Monitoring the Session

SB 2570

bill adding a defense for officers using less-lethal projectiles

Became law

Verdict: No flags

No flagsInitial review
Sen. Pete FloresRSenate 24

Initial review · graded Oct 20, 2026 · Headline, summary and grade are analysis of the bill text, not a finding about any person · How we grade

Caption

relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving the use of a less-lethal projectile by a peace officer.

Caption from analyzed text · version I.

Summary

A new Penal Code defense when a less-lethal round causes injury or death.

The bill adds a new defense to the Penal Code for peace officers charged with an offense that caused injury or death through a less-lethal projectile, such as a round designed to stun rather than kill. The defense applies only if the officer reasonably believed using it was objectively reasonable for official duties, did not cause the harm intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and followed training, agency policy and the manufacturer's instructions. In practice, it shields officers from prosecution for careless-level harm with these weapons when they followed the rules, starting with conduct on or after September 1, 2025.

Labels

Labels: INSTANT LAW. Took effect immediately, on Jun 20, 2025. 833 of the 1,185 graded 89R laws took effect Sep 1, 2025 (derived from the bill histories, snapshot Oct 19, 2026).

Receipt

The receipt

89R-SB2570 · 2025-03-13

SOLD BY

+ 1 coauthor

ITEM

relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving the use of a less-lethal projectile by a peace officer.

WHAT IT DOES

A new Penal Code defense when a less-lethal round causes injury or death.

The bill adds a new defense to the Penal Code for peace officers charged with an offense that caused injury or death through a less-lethal projectile, such as a round designed to stun rather than kill. The defense applies only if the officer reasonably believed using it was objectively reasonable for official duties, did not cause the harm intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, and followed training, agency policy and the manufacturer's instructions. In practice, it shields officers from prosecution for careless-level harm with these weapons when they followed the rules, starting with conduct on or after September 1, 2025.

CHARGES

[ ] NONE FOUND

TOTAL

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.

LBB estimate · fiscal note version F · source

Sources

Fiscal note · version F · May 22, 2025

No first-year general revenue figure available here.

LBB published estimates · flow over the stated periods.

Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

HISTORY

  1. Received by the Secretary of the Senate
  2. Filed
  3. Read first time
  4. Referred to Criminal Justice
  5. Scheduled for public hearing on . . .
  6. Considered in public hearing
  7. Testimony taken in committee
  8. Left pending in committee
  9. Considered in public hearing
  10. Testimony taken in committee
  11. Vote taken in committee
  12. Reported favorably as substituted
  13. Committee report printed and distributed
  14. Placed on intent calendar
  15. Co-author authorized
  16. Rules suspended-Regular order of business
  17. Record vote
  18. Read 2nd time & passed to engrossment
  19. Record vote
  20. Three day rule suspended
  21. Record vote
  22. Read 3rd time
  23. Passed
  24. Record vote
  25. Reported engrossed
  26. Received from the Senate
  27. Read first time
  28. Referred to Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs
  29. Considered in public hearing
  30. Reported favorably w/o amendment(s)
  31. Comte report filed with Committee Coordinator
  32. Committee report distributed
  33. Committee report sent to Calendars
  34. Considered in Calendars
  35. Placed on General State Calendar
  36. Read 2nd time
  37. Point of order withdrawn Rule 4, Section 32(c)(1)
  38. Postponed 5/21/25 5:30 PM
  39. Laid out as postponed business
  40. Amended 1-Moody
  41. Amendment tabled 2-Reynolds
  42. Record vote RV#3185
  43. Amendment tabled 3-Wu
  44. Record vote RV#3186
  45. Statement(s) of vote recorded in Journal
  46. Passed to 3rd reading as amended
  47. Record vote RV#3187
  48. Statement(s) of vote recorded in Journal
  49. Read 3rd time
  50. Passed
  51. Record vote RV#3210
  52. Statement(s) of vote recorded in Journal
  53. House passage as amended reported
  54. House amendment(s) laid before the Senate
  55. Read
  56. Senate concurs in House amendment(s)
  57. Record vote
  58. Senate concurs in House amendment(s)-reported
  59. Reported enrolled
  60. Signed in the Senate
  61. Signed in the House
  62. Sent to the Governor
  63. Signed by the Governor
  64. Effective immediately
FILED UNDER

No verified beat found.

SIGNED FOR BY

House · 101 yea · 35 nay

Senate · 20 yea · 11 nay

Sources

House: Final passage · May 22, 2025. Journal. Published stock for this vote. Snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Senate: Final passage · Apr 28, 2025. Journal. Published stock for this vote. Snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

All floor motions and other positions below.

