Overall Vote Recommendation

Yes

Principle Criteria

Free Enterprise

Property Rights

Personal Responsibility

Limited Government

Individual Liberty

Digest

SB 2570, as substituted by the committee, proposes to amend the Texas Penal Code by adding Section 9.55 under Subchapter E, Chapter 9. This new section establishes a legal justification for the use of less-lethal force weapons by correctional facility guards and peace officers while performing their official duties. The bill aims to codify the conditions under which these public safety officials may use such weapons, which are intended to subdue individuals without causing serious bodily injury or death.

The definition of "less-lethal force weapon" in the bill includes any weapon designed to expel projectiles to temporarily incapacitate a person, chemical dispensing devices (like pepper spray), strike tools (like batons), and stun guns as defined by existing law (Section 38.14 of the Penal Code). Importantly, the use of such force is only justified when it is reasonably necessary to perform official duties and when the use is in substantial compliance with the officer’s or guard's training.

The bill also includes a transition provision stating that the new law only applies to offenses committed on or after its effective date.

In essence, SB 2570 provides legal clarity and procedural guardrails for less-lethal force, promoting safer law enforcement while reinforcing standards for responsible and trained use of physical force in Texas correctional and policing settings.

The Committee Substitute for SB 2570 significantly revises the original bill by changing both its legal framework and practical scope. Initially, the bill proposed a new section in Chapter 8 of the Texas Penal Code that would create a defense to prosecution for peace officers who caused injury or death through the use of a less-lethal projectile. Under this version, officers could claim a defense if they acted reasonably, did not intend harm, and used the weapon in accordance with training, departmental policies, and manufacturer guidelines. This defense was reactive, offering legal protection only once criminal charges had been initiated.

In contrast, the Committee Substitute reframes the bill as a new justification under Chapter 9 of the Penal Code—a proactive legal standard that affirms an officer’s or guard’s conduct is lawful under specific circumstances. This shift from a “defense” to a “justification” strengthens legal protections for officers and correctional facility guards by asserting that the use of force is legitimate from the outset, provided it is used in substantial compliance with their training and is reasonably necessary to fulfill official duties. Notably, this change reflects a move from a post-incident legal defense to an upfront recognition of lawful behavior.

The substitute also broadens the applicability of the bill. While the original version applied only to peace officers and only addressed projectile weapons, the revised bill expands coverage to include correctional facility guards and a wider range of less-lethal force weapons, including chemical agents, strike tools (like batons), and stun guns. This expansion accommodates a broader array of operational tools commonly used in both law enforcement and corrections.

Finally, the substitute streamlines compliance requirements. The original bill required conformity not only with training but also with agency policies and manufacturer instructions. The substitute simplifies this by focusing solely on substantial compliance with training, reducing complexity but also removing some oversight safeguards. In total, the substitute version represents a more assertive and expansive approach to shielding officers and guards from liability when using non-lethal force tools during the performance of their duties.

Author

Peter Flores

Co-Author

Adam Hinojosa

Sponsor

Ryan Guillen

Contact the Author

Sen. Peter Flores

Capitol Phone:

(512) 463-0124

Capitol Office:

EXT E1.808

E-Mail:

[email protected]

Visit Official Website

Fiscal Notes

According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2570 is expected to have no significant fiscal implications for the state. The analysis indicates that any potential costs associated with implementing the bill, such as updating law enforcement training protocols or legal guidelines, can likely be absorbed within existing agency budgets and operational structures.

The bill primarily serves to clarify the legal justification for the use of less-lethal force weapons by peace officers and correctional facility guards, rather than creating any new operational mandates, equipment requirements, or enforcement mechanisms. As such, it does not require substantial investment in new infrastructure, equipment acquisition, or personnel expansion.

At the local level, the fiscal note similarly projects no significant financial impact to local government entities. This suggests that counties, cities, and law enforcement agencies will not need to allocate additional funds for compliance. Many agencies already use less-lethal force weapons and maintain corresponding training programs, so this legislation may simply align existing practices with clearer legal protections without imposing new burdens.

In sum, SB 2570 is considered a low-cost, clarifying measure with negligible budgetary effects for both state and local governments, making it fiscally neutral while still advancing legal and procedural clarity for public safety personnel.

Vote Recommendation Notes

SB 2570 provides a clear statutory justification for the use of less-lethal force weapons by peace officers and correctional facility guards, conditioning that justification on the officer’s or guard’s substantial compliance with training. This measure is carefully crafted to protect both public safety officials and the public by establishing a lawful framework for the use of tools intended to de-escalate conflict without resorting to deadly force.

The bill analysis reinforces the legislation's core intent: to encourage law enforcement and correctional personnel to utilize less-lethal tools like tasers, chemical sprays, and batons in situations that might otherwise escalate to deadly force. The use of these tools, when used responsibly, can significantly reduce injury to officers, suspects, and bystanders alike. By codifying justification in the Penal Code, SB 2570 promotes responsible behavior through adherence to training while also protecting officers from unwarranted legal exposure when acting in good faith within the scope of their duties.

From a fiscal standpoint, the Legislative Budget Board determined that SB 2570 would have no significant fiscal impact on the state or local governments. Implementation costs are expected to be minimal and absorbable within current budgets. This ensures the bill’s policy objectives are met without imposing new financial burdens on public entities.

In sum, the Committee Substitute for SB 2570 responsibly balances officer protection with accountability, encourages safer conflict resolution practices, and imposes no significant cost burden. It upholds liberty principles by setting clear limits on government use of force while promoting professional standards and public safety. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2570.

Individual Liberty: The bill helps protect individual liberty by setting clear limits on when government agents (officers and guards) can use physical force. By requiring that less-lethal weapons be used only when necessary and in line with training, it helps prevent arbitrary or excessive force against individuals. It also promotes safer, more restrained encounters between the public and law enforcement, which supports the principle that people should be free from unnecessary government intrusion or harm.
Personal Responsibility: The bill encourages personal responsibility by holding officers accountable to their training. The bill doesn’t give a blanket excuse—it only protects officers when they’ve followed proper procedures. This reinforces the idea that individuals, including public servants, must be responsible for their actions.
Free Enterprise: The bill doesn’t directly affect businesses or economic freedom. However, by providing clearer legal standards for officers and limiting potential lawsuits against government agencies, it may reduce legal and insurance costs associated with claims of excessive force, which could have minor indirect fiscal benefits.
Private Property Rights: While the bill doesn’t specifically deal with property, the protections it puts in place for how force can be used may reduce the risk of wrongful physical intrusion into a person’s space or body. In that sense, it indirectly supports the principle of bodily autonomy and personal security, which are core to property rights.
Limited Government: This bill actually helps rein in government power by putting legal sideboards around how and when force can be used. It doesn’t give officers new powers—it defines and limits their use of existing ones. By requiring substantial compliance with training, it ensures that force isn’t used recklessly or without accountability.

Related Legislation

HB 5139 (Similar To)

View Bill Text and Status