By Trinity Safety Training Group
Monday, 27 April 2026
The Tennessee House passed HB 1802 by a 62-24 vote after the Senate approved it 21-5. This measure now heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Bill Lee for his signature.
The proposed changes to Tennessee law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated §39-11-614, expand the circumstances under which an individual may be justified in using force—including deadly force—in defense of property. On the surface, this may appear to provide greater clarity and protection for those responsible for security. However, for church safety teams, this type of statutory expansion does not necessarily simplify decision-making.
In many ways, it introduces additional complexity, particularly when applied within a ministry-focused, public-facing environment.
At the core of the statute is the concept of “reasonable belief.” The law allows for the use of force when a person reasonably believes it is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate certain actions, including trespass, theft, or damage to property. However, this standard presents one of the most significant legal pitfalls for church safety teams. What feels reasonable in the moment—under stress, time pressure, and uncertainty—is not ultimately judged by the individual making the decision.
It is judged afterward by investigators, prosecutors, and potentially a jury. That evaluation will be shaped by witness accounts, video evidence, and the broader context of the situation. In a church environment, where expectations of restraint and compassion are high, actions that seemed justified in the moment may later be viewed as excessive or avoidable.
One of the most important distinctions for church safety teams to understand is the difference between what may be legally permissible and what is practically defensible. While the statute outlines circumstances under which deadly force could be justified in response to property-related crimes such as burglary, theft, or vandalism, the use of that level of force in a church setting carries significant risk.
Churches are not traditional security environments; they are places of worship, filled with families, children, and individuals who expect a safe and welcoming atmosphere. The use of deadly force to protect property—rather than life—may be difficult to justify not only legally, but also in the eyes of a jury or the broader community. Even if an action falls within the language of the law, it may still be perceived as disproportionate.
The statute also requires that the individual reasonably believe that the property cannot be protected by any other means. This creates a very high threshold, particularly in a church setting where alternatives are almost always available. Verbal engagement, de-escalation, physical presence, disengagement, and calling law enforcement are all viable options in most scenarios. If any of these alternatives could have reasonably been used, the justification for deadly force becomes significantly weaker.
In practice, this means that it will be extremely difficult for a church safety team to demonstrate that deadly force was the only available option in a property-related situation.
Another critical consideration is the risk to third parties. Church environments are inherently populated and often confined, increasing the likelihood of unintended consequences. Any use of force—especially deadly force—introduces the possibility of harm to innocent individuals. Even if the initial use of force is deemed justified, any injury to a bystander could result in serious civil liability.
This is particularly important given that civil cases operate under a lower burden of proof than criminal cases. A team member may avoid criminal charges but still face significant legal and financial consequences through civil litigation.
The statute also includes a specific limitation stating that deadly force is not justified if the individual is facing away from the person using force. While this may seem straightforward, real-world situations are rarely static. Individuals may turn, retreat, or move unpredictably in the course of an incident. If force is used at a moment when the individual is no longer presenting an immediate threat, the legal justification becomes much more difficult to defend.
This creates a narrow window in which force may be considered appropriate, and that window can close quickly.
For church safety teams—many of whom are composed of volunteers—there is an additional layer of risk related to misinterpretation. Statutory language can be complex, and without proper training, individuals may mistakenly view expanded legal authority as permission to act more aggressively. This can lead to overconfidence, premature escalation, and poor decision-making under stress. Legal authority, when not properly understood, can increase liability rather than reduce it.
Even in situations where a team member is not criminally charged, the risk does not end there. Civil liability often follows use-of-force incidents, particularly in environments like churches where the expectation of care is high. Claims of negligence, excessive force, or failure to properly train and supervise team members can expose the church to significant legal challenges. The fact that a team member believed they were acting appropriately does not eliminate this risk.
There is also a broader consideration that extends beyond legal statutes. Church safety teams operate within a ministry context, not a traditional enforcement role. Their purpose is not simply to enforce rules or protect property, but to protect people while maintaining the values and atmosphere of the church. Actions taken during an incident will be judged not only by legal standards, but also by how they align with the mission and character of the organization.
A response that appears overly aggressive or unnecessary can have lasting consequences for the church’s reputation and trust within the community.
In practical terms, this means that even with expanded legal authority, church safety teams should maintain a disciplined and restrained approach. The protection of life must always take priority over the protection of property. Verbal de-escalation, situational awareness, and early engagement should remain the primary tools for managing most situations.
Physical force, particularly deadly force, should be viewed as a last resort—reserved for circumstances where there is a clear and immediate threat to life.
Ultimately, this change in Tennessee law should not be interpreted as a reason to act more decisively with force, but rather as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with any level of authority. The broader the authority, the greater the expectation of judgment, restraint, and accountability.
At the end of the day, the most important principle for church safety teams remains unchanged:
Just because force may be legally permissible does not mean it is the right course of action.
The role of a church safety team is not enforcement—it is protection. That includes protecting lives, protecting the congregation, and protecting the church from unnecessary legal and moral risk.
Dan Perez
VP of Training and Risk Management
Trinity Safety Training Group
If this guide would help your pastor, ministry leaders, or Life Safety Ministry Team, please share it with them. Visit trinitysafetygrp.com for more practical guidance and training resources to help your church prepare.