationally supported” the Defendants’ actions as to Plaintiff, see Rapp, 557 F.”
Joe King v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “ong other things, the Act imposes responsibilities on the TBI to collect certain biographical information on each offender (section 40-39-206(d)), to maintain the sex offender registry (section 40-39-204), to report current registry information to the Federal Bureau of…”
Reid v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d). The offender also has an ongoing duty to keep the state’s information up to date.”
Jordan v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d). The offender also has an ongoing duty to keep the state’s information up to date.”
Winters v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 40-39-206(d). This means, conversely, that the Motion is GRANTED as to Count I insofar as Count I is dismissed to the extent that it challenges SORA requirements to which he is not subject or that are not retroactive as applied to Plaintiff in particular.”
Jordan v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d). The offender also has an ongoing duty to keep the state’s information up to date.”
Does 1 - 8 v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2023). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d). The offender has an ongoing duty to keep the state’s information up to date.”
Doe v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d). The offender has an ongoing duty to keep this information up to date.”
Doe v. Rausch (W.D. Tenn. 2023). · cites it 2× “§ 40-39-206(d) (2010). Section 40-39-213(a), as amended by the Tenn.”
John Doe #1–9 v. William B. Lee, in his Off. capacity as Governor of Tennessee, et al. (M.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 2× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (f); see also Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. Antoine Tony Blugh (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “20, 2009); see also T.C.A. § 40-39-206 (2012); Ward v. State, 315 S.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(a) — 1 case
Joe King v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “ong other things, the Act imposes responsibilities on the TBI to collect certain biographical information on each offender (section 40-39-206(d)), to maintain the sex offender registry (section 40-39-204), to report current registry information to the Federal Bureau of…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(b) — 3 cases
Doe v. Rausch (M.D. Tenn. 2025).
Wooden v. Lee (W.D. Tenn. 2025). “Because Tennessee law requires that all sex offenders’ vehicle(s) be listed on the sex offender registry, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d)(15), there was “‘a[] conceivable basis’ that rationally supported” the Defendants’ actions as to Plaintiff, see Rapp, 557 F.”
Craven (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d).5 Because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(d) — 11 cases
Joe King v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). “ong other things, the Act imposes responsibilities on the TBI to collect certain biographical information on each offender (section 40-39-206(d)), to maintain the sex offender registry (section 40-39-204), to report current registry information to the Federal Bureau of…”
Winters v. Lee (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “§ 40-39-206(d). This means, conversely, that the Motion is GRANTED as to Count I insofar as Count I is dismissed to the extent that it challenges SORA requirements to which he is not subject or that are not retroactive as applied to Plaintiff in particular.”
Craven (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d).5 Because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
Doe v. Lee (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
Atwell v. Rausch (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(d)(15) — 1 case
Wooden v. Lee (W.D. Tenn. 2025). “Because Tennessee law requires that all sex offenders’ vehicle(s) be listed on the sex offender registry, see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d)(15), there was “‘a[] conceivable basis’ that rationally supported” the Defendants’ actions as to Plaintiff, see Rapp, 557 F.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(e) — 1 case
Doe v. Rausch (W.D. Tenn. 2023). “§ 40-39-206(d) (2010). Section 40-39-213(a), as amended by the Tenn.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206(f) — 1 case
Craven (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-39-206 (d).5 Because Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.”
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.