The Texas House floor considered Senate Bill 15, a measure to codify a model policy distinguishing officers' personnel files from department files and to restrict public disclosure of certain records held in the latter. Sponsors and opponents traded arguments about accountability, transparency, and the risk that confidential department files could be used to defame officers or to hide misconduct.

Representative Heffner, who laid out the bill, said the measure would standardize practices and keep unsubstantiated complaints out of publicly disclosed personnel files. “Unsubstantiated complaints of peace officer misconduct in particular should not be released to the public,” Heffner said, describing concerns that background or family information has been made public in some cases. Supporters argued the bill strikes a balance so coaching and background material that do not rise to discipline are not weaponized against officers.

Opponents and several amendment sponsors pressed for narrower language to ensure that commonly public records — such as body- and dash-camera footage, use-of-force reports, and records tied to serious incidents — remain accessible. Representative Collier offered an amendment clarifying that the bill should not alter existing disclosure under the Michael Morton Act and related provisions; Representative Moody raised a focused objection tied to what advocates called the “dead suspect's loophole,” warning that the bill could again allow departments to shield records about in-custody deaths that the public and families need to review. "When we change the access to records under the dead suspects loophole, we changed section 5 52," Moody said on the floor.

Many amendments were offered; several were the subject of recorded votes that resulted in motions to table prevailing. The transcript shows a string of contested amendments, votes to table, and procedural motions. Late in debate Representative Moody raised a constitutional point of order under Article 3, Section 40 arguing the subject was not within the governor's call for the special session. The chair reviewed the bill text against the governor's proclamation and sustained the point of order, finding the bill's coverage of background and hiring information went beyond the call's language about protecting officers from disclosure of unsubstantiated complaints. The chair sustained the point of order, effectively stopping further consideration on the House floor during the special session.

Discussion vs. formal action: the floor record shows extended debate and numerous amendment motions (most tabled); the decisive formal action recorded was the point of order that the bill's subject falls outside the governor's special-session call. The point of order was sustained and the clerk read formal messages excusing members and recording that further consideration would not proceed under the call.

The debate reflected competing priorities: proponents emphasized protection for officers from malicious, unsubstantiated disclosures and uniform statewide administration; opponents emphasized transparency and public access to records, particularly in cases involving serious injury or death in custody. The chair's ruling to sustain the point of order ended House floor consideration of SB 15 during the special session.