According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 15 is not expected to result in any significant fiscal implications for the State of Texas. The legislation’s requirements for law enforcement agencies to maintain and provide access to a newly defined “department file” for each licensed peace officer are assumed to be implementable within the agencies’ existing operational and budgetary capacities.

The bill imposes minimal new administrative duties, primarily concerning recordkeeping, internal documentation review, and controlled sharing of records with other law enforcement agencies or the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE). State agencies such as the Department of Public Safety, the Attorney General’s Office, and TCOLE are not projected to incur notable new costs, and any additional workload is expected to be absorbed using existing staff and resources.

Similarly, the bill is not anticipated to have a significant fiscal impact on local governments. Local law enforcement agencies may need to adopt or adjust internal policies to create and maintain the required department files, but the costs of doing so are not considered substantial or outside typical administrative scope.

In summary, SB 15 is designed to improve inter-agency personnel record transparency without necessitating new funding, staffing, or infrastructure. As such, the bill is considered fiscally neutral at both the state and local levels.

SB 15 replicates the core structure and intent of SB 14 from the previous special session, requiring Texas law enforcement agencies to maintain a separate, confidential “department file” for each licensed peace officer. This file must include documentation of allegations, even if deemed unsubstantiated, and be accessible to hiring agencies and the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE), while being exempt from public disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act.

While the bill seeks to improve hiring integrity and professional accountability across agencies, it does so in a manner that undermines foundational due process rights and expands bureaucratic power without sufficient transparency or recourse for affected individuals. Officers have no guaranteed right to review, challenge, or remove entries in their department file, including those based on unfounded or politically motivated complaints. This creates a system ripe for reputational harm, unjust employment consequences, and the risk of informal blacklisting without any formal adjudication or opportunity for defense.

From a liberty perspective, SB 15 raises serious concerns by granting law enforcement agencies broad discretion to retain and share potentially damaging records in secret, without oversight or procedural safeguards. It undermines personal liberty, fair employment opportunity, and the principle of limited government, substituting inter-agency visibility for public accountability. While the bill does not impose a fiscal burden, its structural flaws are legal and ethical in nature, not financial.

For these reasons, substantially unchanged from the prior bill, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 15.

• Individual Liberty: The bill allows law enforcement agencies to retain and share records of alleged misconduct, even when those allegations are determined to be unsupported by evidence, without giving the peace officer any formal opportunity to review, challenge, or correct the record. This infringes on the principle of due process, a foundational component of individual liberty. Officers may face employment barriers or reputational damage from materials that have never been formally adjudicated. The bill effectively places public employees under a regime where adverse information can be quietly accumulated and shared with other agencies without oversight or redress, thereby compromising constitutional protections like the presumption of innocence and the right to be heard.
• Personal Responsibility: While the bill encourages accountability by ensuring that records of misconduct (substantiated or not) follow an officer between employers, it fails to ensure that agencies are themselves held accountable for the fairness and accuracy of what they record. True personal responsibility must be reciprocal: it requires individuals to own their behavior, but also requires institutions to act fairly and transparently. The bill codifies the former but neglects the latter, creating an imbalance in the employer-employee relationship that favors institutional control without procedural fairness.
• Free Enterprise: In a functioning labor market, especially one involving state-licensed professionals, employment decisions should be based on merit, performance, and verified conduct. By allowing law enforcement agencies to share internal and potentially speculative information across jurisdictions, the bill introduces a hidden and unchallengeable factor into hiring decisions. This can distort the employment landscape and contribute to de facto blacklisting, particularly for officers who leave agencies under contentious or politically charged circumstances. The bill grants government employers an undue advantage over the labor mobility of peace officers, contrary to the principles of fair competition and equal opportunity in the marketplace.
• Private Property Rights: The bill does not directly implicate private property rights, as it concerns public employment records and internal agency procedures. Therefore, this principle is not significantly affected by the legislation.
• Limited Government: The bill expands the scope of confidential government recordkeeping by creating a new category of internal files that are exempt from public disclosure and not subject to standard due process protections. This represents an increase in bureaucratic authority and opacity without corresponding oversight. The concentration of discretionary power in the hands of agency heads, who can decide what goes into a department file without review or accountability, runs counter to the principle that government power should be restrained, transparent, and subject to checks and balances. The bill thus shifts power toward administrative convenience at the expense of individual rights.

• HB 15 (Similar To)