← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB1372
SB1372 changes whom prosecutors must designate for access to the crime laboratory portal: the defendant's attorney, rather than the defendant or attorney as appropriate.
Official caption: Relating to access to the crime laboratory portal.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Hinojosa, Juan "Chuy". This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
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.
Read the full explanation ↓What does it do?
SB1372 changes whom prosecutors must designate for access to the crime laboratory portal: the defendant’s attorney, rather than the defendant or attorney as appropriate. It removes the defendant-designation alternative from Government Code section 411.164. The governor signed it June 20, 2025; it took effect September 1, 2025, and applies only to criminal proceedings that begin on or after that date. Earlier proceedings remain governed by the former law. Final law; Official history.
What changed along the way?
Under the amended section, the prosecutor must designate defense counsel, in accordance with department rules, to access and use the portal to request crime-laboratory records subject to discovery under Code of Criminal Procedure article 39.14. The former wording said “the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, as appropriate.” The new provision does not authorize public access or access to every laboratory record regardless of discovery limits. Final law; Prior designation rule.
The portal is an existing system for requesting and transferring records among laboratories, prosecutors and authorized discovery recipients, not a central repository of laboratory records. SB1372 changes the designation provision; it does not create the portal or repeal article 39.14. That article separately addresses defendants representing themselves: when the court orders production and inspection under subsection (d), the state must permit inspection and review but need not allow the electronic duplication described in subsection (a). Removing a portal-designation alternative is not the same as eliminating all rights to inspect evidence. Existing portal purpose and limit; Discovery law, including self-represented defendants; Final law.
The operative change and proceeding-start transition are the same in all five versions. The amendment index lists no amendments. Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Final law; Version index; Amendment index.
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?
Prosecutors must use the revised designation rule for covered new proceedings, and defense attorneys are the expressly designated portal users under that rule. Defendants lose the former express alternative for being designated personally under section 411.164, while separate discovery protections remain. The act does not establish a new fee, promise faster laboratory results or decide any particular person’s discovery request. Final law; Separate discovery protections.
The April 7 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumes state costs can be absorbed within existing resources. It gives no dollar estimate of private legal costs or time saved. The act makes no appropriation. Fiscal note; Final law.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.