Senate debates SB 15 to standardize law‑enforcement personnel files; supporters say it protects officers, critics say it could limit transparency

Senate Bill 15, offered by Senator King, would standardize recordkeeping across law‑enforcement agencies by requiring two files per sworn officer: a public ‘‘personnel file’’ containing substantiated misconduct findings, commendations and periodic evaluations, and a non‑public ‘‘department file’’ holding unsubstantiated complaints, background materials and other internal documents.

Sponsor rationale and debate Senator King argued the change reflects practices already used in many civil‑service cities and is intended to protect officers from public disclosure of unproven allegations. He described the personnel file as containing ‘‘all substantiated misconduct complaints … commendations … and periodic evaluations’’ while other records would be kept in the departmental file and made available in civil discovery or to prosecuting authorities.

Critics and concerns raised Senator Gutierrez and others raised concerns that narrowing open‑records access could delay public awareness of major incidents, pointing to the Uvalde investigation and ongoing litigation where families and media have sought body‑camera footage and other materials. Critics asked whether the bill would block timely public access to investigative materials and whether it could be used to conceal misconduct.

Author’s clarifications and floor amendments Sponsor and supporters said the bill does not affect body‑worn camera statutes, the Sandra Bland Act, or the Michael Morton Act disclosures; a floor amendment clarifying that existing statutes (Sandra Bland, Michael Morton, body‑worn camera law) control specific disclosures was adopted. The sponsor also said meet‑and‑confer agreements under Local Government Code 143 would supersede statutory conflicts where applicable.

Procedural actions and outcome SB 15 passed second‑reading procedural votes (suspension of the regular order 18 ayes, 12 nays) and passed to engrossment on the same tally. Several floor amendments were offered and failed; one sponsor amendment clarifying that Sandra Bland and similar statutes still require disclosure was adopted.

Ending The bill would standardize personnel‑file practices statewide, but the floor debate made clear there is strong disagreement over tradeoffs between individual officer privacy when allegations are unsubstantiated and the public’s interest in transparency for serious incidents. The transcript records further amendment votes and passage to engrossment; final disposition was to hold at engrossment per the excerpted record.