Advocates push Houston ordinance to bar routine 'non‑safety' traffic stops; council seeks legal review

Advocates for policing reform asked Houston City Council on Feb. 3 to change how officers use traffic stops, proposing an ordinance to prohibit HPD from initiating stops for secondary, non‑safety violations.

Christopher Barry of the Texas Civil Rights Project, speaking for the RISE Coalition, said the group’s ordinance would “deprioritize non‑safety traffic stops,” freeing officer time for serious crashes and violent crime and reducing racial disparities in stops. He said the coalition’s memo and the ordinance language were handed to councilmembers for review.

Kirsten Budwein, a policy attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, told the council the amendment would define primary safety violations (eight listed offenses tied to crashes) and prohibit HPD from initiating stops for secondary violations while preserving the authority to enforce judicial orders or to act in criminal investigations. “This amendment maintains an officer’s discretion to initiate a stop for any primary violation while prohibiting HPD from initiating stops for secondary violations,” Budwein said.

The presenters cited HPD and Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE) data showing hundreds of thousands of non‑safety stops and low rates of contraband or arrests from those stops. Alfredo Dominguez, a RISE Coalition member, said non‑safety stops accounted for about one‑third of HPD traffic stops and argued that they consume thousands of officer hours annually.

Several councilmembers raised legal concerns. Councilmember Julian Ramirez pointed to the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and asked whether an ordinance could conflict with state law that sets peace officers’ duties. Budwein replied the team’s memo analyzed preemption and relied on home‑rule authority and specific Texas Transportation Code provisions (cited in the memo) that permit municipal traffic regulation while preserving criminal law.

Councilmembers asked for follow‑up about data sources and exceptions. “If we can show it is not in conflict with state law in a clear fashion, that would allow this body to explore this further,” Councilmember Pollard said. Councilmember Kamen asked whether the change would bar alternative enforcement mechanisms such as citations by mail; counsel for the presenters said it would not.

The council did not vote on the proposal Feb. 3. Presenters said they would update their memo with answers to the preemption and discretion questions; several councilmembers urged staff to review the legal analysis and return with guidance before any ordinance is placed on a future agenda.

What happens next: The ordinance proponents expect legal follow‑up and a possible committee review. Council members who asked for more detail said staff and proponent counsel should meet to refine language and clarify how exceptions for warrants, criminal investigations, and judicial orders will be handled.