According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 14 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. The analysis assumes that any costs associated with implementing the provisions, such as maintaining a new “department file” for each licensed peace officer and facilitating access for prospective employers or the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, could be absorbed within existing agency resources without the need for additional appropriations.

Similarly, the fiscal note concludes that no significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated. While local law enforcement agencies would have to maintain the required files and respond to authorized requests for information, these tasks are assumed to be manageable within their current operational capacities and budgets.

The fiscal analysis included input from multiple agencies that might be affected, such as the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Public Safety, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. None of these agencies identified costs that would require additional funding, reinforcing the expectation of minimal fiscal impact at both state and local levels.

While SB 14's stated purpose, standardizing and protecting sensitive peace officer records and improving inter-agency information sharing, addresses legitimate hiring integrity concerns, its structure still creates a confidential, permanent record system that contains unsubstantiated or unsustained allegations without giving officers the right to review, contest, or remove such entries.

From a liberty and limited government standpoint, the bill expands government authority to collect and share damaging information while shielding it from public view and judicial oversight. The lack of procedural safeguards risks reputational harm, employment barriers, and the creation of a de facto blacklist across law enforcement agencies. Agencies are given broad discretion over what is included in the file, but there is no parallel mechanism to hold them accountable for accuracy or fairness.

Though the bill aims to increase accountability and hiring transparency between agencies, the result is an opaque bureaucratic process with significant potential for misuse. Without amendments to provide officers with notice, access, and the ability to challenge or correct file contents, and to limit retention of unsubstantiated allegations, the legislation remains incompatible with core principles of due process, open government, and individual rights. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 14.

• Individual Liberty: The bill negatively affects individual liberty by allowing the permanent retention and inter-agency sharing of unsubstantiated or unsustained misconduct allegations about peace officers, without affording those officers a clear right to review, challenge, or expunge the information. This creates the possibility that a person’s career, reputation, and livelihood could be harmed by material that has never been proven or subjected to formal due process. It undermines the presumption of innocence and permits adverse government action without an opportunity for the individual to be heard.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill encourages thorough documentation of an officer’s employment history, including all allegations and internal investigative outcomes, it does not balance that requirement with procedural protections for the officer. True personal responsibility is reciprocal; it requires the employee to be accountable for their conduct and the employer to be accountable for the fairness and accuracy of the recordkeeping process. By excluding any mechanism for an officer to contest file contents, the bill risks transforming accountability into one-sided employer control.
• Free Enterprise: The bill could distort the law enforcement labor market by enabling a form of hidden blacklisting. Officers with disputed or politically motivated entries in their department file may be passed over for jobs, particularly in small or close-knit agencies, regardless of the absence of sustained findings. This diminishes the ability of skilled officers to compete freely for employment based on merit and performance, granting state agencies undue influence over who can continue in the profession.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly address ownership or use of physical or intellectual property. Its impact on this principle is neutral.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope of confidential government recordkeeping by creating a new category of sensitive employment files, accessible to other agencies and TCOLE but shielded from the public under the Public Information Act. It gives wide discretion to agency officials to decide what is included, without standardized criteria or oversight. This enlarges bureaucratic power while reducing transparency, creating an administrative system that can inflict lasting professional harm without checks, balances, or open government safeguards.