Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

SB 1660 amends Article 38.50 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to strengthen procedures for the retention and destruction of toxicological evidence in cases involving certain intoxication-related offenses, such as driving while intoxicated (DWI), intoxication assault, and intoxication manslaughter. The bill introduces a new requirement that crime laboratories in possession of such evidence must annually notify the prosecutor’s office in the county where the alleged offense occurred. This notice must include the date the laboratory received the evidence, providing greater transparency and coordination between laboratories and prosecutors.

In addition to enhancing communication protocols, SB 1660 amends the process by which toxicological evidence may be destroyed after the applicable statutory retention period has expired. Prosecutor’s offices are authorized to require entities storing toxicological evidence to seek written approval prior to its destruction in cases the prosecutor’s office handled. If the prosecutor does not respond to the destruction request within 90 days, the entity storing the evidence may proceed with destruction, provided the retention period has lapsed. This provision is designed to prevent indefinite storage of evidence while ensuring prosecutors retain control over key material in active or appealable cases.

The legislation includes a transitional clause clarifying that these changes apply only to evidence whose retention period expires on or after the bill’s effective date, which is set for September 1, 2025. Evidence whose retention period expired before that date remains governed by prior law. Overall, the bill aims to improve evidence management practices, preserve essential forensic materials for criminal justice proceedings, and reduce ambiguity in the destruction process through structured timelines and communication.

The originally filed version of SB 1660 and the Committee Substitute share the same overarching goal—regulating the retention and destruction of toxicological evidence in intoxication-related cases. However, there are key differences in detail, particularly concerning the administrative roles of crime laboratories and prosecutor offices and the timelines associated with evidence destruction.

In the original bill, the crime laboratory is required to annually notify the prosecutor’s office of the retention period's expiration date for toxicological evidence it holds. This approach focuses on giving prosecutors foresight into when evidence will become eligible for destruction under the retention rules. In contrast, the Committee Substitute modifies this requirement: laboratories are still required to notify prosecutors annually, but instead of emphasizing the expiration of the retention period, the substitute version requires labs to notify the prosecutor that they are in possession of evidence and to provide the date they received it, not when the retention period ends. This shifts the burden of tracking expiration to the prosecutor’s office.

Another major difference lies in Section (h), which governs how toxicological evidence may be destroyed. In the original bill, the prosecutor’s office has 60 days to deny a request for destruction before the evidence can be discarded. The Committee Substitute extends this timeline to 90 days, giving prosecutors more time to review destruction requests. This change increases prosecutorial discretion and adds an administrative safeguard to prevent premature disposal.

The original bill also included a separate new subsection (i), which prohibited prosecutors from requiring written approval for destruction of evidence in misdemeanor cases once the retention period has expired. This distinction between felony and misdemeanor evidence handling is absent in the Committee Substitute, suggesting that the substitute version consolidates procedures regardless of offense classification, likely for administrative consistency.

In summary, the Committee Substitute for SB 1660 streamlines and consolidates evidence management protocols by removing the offense-level distinction, extending the prosecutor response window, and adjusting the lab’s notification requirement to focus on the evidence receipt date rather than expiration. These changes aim to strengthen due process and interagency coordination while simplifying the compliance process.

Author (1)

Joan Huffman

Sponsor (1)

David Cook

Contact the Author

Sen. Joan Huffman

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0117

Capitol Office:

EXT E.14

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 1660 are expected to be minimal. According to the LBB fiscal note, there is no significant fiscal impact anticipated for the State of Texas as a result of implementing the provisions of this bill.

The bill requires crime laboratories to annually notify county prosecutors that they possess toxicological evidence related to certain intoxication offenses and to provide the date the evidence was received. Although the Department of Public Safety noted that some cost would be associated with compiling and managing these reports, it is assumed that these costs can be absorbed using existing resources. This suggests that the bill does not mandate additional appropriations or new funding mechanisms to support compliance.

Similarly, the Office of Court Administration found no notable fiscal effect on the state’s court system, indicating that the bill’s procedural updates regarding evidence destruction will not burden court operations. For local governments, including prosecutors' offices and law enforcement entities that manage or rely on toxicological evidence, the fiscal note also reports no significant financial impact. Thus, while the bill imposes additional reporting and communication requirements, these duties are not expected to materially strain state or local budgets.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SB 1660 represents a thoughtful and balanced update to existing procedures surrounding the retention and destruction of toxicological evidence in cases involving intoxication-related offenses. The bill addresses current ambiguities in law that have led to inconsistent practices across jurisdictions, particularly regarding when and how evidence may be destroyed once statutory retention periods expire. It promotes better coordination between crime laboratories and prosecutors while maintaining strong procedural safeguards to ensure that evidence is preserved when needed for justice.

Importantly, the bill does not grow the size or scope of government. It works entirely within the structure of existing state and local entities, merely adjusting how communication and approval processes are managed. It imposes no new mandates that expand government authority or jurisdiction. The bill also avoids creating any new regulatory burdens on individuals or private businesses, as it exclusively applies to public entities—namely, crime laboratories and prosecutor offices. Furthermore, it introduces no new taxes or fees, and the LBB has determined that any administrative costs can be absorbed using existing resources, with no significant fiscal impact expected at either the state or local level.

The Committee Substitute enhances the bill's strength by extending the response time for prosecutors from 60 to 90 days and removing limitations that previously applied only to felony cases, promoting a more uniform and flexible process. By requiring destruction requests to be submitted via traceable means (hand delivery, certified mail, or designated email), it also ensures clear documentation and accountability without expanding bureaucratic power.

In summary, SB 1660 improves procedural clarity and accountability without expanding government, burdening taxpayers, or introducing new regulations. It supports due process, responsible governance, and administrative efficiency—all consistent with the core principles of limited government and justice system integrity. Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 1660.

Individual Liberty: By ensuring toxicological evidence is preserved until it’s no longer needed — and that prosecutors are notified before it’s destroyed — the bill protects the rights of both defendants and victims. This is especially important in appeals, wrongful conviction claims, or delayed prosecutions, where access to accurate evidence is critical for justice.
Personal Responsibility: The bill reinforces accountability among government actors, particularly prosecutors and crime labs. Prosecutors are given a clear role in deciding whether to preserve or allow destruction of evidence, while labs must document and communicate what they hold. This fosters more careful stewardship of sensitive materials.
Free Enterprise: The bill does not regulate or affect private businesses or the broader economic market. It pertains solely to public crime labs and prosecutors handling criminal evidence.
Private Property Rights: Although the bill addresses government-held evidence, it does not impact individual or commercial property rights.
Limited Government: Rather than expand the reach or size of government, SB 1660 improves how existing entities operate. It sets firm deadlines (a 90-day response period) and standardizes procedures, reducing ambiguity without increasing enforcement powers or regulatory scope.

View Bill Text and Status