The Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs left Senate Bill 14 pending after a lengthy public hearing in Austin on whether the proposal to create a confidential “department file” for licensed law-enforcement officers would improve personnel recordkeeping or hide misconduct from the public.

Proponents, including law enforcement representatives, said the bill protects officers from the lasting damage of unsubstantiated allegations. Jason Warren, chief deputy with the Walker County Constable’s Office, said the measure “has nothing to do with any type of allegations that were substantiated. This has to do with false or unsubstantiated allegations.”

Opponents said the bill as written would broadly conceal records that communities, victims and local oversight bodies rely on to evaluate police performance. Kathy Mitchell, a witness who cited court precedent, warned that “this bill does not use the term personnel file. It uses the term, departmental file,” and argued that change could expand secrecy beyond the narrow employee‑personnel protections in prior law.

The bill would require agencies to keep a confidential department file that, testimony showed, could include complaints, memoranda and other documents “relating to the license holder.” Witnesses who described experiences seeking records said the change could block access to materials families and researchers have used to understand serious incidents. Mary Elizabeth, a social‑work professional who testified on behalf of Uvalde families, said: “The community needs law enforcement to be accountable and transparent to restore Uvalde’s trust in these officers and agencies.”

Several local oversight advocates said the measure would limit civilian review. Jim Crosby, founder of Nonviolent Austin, said Austin’s Office of Police Oversight and the Community Police Review Commission “would no longer have the information it needs to achieve these goals.” Peter Hunt, describing the volunteer Community Police Review Commission, said the panel’s work would be “effectively dismantled” if access to records is curtailed.

Supporters and union representatives urged protections for officers in smaller agencies and for those subject to unsubstantiated complaints. Robin Foster, an attorney for the Harris County Deputies Organization (Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 39), said SB 14 “creates a mandatory requirement for all agencies to keep a separate personnel file that will be called the department file” and argued that without negotiated protections prosecutors and others could obtain material that should remain confidential in routine personnel matters.

Witnesses described legal and practical tensions between SB 14 and existing discovery and public‑records rules, including the Michael Morton Act and the Sandra Bland Act. Paige Williams, representing the Dallas County criminal district attorney’s office, urged clarifying changes so the bill would not restrict disclosures required by law in criminal prosecutions. Luis Sobron of Texas 2036 recommended inserting the phrase “unless required by law” to avoid unintended negative implications for judicial or statutory access.

Committee members and multiple witnesses explored procedural safeguards already used in some jurisdictions. Testimony described in‑camera judicial review and protective orders used in Harris County and Houston to limit dissemination of non‑relevant information during criminal discovery while preserving access to material that is legally required to be disclosed.

Several witnesses urged narrowing the scope of the confidential file or clarifying exceptions for judges, prosecutors and civilian oversight bodies. Michael Bullock, president of the Austin Police Association, noted that Austin’s local rules had recently changed and said it would be “ironic” if Austin were excluded from the bill’s protections. Lakshmi Fox, citing Texas Commission on Law Enforcement data, warned that many Texas agencies are very small: “1,227 agencies, that's 44.4%, have 5 or fewer officers,” and “542 have only 1 officer,” raising concerns about self‑surveillance in single‑person agencies.

After more than three hours of pro and con testimony from law‑enforcement officials, union representatives, oversight advocates, family members of victims, prosecutors and community organizers, the committee did not take a final vote. The chair concluded the hearing by saying Senate Bill 14 would be left pending.

What happens next is not specified in the hearing record: sponsors and opponents were asked to submit suggested amendments and legal clarifications to the committee staff for further consideration.