As of July 1, 2026, Tennessee has a new criminal offense covering specific conduct involving traveling from an ATM, financial institution, or commercial business with the intent to steal another person’s cash.
The law applies when a person knowingly travels on the same path or route as another person without substantial deviation from that path or route, intends to steal that person’s cash, and possesses two or more criminal instruments.
A criminal instrument does not have to be something that is illegal to own. In this law, it means an object that is possessed, used, made, designed, or adapted for use in committing a burglary offense or theft of property. Put more simply, an ordinary object can potentially become a criminal instrument if the State proves that it was possessed or used as a tool for committing burglary or theft.
Simply following someone who has used an ATM does not, by itself, establish this particular offense. The State must prove the elements required by the new law beyond a reasonable doubt.
Tennessee enacted the offense through Public Chapter 951, originating as HB 1668/SB 1737. The law became effective July 1, 2026.
Someone accused under this law may also face other allegations depending on what the State claims occurred. Davis & Hoss represents people facing criminal charges in Chattanooga and Tennessee.
What Is Tennessee’s New ATM Theft Law?
The new law addresses conduct involving a person who allegedly targets someone with access to cash and travels the same route with that person with the intent to steal the cash.
This article uses “following someone” as a plain-English description of the conduct. The statute itself uses more specific language. It refers to knowingly traveling on the same path or route as another person without substantial deviation from that path or route.
The offense covers the specified conduct originating from:
- a commercial business;
- a financial institution, as defined in Tennessee Code Annotated § 45-11-102; or
- an automated teller machine.
The accused must also possess two or more criminal instruments while engaging in the conduct described by the statute.
ATMs were not included in the introduced version of the legislation. They were added through House Amendment 1 before final passage.
What Must the State Prove Under Tennessee’s New Law?
To obtain a conviction, the State must prove the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The enacted legislation describes a person who:
- Knowingly travels;
- does so with the intent to commit theft of another person’s cash;
- travels from a commercial business, financial institution, or automated teller machine;
- travels on the same path or route as another person without substantial deviation from that path or route; and
- possesses two or more criminal instruments while doing so.
For the fifth element, it is not enough to show that someone simply had two ordinary objects in a vehicle or on their person. The State must establish that at least two objects meet the legal definition of a criminal instrument because of their connection to burglary or theft.
Being near another person who has cash, traveling in the same direction, or possessing ordinary tools does not by itself establish all of the elements of this offense.
Is It Illegal Just to Follow Someone From an ATM in Tennessee?
Following someone from an ATM does not, by itself, establish this particular offense.
The State needs more than evidence showing that one vehicle traveled behind another after someone used an ATM.
The prosecution must establish an intent to steal another person’s cash, travel from one of the locations identified by the statute, travel on the same path or route without substantial deviation, and possession of two or more qualifying criminal instruments.
Evidence that two vehicles traveled along the same road may be relevant to the route requirement. It does not, standing alone, establish an intent to steal cash or possession of the required criminal instruments.
Can You Be Charged Before Any Cash Is Actually Stolen?
Potentially, yes. Completion of the intended theft is not one of the listed elements of the base offense.
Instead, the law focuses on knowingly traveling in the manner described by the statute with the intent to commit theft of another person’s cash while possessing two or more criminal instruments.
The State would still have to prove the required intent and the remaining elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
When an arrest or investigation occurs before any alleged theft is completed, evidence of intent can become especially important. Suspicious conduct alone does not replace the elements Tennessee lawmakers included in the offense.
What Is a Criminal Instrument in Plain English?
This is an important part of Tennessee’s new law because the offense requires possession of at least two criminal instruments.
A criminal instrument is an object connected to committing burglary or theft. The object itself does not have to be illegal to own.
In plain English, think of an otherwise lawful object that a person possesses or uses as a tool for committing burglary or stealing property. The definition can also cover an object that has been made, designed, or modified for that purpose.
For purposes of this new law, the statutory definition covers an item or thing whose possession is not otherwise an offense that is possessed, used, made, designed, or adapted for use in an offense under Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 10, or theft of property under Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-14-103.
Can an Ordinary Tool Be a Criminal Instrument?
Potentially, but not simply because it is a tool.
An ordinary tool may be completely legal to own and carry. If the State alleges that a person possessed or used the tool for committing burglary or theft, prosecutors may argue that it qualifies as a criminal instrument.
An object that was specifically made, designed, or modified for use in burglary or theft could also potentially fall within the definition.
What matters is the connection between the object and the alleged burglary or theft. The name of the object alone does not answer the question.
