SB2570

New Penal Code section 9.55 covers specified projectile-expelling weapons designed to temporarily incapacitate while minimizing serious injury or death, chemical dispensing devices, devices used to strike a person, and stun guns as defined in section 38.14. That stun-gun definition concerns wired darts or projectiles delivering an incapacitating electrical pulse. “Less-lethal” is not a promise that a weapon cannot kill. The provision applies only to a guard employed by a correctional facility or a peace officer engaged in official duties. Final law; Incorporated stun-gun definition.

Chapter 9 treats justified conduct as a defense to prosecution. The new section supplements existing arrest/search and correctional-security force provisions rather than rewriting them. The change applies only to offenses committed on or after June 20, 2025; if any element occurred earlier, the former law governs. Final law; Justification as a defense; Existing arrest/search rules; Existing correctional-security rule.

The introduced bill was narrower: a defense for peace officers involving less-lethal projectiles, with conditions about injury, culpability, training, agency policy and manufacturer instructions. The Senate substitute moved it into Chapter 9, added guards and more weapon types, and replaced those conditions with a force-justification rule tied to official duties and training. The Senate-passed and House committee texts matched that substitute. Introduced bill; Senate substitute; Text versions.

The House adopted Moody’s amendment requiring engagement in official duties and stating the reasonable-belief and training test in its enacted form. Reynolds proposed requiring an announcement of purpose and identity before force, with exceptions; Wu proposed adding “not reckless.” Both proposals were tabled, not enacted in section 9.55. Their rejection does not erase other applicable legal limits: existing section 9.05 still denies Chapter 9 justification in a prosecution for recklessly injuring or killing an innocent third person. Adopted Moody amendment; Tabled Reynolds proposal; Tabled Wu proposal; Official dispositions; Innocent-third-person limit; Final law.

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

Officers and guards gain a specific statutory defense; people subjected to force face that defense when its conditions are satisfied. Civil consequences cannot be reduced to “all lawsuits disappear” or “nothing changes”: Penal Code section 9.06 generally preserves available civil remedies, while Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 83.001 separately provides immunity for personal injury or death resulting from force justified under Chapter 9. Whether conduct qualifies, and how other claims or legal limits apply, remains case-specific. No court outcome or federal-claim immunity is asserted here. Final law; Civil-remedy provision; Separate civil-immunity provision.

All four posted fiscal notes expect no significant state or local fiscal effect and assume implementation costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not measure changes in injuries, police behavior or litigation outcomes. Latest fiscal note; Introduced note; Substitute note; House-passed note.