According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 1637 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state budget. The bill exempts peace officers from prosecution for certain aspects of the offense of deadly conduct when they are engaged in the discharge of official duties, specifically removing the presumption of recklessness and inapplicability of certain statutory provisions.

The LBB assumes that this change will not lead to a substantial increase or decrease in state expenditures or revenues. Similarly, the impact on state correctional populations or the demand for correctional resources—such as prison space or supervision—would also be minimal. This implies that the number of prosecutions or incarcerations potentially avoided by exempting peace officers under the amended provisions is likely too small to materially affect state operations or costs.

At the local level, the bill is also expected to have minimal fiscal implications. This includes any potential effects on local law enforcement, prosecution, judicial proceedings, supervision, or detention costs. Since the exemption applies narrowly to peace officers acting in their official capacity and does not mandate new procedures or create new penalties, the practical administrative or enforcement burden on counties and municipalities is anticipated to be negligible.

In summary, SB 1637 is fiscally neutral, posing no significant cost or savings to either state or local governments. Its primary effect is legal and procedural—providing clearer statutory protections for peace officers—rather than financial.

SB 1637 proposes broad legal exemptions for peace officers under the deadly conduct statute. While intended to shield law enforcement officers from what some view as unwarranted prosecutions for actions taken during high-stress or dangerous duties, the bill lacks crucial legal guardrails that would ensure these protections do not come at the expense of individual liberty, private property rights, and accountability. By removing prior language that conditioned officer immunity on reasonable justification and by failing to incorporate key provisions from Penal Code §§ 9.51 and 9.52 (which govern the lawful use of force by law enforcement), the current bill effectively creates blanket immunity for deadly conduct based solely on occupational status.

This unqualified exemption poses risks to Texans, particularly lawful gun owners and property defenders, by eliminating the opportunity for case-by-case judicial evaluation of whether an officer acted lawfully or responsibly. Notably, the bill does not require the officer to have identified themselves as law enforcement, nor to have been engaged in a lawful arrest, search, or prevention of escape. As a result, officers acting in ambiguous or unannounced capacities could be insulated from prosecution even when their actions violate departmental policies or constitutional norms.

The case of Rajan Moonesinghe highlights the dangers of such a framework. Rajan, a business owner and legal gun owner in Austin, was shot by a police officer on his front porch after reporting a possible intruder in his home. The officer did not identify himself and fired before issuing a complete warning. Rajan died from his injuries, and the officer is now facing prosecution under the deadly conduct statute. Under the original version of SB 1637, which included retroactive application, the case could have been summarily dismissed. Although the retroactivity has been removed in the Committee Substitute, the bill still offers expansive immunity that would make accountability in similar future cases extremely difficult.

To restore balance and preserve constitutional rights while recognizing the complexities of police work, the bill should be amended to include the following:

• Explicit reference to Penal Code §§ 9.51 and 9.52, conditioning immunity on lawful use of force standards related to arrest, search, or prevention of escape.
• A requirement that officers clearly identify themselves as law enforcement when feasible, prior to engaging in conduct that could otherwise be considered reckless or dangerous.
• Removal of the exemption for subsection (b)(1) unless the officer can demonstrate that the conduct was immediately necessary and legally justified under existing use-of-force statutes.
• Restoration of the “reasonable belief” standard, tying the exemption to whether the officer had an objectively reasonable and lawful basis for their actions, as originally included in the filed bill.

Absent these amendments, SB 1637 risks undermining core liberty principles by placing law enforcement above accountability under general criminal statutes. While protecting officers from undue legal harassment is a legitimate policy goal, it must not come at the cost of due process, property rights, and the public’s right to defend themselves and seek redress when harmed. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NOP on SB 1637 unless amended as described above to restore legal balance and constitutional safeguards.

• Individual Liberty: The bill threatens individual liberty by removing prosecutorial tools used to hold peace officers accountable for reckless or dangerous actions involving firearms. By exempting officers from key portions of the deadly conduct statute without requiring that their actions be lawful or justified under use-of-force standards, the bill permits the state’s agents to use lethal force with diminished scrutiny. This undermines the right of Texans to be secure in their homes and persons, especially in cases where officers do not identify themselves or engage in legally questionable conduct. The bill's failure to incorporate Penal Code §§ 9.51 and 9.52, which govern lawful police use of force, amplifies the risk that innocent individuals—such as legal gun owners or homeowners—may be harmed without consequence.
• Personal Responsibility: A foundational principle of liberty is that all individuals, including those acting under state authority, are accountable for their actions. The bill compromises this principle by removing the requirement that peace officers act reasonably or lawfully to be exempt from prosecution under the deadly conduct statute. This broad carve-out allows officers to avoid responsibility even in situations involving poor judgment, misidentification, or failure to follow basic protocols like identifying themselves. Rather than reinforcing a culture of professional responsibility, the bill risks incentivizing recklessness by removing meaningful legal consequences.
• Free Enterprise: The bill does not impact free enterprise directly. It creates no new regulations, restrictions, or obligations for businesses or economic actors.
• Private Property Rights: Though the bill does not directly alter property law, it impacts property rights by diminishing legal protections for individuals defending their homes. In Texas, homeowners have the right to defend themselves and their property against intruders or perceived threats. However, under SB 1637, an officer who enters a property unannounced and uses deadly force may be automatically exempt from prosecution, even if the property owner had no way to know they were dealing with law enforcement. This creates a dangerous imbalance: civilians are held to strict standards under self-defense laws, while the state’s agents are given a blanket exemption from similar scrutiny.
• Limited Government: The bill clearly conflicts with the principle of limited government by reducing oversight and eliminating legal checks on government power—specifically, the use of force by state actors. Limited government requires that state authority be exercised within well-defined and enforceable legal boundaries. The bill weakens those boundaries by creating an overly broad immunity for officers engaged in undefined “official duties,” with no requirement for necessity, reasonableness, or legal justification. This shifts the balance of power further toward the state and away from the individual, diminishing the role of courts and juries in evaluating government conduct.

• HB 2436 (Same As)