No flags

THANK YOU FOR CHECKING THE RECEIPT

CAMPAIGN PAID FOR BY

CAMPAIGN PAID FOR BY

Donors

Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC$55KMorris Jaffe$25,000Justin Jaffe$25,000

Not tied to this bill.

Sources

The author's campaign account only. Own money and internal transfers are separate on the member page.

Derived itemized flow · Jul 12, 2024 to Oct 24, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.

Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.

Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC$55,000.00

Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC

$55,000.00

Cash
$55,000.00
Paid by others
$0.00
Total
$55,000.00

Also funds 124 other sitting lawmakers.

Derived recipient stock · Jul 10, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.

TEC account match.

Team
Sources

Derived itemized flow · Dec 13, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.

Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.

Report IDs: 100985131, 101008112, 101072110.

Morris Jaffe$25,000.00
Justin Jaffe$25,000.00
Money

Missing data does not establish zero giving. Display amounts are rounded.

×

Texans for Lawsuit Reform PAC

$55,000.00

Cash
$55,000.00
Paid by others
$0.00
Total
$55,000.00

Also funds 124 other sitting lawmakers.

Derived recipient stock · Jul 10, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.

TEC account match.

Team
Sources

Derived itemized flow · Dec 13, 2024 to Oct 23, 2026. State data as of Nov 4, 2026.

Derived itemized contributions on live regular reports and uncovered special-session dates. Internal account transfers and daily reports are excluded.

Report IDs: 100985131, 101008112, 101072110.

Votes9

Senate May 26, 2025

Yea
21
Nay
10
Present, not voting
Not printed
Absent
0
Excused
0
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

Senate journal

Sources

Senator Flores moved to concur in the House amendment to SB 2570. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Yeas 21, Nays 10.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 21 (published)
  • Nay: 10 (published)
  • Present, not voting: Not printed
  • Absent: 0 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 0 (derived from named list)

Senate journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

House May 22, 2025

Yea
101
Nay
35
Present, not voting
2
Absent
3
Excused
9
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

House journal

Sources

Record 3210

SB 2570 was passed by (Record 3210): 101 Yeas, 35 Nays, 2 Present, not voting.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 101 (published)
  • Nay: 35 (published)
  • Present, not voting: 2 (published)
  • Absent: 3 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 9 (derived from named list)

House journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

House May 21, 2025

Yea
110
Nay
30
Present, not voting
1
Absent
5
Excused
4
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

House journal

Sources

Record 3187

SB 2570, as amended, was passed to third reading by (Record 3187): 110 Yeas, 30 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 110 (published)
  • Nay: 30 (published)
  • Present, not voting: 1 (published)
  • Absent: 5 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 4 (derived from named list)

House journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

House May 21, 2025

Yea
86
Nay
52
Present, not voting
1
Absent
7
Excused
4
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

House journal

Sources

Record 3186

Representative Guillen moved to table Amendment No. 3. The motion to table prevailed by (Record 3186): 86 Yeas, 52 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 86 (published)
  • Nay: 52 (published)
  • Present, not voting: 1 (published)
  • Absent: 7 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 4 (derived from named list)

House journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

House May 21, 2025

Yea
91
Nay
46
Present, not voting
1
Absent
9
Excused
3
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

House journal

Sources

Record 3185

Representative Guillen moved to table Amendment No. 2. The motion to table prevailed by (Record 3185): 91 Yeas, 46 Nays, 1 Present, not voting.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 91 (published)
  • Nay: 46 (published)
  • Present, not voting: 1 (published)
  • Absent: 9 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 3 (derived from named list)

House journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Senate Apr 28, 2025

Yea
20
Nay
11
Present, not voting
Not printed
Absent
0
Excused
0
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

Senate journal

Sources

The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote: Yeas 20, Nays 11.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 20 (published)
  • Nay: 11 (published)
  • Present, not voting: Not printed
  • Absent: 0 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 0 (derived from named list)

Senate journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Senate Apr 28, 2025

Yea
26
Nay
5
Present, not voting
Not printed
Absent
0
Excused
0
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

Senate journal

Sources

Senator Flores moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSSB 2570 be placed on its third reading and final passage. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Yeas 26, Nays 5.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 26 (published)
  • Nay: 5 (published)
  • Present, not voting: Not printed
  • Absent: 0 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 0 (derived from named list)

Senate journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Senate Apr 28, 2025

Yea
20
Nay
11
Present, not voting
Not printed
Absent
0
Excused
0
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

Senate journal

Sources

The bill was read second time and was passed to engrossment by the following vote: Yeas 20, Nays 11.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 20 (published)
  • Nay: 11 (published)
  • Present, not voting: Not printed
  • Absent: 0 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 0 (derived from named list)

Senate journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Senate Apr 28, 2025

Yea
25
Nay
6
Present, not voting
Not printed
Absent
0
Excused
0
Names

Named positions matched to lawmakers. See the journal for unmatched names.

