Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rule Change Fingerprinting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission posts proposed amendment to Rule 217.7 requiring fingerprint checks for appointments
Summary
The commission voted unanimously to post a proposed amendment to TECO Rule 217.7 that would require fingerprint-based criminal history checks before a person is appointed by a law enforcement agency, effectively reducing reliance on name-based checks.
Get email alerts on the Rule Change Fingerprinting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement voted unanimously Thursday to post a proposed amendment to TECO Rule 217.7 requiring fingerprint-based criminal history checks before a law enforcement agency appoints a person to a peace officer license.
General Counsel John Hietrich presented the proposed amendment at the Dec. 5 meeting. He said the change would move the rule language requiring proof of fingerprinting and a criminal history check to apply before appointment rather than allowing a 180-day window after appointment. “Functionally, what it does is before a law enforcement agency can appoint that person…that fingerprint and criminal history must be done,” Hietrich said.
Hietrich and other staff described the amendment as intended to reduce reliance on name-based criminal-history checks, which can fail to return records, and to ensure agencies receive a fingerprint-based history when an officer transfers between agencies. Hietrich told commissioners the change would allow agencies and Commission staff to “subscribe” to a person’s fingerprint history so that new arrest information is more likely to be captured.
Commissioner Patricia Burrows moved to post the proposed amendment to the Texas Register and Commissioner Justin Barry seconded. The commission conducted a roll-call vote and the motion passed unanimously.
The amendment was presented as a first reading; Hietrich said it will be posted for public comment and returned for a final vote at the commission’s regular meeting in March. No specific statutory citation was added in the presentation; staff indicated the item will be subject to the public-comment process required for rulemaking.