The statute does not provide a fixed list of objects that automatically qualify as criminal instruments. Whether a particular item meets the definition can depend on the item itself, how it was being used, why the person allegedly possessed it, whether it had been modified, and the other evidence in the case.
Do Two Tools Automatically Mean Two Criminal Instruments?
No. Finding two tools or other ordinary objects does not automatically establish this element of the offense.
The State must prove that each of at least two objects meets the definition of a criminal instrument.
For example, the presence of two ordinary tools in a vehicle, without more, does not automatically make them criminal instruments. Prosecutors would need evidence connecting the objects to their alleged use, intended use, design, manufacture, or adaptation for committing burglary or theft.
Questions in a disputed case may include:
- What objects were found?
- Where were they found?
- Did the accused possess them?
- Did the objects have ordinary lawful uses?
- Had either object been made or modified for another purpose?
- What evidence connects each object to burglary or theft?
- Does each object independently meet the statutory definition?
- Can the State prove there were at least two qualifying criminal instruments?
These questions are especially important because proof of only one qualifying criminal instrument would not satisfy the two-instrument requirement of this particular offense.
Does Tennessee’s New Law Apply Only to ATMs?
No. Although “ATM theft law” is useful shorthand for explaining the new offense, the enacted law covers the specified conduct originating from:
- commercial businesses;
- financial institutions; and
- automated teller machines.
The ATM provision was added during the legislative process through House Amendment 1 and became part of the enacted law.
The location where the alleged conduct began can therefore matter when determining whether the facts satisfy the statute.
Is This Tennessee’s “Anti-Jugging” Law?
The conduct targeted by the legislation may be described as “jugging” or “ATM jugging.” The Tennessee Bankers Association has referred to Public Chapter 951 as Tennessee’s “Anti-Jugging Law.”
That term helps describe the conduct the legislation addresses, but it does not define the criminal offense. The State must prove the elements written into Tennessee law.
A person does not violate this particular law merely because police characterize the conduct as jugging. The evidence must satisfy the requirements involving intent, route, location, and possession of two or more criminal instruments.
What Is the Penalty for Following Someone From an ATM in Tennessee?
The classification depends on the conduct alleged during commission of the new offense.
| Conduct | Classification |
| New offense without either statutory felony provision | Class A misdemeanor |
| During the offense, the person commits an offense under Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 10 | Class D felony |
| During the offense, the person commits an offense under Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 4 | Class B felony |
Base Offense: Class A Misdemeanor
A violation is a Class A misdemeanor when neither statutory felony provision applies.
Under Tennessee law, a Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to 11 months and 29 days in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both, unless another statute provides otherwise.
Burglary Offense During Commission: Class D Felony
The new offense is classified as a Class D felony if, during commission of the offense, the person commits an offense under Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 10, the statutory cross-reference covering burglary offenses identified by the new law.
The sentence following a Class D felony conviction is determined under Tennessee’s felony sentencing statutes and the offender classification applicable to the defendant.
Robbery Offense During Commission: Class B Felony
The new offense is classified as a Class B felony if, during commission of the offense, the person commits an offense under Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 4, the statutory cross-reference covering robbery offenses identified by the new law.
The sentence following a Class B felony conviction is determined under Tennessee’s felony sentencing statutes and the offender classification applicable to the defendant.
These provisions make it important to review all charges arising from an incident rather than treating the case solely as an ATM-related accusation.
The new offense is also distinct from other theft-related criminal charges that could be alleged based on what the evidence shows.
What Evidence Could Matter in a Case Under the New Law?
The statute requires a combination of conduct, intent, route, location, and possession. The evidence surrounding the sequence of events can therefore be important.
Depending on the facts, surveillance footage, location evidence, witness testimony, statements, or physical evidence could relate to one or more of the required elements.
Questions may include:
- Where did the accused and the other person first encounter each other?
- Did the alleged conduct begin at a location covered by the statute?
- Did the two people actually travel on the same path or route?
- Was there a substantial deviation from that route?
- Who was driving or participating in the alleged conduct?
- What objects were recovered?
- Where were the objects found?
- Who possessed them?
- What evidence connects each alleged criminal instrument to burglary or theft?
- What evidence supports the allegation that the accused intended to steal the other person’s cash?
Evidence supporting one part of the State’s case does not automatically establish the other elements.
For example, evidence showing that two vehicles traveled the same route does not, by itself, establish an intent to steal cash. Finding two ordinary objects also does not, by itself, establish that they are two criminal instruments under the new law.
What Does “Without Substantial Deviation” Mean?
The statute requires travel on the same path or route as another person “without substantial deviation from that path or route.”
Because this is a new offense, how that language applies to disputed facts, including what constitutes a substantial deviation, may become an issue in an individual case.