Senate journal

Sources

Senator Flores moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for consideration CSSB 2570 at this time on its second reading: CSSB 2570, 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. The motion prevailed by the following vote: Yeas 25, Nays 6.

Published stock of positions for this vote, except where marked derived.

  • Yea: 25 (published)
  • Nay: 6 (published)
  • Present, not voting: Not printed
  • Absent: 0 (derived from named list)
  • Excused: 0 (derived from named list)

Senate journal. Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

Witnesses19
For
12
Against
6
On
1
Names

For

  • CLEAT1 registration
  • Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT)1 registration
  • Dallas Police Association1 registration
  • Dallas Police Department1 registration
  • Harris County Deputies' Organization FOP #391 registration
  • Houston Police Department1 registration
  • SAN ANTONIO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION1 registration
  • Self; Houston Police Officers’ Union1 registration
  • Self; San Antonio Police Officers Association1 registration
  • Texas Municipal League1 registration
  • Texas Municipal Police Association (TMPA)1 registration
  • Texas Police Chiefs Association1 registration

Against

  • American Civil Liberties Union of Texas1 registration
  • Self; Equity Action1 registration
  • Self; LatinoJustice PRLDEF1 registration
  • Self; Texas Civil Rights Project1 registration
  • Texas Civil Rights Project1 registration
  • Travis County District Attorney’s Office1 registration

On

  • Dallas Criminal District Attorney’s Office1 registration
Sources

19 parsed registrations across the loaded witness lists.

Derived stock of witness registrations. Repeated appearances count separately. Organizations and self-representation appear as printed.

Senate witness list. Source snapshot 2026-10-20, Central time.

Fiscal

No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.

LBB estimate · fiscal note version F · source

Sources

Fiscal note · version F · May 22, 2025

No first-year general revenue figure available here.

LBB published estimates · flow over the stated periods.

Source snapshot 2026-10-19, Central time.

How this was graded

Analysis of text version I by claude-opus-5-5, Oct 20, 2026, against the published rubric.

Sources

Texas Senate · Filed Mar 13, 2025

06/20/2025 E Effective immediately

Texas Legislature Online · Introduced · Senate Committee Report · Engrossed · House Committee Report · Enrolled

Data snapshot Oct 26, 2026 at 4:20 AM CDT. Grades, charges, quotes and corrections follow the published record.

Coauthors
Sponsors

House committee · Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs · Committee vote 10 aye, 0 nay, 1 absent · Out of committee

Senate committee · Criminal Justice · Committee vote 5 aye, 1 nay · Out of committee

Companion

HB 5139 by Guillen (similar)

Subjects

Criminal Procedure--General

Law Enforcement

Weapons

Text

The text as introduced · 333 words

89R4611 LHC-D

By: Flores
S.B. No. 2570

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT

relating to a defense to prosecution for certain offenses involving

the use of a less-lethal projectile by a peace officer.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 8, Penal Code, is amended by adding

Section 8.09 to read as follows:

Sec. 8.09. DEFENSE TO CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING USE OF

LESS-LETHAL PROJECTILE. (a) In this section, "less-lethal

projectile" means any projectile that is designed, made, or adapted

to temporarily incapacitate a target while minimizing the risk of

serious bodily injury or death.

(b) In the prosecution of a peace officer for an offense

under this code that resulted in bodily injury or serious bodily

injury to or the death of an individual, it is a defense to

prosecution that:

(1) the injury or death resulted from the use of a

less-lethal projectile;

(2) the peace officer reasonably believed that the use

of the projectile was objectively reasonable to accomplish the

officer's official duties as a peace officer;

(3) the peace officer did not intentionally,

knowingly, or recklessly cause the injury or death when using the

projectile; and

(4) the peace officer used the projectile in

substantial compliance with:

(A) the peace officer's training;

(B) the policies and procedures of the law

enforcement agency employing the peace officer; and

(C) the manufacturer's instructions for the use

of the projectile.

SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only

to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.

An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is

governed by the law in effect on the date the offense was committed,

and the former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For

purposes of this section, an offense was committed before the

effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurred

before that date.

SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2025.