Estimated Time to Read: 7 minutes
Senate Bill 14 (SB 14) has resurfaced in the Texas Legislature during the ongoing special session as part of a renewed push to overhaul how police personnel records are handled, particularly when it comes to unsubstantiated complaints. Introduced by State Sen. Phil King (R–Weatherford), SB 14 aims to implement a “model policy” statewide, requiring law enforcement agencies to create and maintain confidential “department files” for each peace officer they employ.
Though the concept is not new, some localities already maintain such files under Chapter 143 of the Local Government Code. SB 14 would make this policy mandatory across all police departments in Texas. Governor Greg Abbott (R) placed the proposal on the special session call after the bill failed to pass during the regular legislative session due to a procedural point of order.
What SB 14 Would Do
The crux of SB 14 is the formal creation of a distinct department file, often referred to as a “G-file,” for each licensed peace officer. This file would contain internal documents such as letters, memoranda, attendance records, and allegations of misconduct, even those determined to be unsubstantiated or lacking sufficient evidence.
Crucially, these files would be excluded from the Texas Public Information Act, meaning they are not subject to disclosure upon public request. However, they would be made available to the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) for oversight purposes, to other law enforcement agencies during hiring decisions, and under certain meet-and-confer agreements adopted before September 1, 2025.
In contrast, any substantiated allegations of misconduct would continue to be placed in the officer’s official personnel file, which remains open to public scrutiny under current law.
Supporters argue that the bill merely expands a policy already in place for the Texas Department of Public Safety and in over 70 local jurisdictions. They contend that it promotes fairness for peace officers, who are too often subject to bad-faith or politically motivated accusations. Critics, including Texas Policy Research, however, counter that the bill would erode transparency, create a two-tiered system of public records, and provide a mechanism for self-policing that shields even questionable conduct from public view.
The Debate Inside the Committee Room
The Senate State Affairs Committee heard testimony on SB 14 on Monday, highlighting both the bill’s intent and its political fault lines. Laying out the legislation, State Sen. Angela Paxton (R-McKinney) emphasized the goal of uniformity across agencies, noting that more than 20,000 officers already operate under similar protections. The bill, she said, would extend the same standards to the rest of the state’s law enforcement community.
Representatives of law enforcement associations, including Michael Bullock of the Austin Police Officers’ Association, voiced support. Bullock noted that officers are often judged prematurely in the court of public opinion, even when complaints are later found to be baseless. He argued the bill would help protect officers from reputational harm stemming from unsubstantiated accusations.
However, Bullock also raised concerns specific to Austin, where voters approved a Police Oversight Act in 2023. Under the current language, SB 14 would not override that local policy. He urged lawmakers to amend the bill to ensure that officers in Austin are granted the same confidentiality protections as their counterparts elsewhere.
Not everyone agreed with the bill’s premise. Several witnesses offered pointed criticisms, describing the proposal as an anti-transparency measure with dangerous implications.
Austin resident Lakshmi Fox drew attention to the state’s smaller agencies—many of which employ just a single officer, often an elected constable. She questioned the logic of requiring such officials to maintain confidential files about themselves, calling the result “a problem of self-surveillance.”
Retired federal agent and civil rights attorney CJ Grisham went further, calling SB 14 “one of the most dangerous bills” he had seen. He warned that internal investigations often lack objectivity and that the public deserves access to patterns of alleged misconduct, even if individual complaints are not substantiated by the agencies themselves.
Attorney Robin Foster, representing the Harris County Deputies Organization, offered a nuanced defense. She likened SB 14’s protections to those afforded professionals in other fields and cautioned that the public release of unfounded complaints, especially during legal proceedings, can create unfair bias. Still, even Foster acknowledged the bill’s complexity and the need for careful calibration.
State Sen. Charles Perry (R–Lubbock) offered a cautionary note, acknowledging the need for both transparency and officer protections. “Public trust is the best thing in the world for law enforcement,” he said, emphasizing that transparency is key to maintaining it.
Conservative Concerns About Bureaucratic Overreach
While SB 14 has garnered support from law enforcement groups, it has also prompted sharp critique from limited-government advocates, particularly due to the bill’s structural design. The proposed department files would retain not only confirmed misconduct but also unsubstantiated complaints, and officers would have no formal mechanism to review, contest, or expunge entries. This system invites serious due process concerns, especially when the files are accessible to future employers and licensing authorities but not to the individuals they concern.
From a liberty perspective, the issue is clear: the state would be empowered to collect, store, and share potentially career-altering information about individuals without giving them a chance to defend themselves. In doing so, the bill undermines the presumption of innocence and creates a shadow personnel file immune to both public oversight and judicial scrutiny.
Furthermore, SB 14 gives broad discretion to agency administrators to determine what gets filed, without establishing uniform standards, appeal procedures, or independent review. That opens the door to inconsistent practices and potential abuse, particularly in agencies where internal politics play an outsized role in employment decisions.
Equally concerning is the exemption from public records laws. While proponents argue this ensures fairness for officers, critics say it further removes law enforcement from public accountability. In a state that has historically prided itself on open government, creating a new tier of inaccessible government records, especially in agencies authorized to use force, sets a dangerous precedent.
Political Outlook and the Path Ahead
As of now, SB 14 remains pending in committee, and its path forward is unclear. Although it appears to enjoy backing from leadership, including placement on the governor’s special session call, the bill still faces opposition from transparency advocates, civil rights groups, and those concerned about the unchecked growth of administrative power.
The Senate’s decision to revive SB 14, rather than rework it to include due process protections or oversight mechanisms, suggests a desire for swift passage during the compressed special session timeline, but that urgency may come at the expense of careful policymaking.
If the bill advances to the full Senate floor and passes, attention will shift to the Texas House, where procedural complications derailed the measure earlier this year. Whether that chamber is willing to take it up during the special session remains to be seen, especially given broader tension around public safety, transparency, and local control.
Conclusion: Transparency vs. Protection
At its core, SB 14 presents a fundamental question for Texas lawmakers: Should law enforcement agencies be allowed to shield records of unsubstantiated misconduct allegations, even when those records may follow officers for the rest of their careers?
Proponents say yes, it’s about protecting officers from smear campaigns and ensuring a fair hiring process. Critics warn that it’s a backdoor expansion of state power that sacrifices transparency, accountability, and individual rights.
If passed, SB 14 would create a permanent, confidential file system for peace officers, accessible to the government but hidden from the public. Whether that system promotes justice or undermines it will depend on how much Texans trust their government to police itself.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
