According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of HB 3602 are minimal for both state and local governments. The bill does not impose any significant costs on the state. It expands the geographic scope within which peace officers may execute blood draw warrants in intoxication-related offenses by allowing execution in adjacent counties. However, this change does not create substantial new obligations that would necessitate additional state funding or resources.

The assumption by the LBB is that the Department of Public Safety (DPS) and other relevant state agencies will be able to manage any administrative or procedural adjustments required by the bill within their current budget allocations. This includes training, procedural updates, or minor logistical adjustments necessary to comply with the new law.

Similarly, local governments are not expected to incur notable costs as a result of this legislation. Because it does not mandate additional equipment, personnel, or processes beyond what is already in use, counties and municipalities should be able to accommodate the changes using existing law enforcement resources. Thus, the overall fiscal impact of HB 3602 is considered negligible.

HB 3602 proposes to amend Article 18.067 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to allow any peace officer to execute a search warrant for a blood specimen in counties adjacent to where the warrant was issued. The stated intent of the bill is to streamline law enforcement operations, particularly in situations where cities contract with jails in neighboring counties and must handle suspects who refuse voluntary blood draws. While the logistical concerns raised are understandable, the bill’s approach introduces constitutional and procedural risks that outweigh its potential benefits.

At the core of the objection is the erosion of local jurisdictional oversight. Current law requires warrants to be executed either within the county of issuance or by an officer authorized to act in the execution county. This structure ensures that warrants—especially those involving intrusive bodily searches—are handled by officers subject to the laws, protocols, and accountability systems of the area in which the act is taking place. By removing these jurisdictional boundaries, HB 3602 allows law enforcement officers to conduct invasive searches without being subject to the local authorities that normally provide a check on their actions. This creates legal gray areas in terms of oversight, discipline, and public recourse.

Second, the bill implicates significant Fourth Amendment and Texas Constitution privacy interests. Blood draws are physically invasive and legally sensitive actions that demand the highest level of procedural rigor. Expanding the class of officers who can conduct or facilitate these searches across county lines, without a corresponding increase in procedural safeguards or civil rights protections, increases the risk of abuse or unlawful enforcement. The bill also lacks provisions requiring inter-county coordination, mandatory reporting, or training standards to ensure consistency and accountability in execution.

Third, while proponents argue that HB 3602 reduces time and resource burdens on officers, these concerns do not justify weakening constitutional protections. Law enforcement efficiency should not come at the cost of individual rights. The current legal framework already allows execution of these warrants in adjacent counties by officers with proper authority. That process may be inconvenient in some cases, but it preserves a necessary layer of procedural integrity and legal clarity. Eliminating these guardrails without addressing their function introduces the potential for unintended consequences, including litigation and suppression of evidence.

Additionally, the bill may set an unwelcome precedent for the gradual erosion of county-based jurisdiction and public accountability. Expanding cross-jurisdictional authority in the name of efficiency could open the door to further centralization of police powers, a concern for anyone committed to the principle of limited government.

In summary, HB 3602 prioritizes procedural convenience over constitutional fidelity. It broadens government authority in a domain that demands heightened restraint and fails to incorporate any measures that would balance its expanded powers with transparency or accountability. For these reasons, the bill does not adequately safeguard individual liberty, due process, or local control. As such, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 3602.

• Individual Liberty: The bill negatively impacts individual liberty by lowering the procedural barriers for executing invasive bodily searches—specifically, blood draws in intoxication-related offenses. By allowing any peace officer, regardless of jurisdictional arrest authority, to execute such warrants in adjacent counties, the bill erodes safeguards that help protect individuals from unchecked state intrusion. The involuntary collection of bodily fluids implicates strong privacy and bodily autonomy interests, and expanding the range of officers permitted to carry out these acts increases the potential for civil liberties violations.
• Personal Responsibility: This principle is only marginally implicated by the bill. While the law targets individuals suspected of intoxication offenses—behaviors that do infringe on public safety and personal responsibility—it does not directly incentivize or reinforce responsible behavior. Instead, it focuses on the mechanics of law enforcement action after a suspected offense has occurred. Thus, the bill has a neutral impact on this principle.
• Free Enterprise: There is no evident effect on the free enterprise system. The bill pertains solely to criminal procedure and law enforcement authority, without introducing new regulatory burdens, costs, or constraints on businesses or economic activity.
• Private Property Rights: Although the bill does not address traditional forms of property, it implicates bodily autonomy—often considered a fundamental personal property right in legal and philosophical frameworks. The facilitation of non-consensual blood draws by a broader set of law enforcement personnel could be viewed as a diminishment of this core right. Thus, while the impact is indirect, the bill can be said to negatively affect the principle by easing restrictions on state seizure of biological evidence.
• Limited Government: The bill undermines limited government by expanding state enforcement powers beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries. By enabling peace officers from outside a county to act within it without the usual arrest authority or oversight from that locality, the legislation weakens local control and accountability. This creates a slippery slope for further erosion of localized governance and judicial oversight, which are essential to maintaining a restrained and balanced government. In sum, HB 3602 raises substantial concerns related to individual liberty, private property rights (as bodily integrity), and limited government, while having a neutral impact on personal responsibility and free enterprise.

• SB 1886 (Same As)