Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 (2026)

Methods allowed

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Sodium pentobarbital and such other agents as may be specifically approved by the rules of the board of veterinary medicine shall be the only methods used for euthanasia of non-livestock animals by public and private agencies, animal shelters and other facilities operated for the collection, care or euthanasia of stray, neglected, abandoned or unwanted non-livestock animals. A lethal solution shall be used in the following order of preference:
- (1) Intravenous injection by hypodermic needle;
- (2) Intraperitoneal injection by hypodermic needle;
- (3) Intracardial injection by hypodermic needle, but only if performed on heavily sedated, anesthetized or comatose animals; or
- (4) Solution or powder added to food.

(b) A non-livestock animal may be tranquilized with an approved and humane substance before any form of euthanasia involving a lethal injection is performed, but the animal must be tranquilized if the euthanasia is performed by the method described in subdivision (a)(3).

(c) Succinylcholine chloride, curare, curariform mixtures, strychnine, nicotine, chloral hydrate, magnesium or potassium or any substance that acts as a neuromuscular blocking agent, or any chamber that causes a change in body oxygen may not be used on any non-livestock animal for the purpose of euthanasia. Any such chamber in use as of July 1, 2001, shall be phased out and shall not be used on or after July 1, 2002.

(d) Euthanasia shall be performed only by a licensed veterinarian, Tennessee veterinarian medical technician or an employee or agent of a public or private agency, animal shelter or other facility operated for the collection, care or euthanasia of stray, neglected, abandoned or unwanted non-livestock animals, provided that the Tennessee veterinarian medical technician, employee or agent has successfully completed a euthanasia-technician certification course. The curriculum for such course must be approved by the board of veterinary medical examiners and must include, at a minimum, knowledge of animal anatomy, behavior and physiology; animal restraint and handling as it pertains to euthanasia; the pharmacology, proper dosages, administration techniques of euthanasia solution, verification of death techniques, laws regulating the storage, security and accountability of euthanasia solutions; euthanasia technician stress management and the proper disposal of euthanized non-livestock animals.

(e) An employee, agent or Tennessee veterinarian medical technician performing euthanasia prior to July 1, 2001, who previously passed an approved euthanasia-technician certification course will be accepted as qualified under this part to perform euthanasia on non-livestock animals. Any other employee, agent or Tennessee veterinarian medical technician seeking to perform euthanasia on non-livestock animals on or after July 1, 2001, must obtain certification prior to performing any such euthanasia.

(f) A non-livestock animal may not be left unattended between the time euthanasia procedures are first begun and the time that death occurs, nor may its body be disposed of until a qualified person confirms death.

(g) Notwithstanding this section or any other law to the contrary, whenever an emergency situation exists in the field that requires the immediate euthanasia of an injured, dangerous or severely diseased non-livestock animal, a law enforcement officer, a veterinarian, or agent of a local animal control unit or the designee of such an agent may humanely destroy the non-livestock animal.

(h) For purposes of this part, "non-livestock animal" shall have the meaning set forth in § 39-14-201.

(i) The attorney general and reporter may bring an action to enjoin any violation of this part.

(j) Any person who violates this part is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(k) These provisions shall not apply to exotic animals being held under the authority of title 70, chapter 4, part 4, and Rule 1660-1-18-.05 of the Official Compilation of Rules and Regulations of the State of Tennessee.

Acts 1980, ch. 482, § 3; 1997 , ch. 106, §§ 8, 9; 2001, ch. 70, § 1; 2008 , ch. 639, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 2005–2014 · leading case: Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008). · cites it 2× “§ 374 (2-b) (West 2004) ("No person shall euthanize any dog or cat with T-61, curare, any curariform drug, any neuro-muscular blocking agent or any other paralyzing drug"); Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 (c) (2007) ("Succinylcholine chloride, curare, curariform mixtures .”

Abdur'Rahman v. Bredesen, 181 S.W.3d 292 (Tenn. 2005). “§ 44-17-303(c). A “nonlivestock animal” is “a pet normally maintained in or near the household or households of its owner or owners, other domesticated animal, previously captured wildlife, an exotic animal, or any other pet_” Tenn.”

Ex Parte O'Brien, 190 S.W.3d 677 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “4, § 501; and Tennessee, Tenn.Code Ann. § 44-17-303. States that require the use of a particular method for animal euthanasia, and therefore implicitly ban the use of neuromuscular blocking agents are: Connecticut, Conn.”

Beardslee v. Woodford, 395 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2005). “4, § 501 ; and Tennessee, Tenn.Code Ann. § 44-17-303. The states that mandate the use of particular methods for animal euthanasia, most often the use of the sedative sodium pentobarbitol, and therefore implicitly ban the use of neuromuscular blocking agents are: Connecticut,…”

Rebecca Coleman, DVM v. The Humane Soc'y of Memphis & Shelby Cnty., A Tennessee not for profit Org. & Ginger Morgan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 (d). Ms. Freeza was not certified as a euthanasia technician.”

Detrick Cole v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 . He adds that “[s]hortcomings in Tennessee’s execution protocol, staffing of executions, and likelihood of human error further bolster this claim.”

O'Brien, Derrick Sean (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). “4, § 501 ; and Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 . States that require the use of a particular method for animal euthanasia, and therefore implicitly ban the use of neuromuscular blocking agents are: Connecticut, Conn.”

Workman v. Bredesen (6th Cir. 2007). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 (c); 44-17-303(j) (providing criminal sanctions for using any substance that acts as a neuromuscular blocking agent No.”

Beardslee v. Woodford (9th Cir. 2005). “4, § 501 ; and Tennessee, Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 . The states that mandate the use of particular methods for animal euthanasia, most often the use of the sedative sodium pentobarbitol, and therefore implicitly ban the use of neuromuscular blocking agents are: Connecticut,…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303(c) — 1 case

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303(d) — 1 case

Rebecca Coleman, DVM v. The Humane Soc'y of Memphis & Shelby Cnty., A Tennessee not for profit Org. & Ginger Morgan (Tenn. Ct. App. 2014). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 44-17-303 (d). Ms. Freeza was not certified as a euthanasia technician.”

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.