Texas Senate Bill SB 739

Texas 2025 - 89th Regular

• Filed: 1/8/25
• Out of Senate Committee: 4/23/25
• Voted on by Senate: 5/1/25
• Out of House Committee: 5/15/25
• Voted on by House: 5/21/25
• Governor Action: 6/20/25

Caption

Relating to the definition of authorized peace officer for purposes of certain laws governing the installation and use of tracking equipment and access to certain communications.

Summary

SB 739 revises the statutory definition of “authorized peace officer” in Article 18B.001 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. That definition is used for laws governing the installation and use of tracking equipment and access to certain communications, so the bill determines which law enforcement officials may lawfully seek or carry out those investigative actions. The bill updates the list of eligible officers and investigators to include several specialized enforcement roles. Specifically, the bill reenacts and amends the definition to expressly include sheriffs and deputies, constables and deputies, municipal police and marshals, Texas Rangers and other DPS-commissioned officers, prosecutors’ investigators, TABC agents, Parks and Wildlife officers, certain inspector general enforcement officers, attorney general investigators, arson investigators, school peace officers commissioned under the Education Code, and insurance commissioner investigators. The measure takes effect September 1, 2025, and is intended to control over any conflicting nonsubstantive code corrections enacted in 2025.

Impact

The bill changes criminal procedure law by expanding and clarifying who qualifies as an “authorized peace officer” for purposes of obtaining or using tracking equipment and accessing certain communications. This affects the scope of authority for multiple state and local law enforcement entities, as well as specialized investigators tied to agencies such as TABC, Parks and Wildlife, TDCJ, TJJD, the Attorney General, the Department of Insurance, and school district peace officer programs. It does not create a new investigative power, but it clarifies which officers may use existing powers under the relevant surveillance and communications statutes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad legislative support overall, passing the Senate 30-1 and the House 96-50, with two members present not voting. The vote totals suggest the measure was generally viewed as a technical or clarifying law-enforcement bill rather than a major policy shift. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the final passage indicates substantial bipartisan acceptance despite some opposition in the House.

Contention

The main point of contention likely concerned the breadth of the expanded definition of authorized peace officer and the implications for surveillance-related authorities, since the bill affects access to tracking equipment and certain communications. Opposition may have centered on privacy, oversight, or whether additional specialized officers should have the same authority as traditional police agencies. The House vote, which was more divided than the Senate vote, suggests that some members were concerned about the scope of law-enforcement powers even though the measure ultimately passed.