Relating to a legal justification for the use of force with a less-lethal force weapon by a correctional facility guard or a peace officer.
Summary
HB 5139 creates a new justification in the Texas Penal Code for the use of force with a “less-lethal force weapon” by certain public safety personnel. The bill applies only to guards employed by correctional facilities and peace officers, and it defines less-lethal force weapons broadly to include projectile devices intended to temporarily incapacitate, chemical dispensing devices, striking devices, and stun guns.
Under the bill, these individuals are justified in using force with a less-lethal weapon to the degree reasonably necessary to carry out their official duties, so long as the use of the weapon was in substantial compliance with their training. The measure is framed as a criminal-law defense/justification provision rather than a new offense, and it applies only to conduct occurring on or after the effective date.
Impact
The bill amends Subchapter E, Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code by adding Section 9.55, which would provide a statutory justification for certain uses of less-lethal force by correctional facility guards and peace officers. This could affect criminal liability and defenses in cases involving tasers, chemical spray, impact devices, or similar tools used in the line of duty, particularly where the officer or guard followed training and acted within the scope of official responsibilities. The bill includes a standard prospective application clause, preserving prior law for offenses committed before the effective date.
Sentiment
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill, as reflected by its advancement out of committee and report to Calendars. No vote tally or committee transcript is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or detailed debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s framing as a public-safety and training-based justification measure indicates it was likely viewed as a clarification or protection for officers and correctional staff rather than a major policy shift.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the scope of the justification: the bill authorizes force with a broad category of less-lethal weapons, which could raise concerns about when such force is considered “reasonably necessary” and whether the substantial-compliance-with-training standard is sufficiently protective against misuse. Any debate would likely center on balancing officer and correctional-facility safety against civil liberties, excessive-force concerns, and accountability for injuries caused by less-lethal weapons. Because no transcript is provided, specific objections or supporters are not identified in the record here.
Relating to less-lethal force weapons, including a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving the use of a less lethal force weapon by a peace officer, and policies for law enforcement agencies concerning use of less-lethal force weapons.