Every shared road, turn, or direction of travel does not automatically establish this requirement. The State must prove the route element as part of the charged offense.
Evidence concerning where the alleged travel began, where each person went, and what happened along the route may therefore be important.
Defense Issues Under Tennessee’s New ATM Theft Law
A defense to a charge under the new law starts with the elements the State is required to prove.
Intent to Steal Cash
The statute requires an intent to commit theft of another person’s cash.
Evidence showing that someone was near a commercial business, financial institution, or ATM does not itself establish that intent.
A defense lawyer can examine what evidence the prosecution relies on to establish an intent to steal cash and whether the circumstances support another explanation.
The Same Path or Route Requirement
The prosecution must prove that the accused traveled on the same path or route as another person without substantial deviation.
Where the alleged travel began, how the routes compared, and where each person went may be relevant to this requirement.
The Covered Location
The alleged conduct must originate from one of the locations identified in the statute: a commercial business, a qualifying financial institution, or an automated teller machine.
The evidence must establish this requirement in addition to the other elements.
Two Qualifying Criminal Instruments
This element requires more than showing that the accused had two objects.
The State must establish that at least two separate objects qualify as criminal instruments. That requires evidence connecting each object to its alleged use, intended use, design, manufacture, or adaptation for committing burglary or theft.
An object with an ordinary lawful purpose does not automatically satisfy the definition simply because it was found in a vehicle or on a person.
Ownership, knowledge, access, possession, the nature of the object, and evidence concerning its alleged criminal purpose can all become relevant.
Identification
There may also be disputes concerning who was driving a vehicle, who participated in the alleged conduct, or whether the evidence reliably identifies the person accused.
Searches, Seizures, and Statements
The circumstances surrounding a vehicle stop, detention, search, seizure of property, or questioning by law enforcement can raise separate constitutional or evidentiary issues.
Whether a particular search, seizure, or statement can be challenged depends on the facts surrounding the investigation.
Can Someone Face Other Criminal Charges From the Same Incident?
Yes, when the alleged conduct independently satisfies the elements of another criminal offense.
The new law itself recognizes this possibility through its Class D and Class B felony provisions involving specified burglary and robbery offenses committed during commission of the new crime.
A completed taking of cash could also raise separate theft-related issues depending on the conduct and charges alleged.
The new offense is not another name for theft, burglary, or robbery. Those are separate offenses with their own elements.
Frequently Asked Questions About Tennessee’s New ATM Theft Law
Is it illegal to follow someone from an ATM in Tennessee?
Following someone from an ATM does not, by itself, establish this particular offense. The State must prove the statutory requirements, including intent to steal cash, travel on the same path or route without substantial deviation, and possession of two or more criminal instruments.
Can you be charged if no cash was actually stolen?
Potentially. Completion of the intended cash theft is not one of the listed elements of the base offense. The State must still prove the intent to commit theft of another person’s cash and every other required element.
What is a criminal instrument under Tennessee’s new law?
A criminal instrument is an object connected to committing burglary or theft. The object itself does not have to be illegal to own.
An ordinary object can potentially qualify if the State proves that it was possessed or used as a tool for committing burglary or theft. An object made, designed, or modified for that purpose could also qualify.
The statute does not provide a fixed list of objects that automatically count as criminal instruments.
Can an ordinary tool count as a criminal instrument?
Potentially, but an ordinary tool does not become a criminal instrument simply because someone possesses it.
The State must prove the required connection between the object and committing burglary or theft. The item’s lawful uses, how it was allegedly being used, why it was possessed, whether it had been modified, and other evidence may be relevant.
Do two ordinary tools automatically count as two criminal instruments?
No. Possession of two tools or other objects does not automatically satisfy this element. The State must prove that each object qualifies as a criminal instrument under the statute.
Is Tennessee’s new ATM-following offense a felony?
The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor. It is classified as a Class D felony when the person commits an offense under the burglary-related statutory cross-reference during commission of the offense. It is classified as a Class B felony when the person commits an offense under the robbery-related statutory cross-reference during commission of the offense.
Charged Under Tennessee’s New ATM Theft Law?
Tennessee’s new law contains specific requirements involving intent, the alleged route, where the conduct originated, and possession of at least two qualifying criminal instruments. An allegation that someone followed another person after an ATM withdrawal does not remove the State’s burden to prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you are under investigation or have been charged in Chattanooga or Hamilton County, a Chattanooga criminal defense attorney at Davis & Hoss can review the allegations, the evidence collected by law enforcement, and the legal issues raised by the charge.
How a case is handled can depend on the specific charge and local court procedures.