Relating to the retention and preservation of toxicological evidence of certain intoxication offenses.
Summary
SB 1660 revises Texas law governing the retention and preservation of toxicological evidence in certain intoxication-offense cases. The bill adds a new annual notice requirement for crime laboratories that possess such evidence: each year, the lab must notify the prosecutor’s office in the county where the alleged offense occurred and provide the date the evidence was received. It also clarifies how notice under Article 38.50 may be delivered, including by hand delivery, e-mail, first-class mail, or, where applicable, orally and in writing when a specimen is requested under Transportation Code Section 724.015.
The bill further gives prosecutors more control over destruction of toxicological evidence in cases they prosecuted by indictment, information, or petition. A prosecutor’s office may require written approval before evidence subject to the applicable retention period is destroyed, and if the office does not deny the request within 90 days after a properly delivered request, the evidence may be destroyed once the retention period has expired. The act applies only to evidence whose retention period expires on or after September 1, 2025, and takes effect on that date.
Impact
SB 1660 amends Article 38.50 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, affecting crime laboratories, prosecutors, and custodians of toxicological evidence in intoxication cases. It creates an ongoing notification duty for labs, expands procedural rules for notice, and establishes a prosecutor-review process before destruction of evidence, thereby strengthening recordkeeping and preservation requirements for blood, breath, or other toxicology-related evidence tied to intoxication offenses.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support overall, passing the Senate unanimously and the House by substantial margins, though not without some opposition in the House. The conference committee report also passed both chambers, indicating that the final version resolved differences between the chambers and was acceptable to most legislators. The general tone of the debate, as reflected in the votes, suggests support for preserving evidence and improving communication between laboratories and prosecutors.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been the scope of prosecutor control over destruction of toxicological evidence and the administrative burden placed on crime laboratories and evidence custodians. House votes show a meaningful minority opposed the bill and the conference report, suggesting concerns about added procedural requirements, delays in evidence disposal, or the balance between preservation and administrative efficiency. The conference committee process indicates there were amendments or disagreements between the chambers that required compromise before final passage.