2025 Texas sessionsRegular and both called sessions have ended. This index covers House and Senate bills, not resolutions. Statuses come from official reports.

2025 · Regular session · Senate bill

SB1020

SB1020 requires prompt reports to judges about suspected electronic-monitoring violations and expands specified sharing of supervision information.

Read bill highlights ↓

Official caption: Relating to personal bond offices, to the notification provided to a judge regarding tampering with an electronic monitoring device while released on bond or community supervision, and to the availability of certain information regarding a person required to submit to an electronic monitoring program or being supervised by a community supervision and corrections department.

Signed by governorSource-checked explanation published

Official report lists Senate author(s): Huffman. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.

Report an error ↗

Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.

Bill highlights

Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.

SB1020 requires prompt reports to judges about suspected electronic-monitoring violations and expands specified sharing of supervision information.
For offices covered by Article 17.42’s record requirements, the existing case-number-only personal-bond record must also go to the prosecutor and the accused person’s attorney, with an update as applicable based on a bond-condition violation in the preceding month.
The act also excludes information related to people subject to specified location-monitoring programs from Government Code 21.013’s definition of judicial work product—material otherwise covered by that section’s confidentiality rules.
Signed May 29, 2025, SB1020 took effect September 1, 2025.

Read the full explanation ↓

What does it do?

SB1020 requires prompt reports to judges about suspected electronic-monitoring violations and expands specified sharing of supervision information. A personal bond office, an agency designated to supervise release on a bond other than a personal bond, or a community-supervision officer must notify the relevant court, magistrate or judge immediately after determining there is reasonable cause to believe a supervised defendant violated an electronic-monitoring condition. The requirement includes GPS monitoring. It is not a requirement to wait for a proven violation, and this act does not itself mandate automatic arrest or revocation. Final law, sections 2–4.

For offices covered by Article 17.42’s record requirements, the existing case-number-only personal-bond record must also go to the prosecutor and the accused person’s attorney, with an update as applicable based on a bond-condition violation in the preceding month. Monthly record maintenance and clerk filing remain required; the record must expressly include noncompliance through device tampering. The existing exemption for an office operated by a community corrections and supervision department on January 1, 1995 remains. Final law, section 1; Pre-act CR 17.42, section 5.

The act also excludes information related to people subject to specified location-monitoring programs from Government Code 21.013’s definition of judicial work product—material otherwise covered by that section’s confidentiality rules. It separately permits community supervision and corrections departments to share location-related information with law enforcement or prosecutors to locate a supervised person or serve a warrant. That permission includes monitoring data, reporting dates, contact details, family and collateral contacts, and addresses; it is not a command to publish everyone’s movements on the internet. Final law, sections 5–6; Pre-act GV 21.013; Pre-act GV 76.001.

Signed May 29, 2025, SB1020 took effect September 1, 2025. Its three new notification duties apply to violations occurring on or after that date; earlier violations remain governed by former law. History; Final law, sections 7–8.

What changed along the way?

The introduced bill proposed notice within 48 hours after becoming aware of a violation. The Senate committee substitute instead required immediate notice after a reasonable-cause determination, expressly included GPS systems, added the duty for agencies supervising non-personal-bond release, and added the department’s location-information sharing permission. It also broadened the bond-notice recipient to the court or magistrate with jurisdiction. Those changes survived into the final law. Introduced bill; Senate substitute; Final law.

The substitute, engrossed, House committee and enrolled versions have the same operative provisions. The amendment index lists no floor amendments; these changes came through the committee substitute, not a floor amendment. GPS refers to the statutory definition of a carried or worn location-reporting system, which excludes implanted or otherwise bodily invasive technology; citing that definition does not limit all the new notification duties to family-violence cases. Text versions; Amendment index; Pre-act CR 17.49, subsection (a)(2); Final law.

For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.

Official bill versions

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?

Courts receive immediate required notice of suspected monitoring violations, and prosecutors and defense counsel receive the covered personal-bond records. Supervising offices and officers must perform the reporting work; location-information sharing can assist law enforcement and prosecutors in finding a person or serving a warrant. For supervised people and their contacts, the practical tradeoff is wider authorized access to sensitive location-related information for those stated purposes. The bill does not establish that every such record is publicly accessible or erase every other confidentiality rule. Its judicial-work-product change covers monitoring under Article 42.035 and as a condition of community supervision, parole, mandatory supervision or bail; the new department-sharing permission concerns people supervised by that department. Final law; Pre-act GV 21.013; Pre-act GV 76.019; Pre-act CR 42.035.

The April 14 introduced and April 16 substitute fiscal notes both anticipate no significant state or local fiscal implication and assume costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not quantify staff time, individual privacy costs, or a reduction in crime or missed court appearances. Introduced fiscal note; Substitute fiscal note.

Official sources

Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.