Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court approves renewals and MOUs for law‑enforcement partnerships, including U.S. Marshals and 1033 program
Summary
The Commissioners Court approved renewal of the U.S. Marshals MOU and an addendum for body‑worn‑camera sharing, renewed the Department of Defense LISO (1033) application for DoD excess property, and authorized eBond contract signing pending technical readiness.
The Midland County Commissioners Court on Tuesday approved several law‑enforcement agreements, authorizing annual renewals and execution by the county judge and sheriff.
Sheriff (speaker 7) briefed the court on the annual memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force and said wording had been refined and county counsel had approved it. "Being on their task force allows us to enter buildings or residences, at a different angle," the sheriff said, explaining operational advantages the MOU provides. The court moved to allow the sheriff to sign the MOU and the motion passed.
The court also approved an addendum with the U.S. Marshals addressing procedures for sharing body‑worn‑camera footage when both agencies are present on warrants. The sheriff said the addendum clarifies how involved agencies will share that information.
On a separate item, Lieutenant Fuentes (speaker 4) described the Department of Defense Law Enforcement Support Office (LISO, often called the 1033 program) as a renewal application that allows transfer of excess DoD property to civilian agencies. He noted the sheriff's office is the county participant and confirmed the county signs the annual application; the court authorized the judge and sheriff to sign the renewal.
Court staff also discussed an eBond electronic bail agreement. County staff and the sheriff's office agreed the contract could be approved by the court but that signatures should be withheld until the Sheriff's Office confirms the technical integration and the county has audited the final setup. The court voted to approve the contract with that contingency.
All motions for these items passed with the customary recorded "aye" votes and no recorded dissents.
