Relating to the use of metal or body armor while committing certain offenses; increasing a criminal penalty.
LowStandard timeline
Low Cost
Effective:2025-06-20
Enforcing Agencies
Texas Criminal Courts • District Attorneys • Law Enforcement Agencies
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date:June 20, 2025 (Passed with supermajority; overrides standard September 1 date).
Compliance Deadline:June 20, 2025 (All armor-wearing personnel must hold valid active licensure by this date).
Agency Rulemaking: No specific rulemaking required. However, rely on existing Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) Private Security Bureau definitions for "Security Officer" (Occupations Code §1702.002).
Immediate Action Plan
1.Audit Personnel: Run a licensure check on every employee currently issued body armor against the DPS Private Security database before June 20.
2.Retract Equipment: Physically confiscate body armor from any staff member whose license is expired or pending renewal.
3.Update Incident Protocols: Instruct legal counsel that in any use-of-force event, the employee's licensure status must be presented to the District Attorney immediately to establish the statutory exemption.
4.Notify Vendors: Send a formal notice to security contractors regarding the June 20 effective date and the requirement for 100% licensure compliance for armored posts.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Security Vendor MSAs: Immediately amend Master Service Agreements with third-party security firms. Insert a warranty clause stating that *all* personnel deployed with body armor must hold a current, valid commission under Texas Occupations Code Chapter 1702.
Indemnification: Expand indemnification to cover legal defense costs arising from criminal investigations into vendor personnel where the vendor failed to maintain proper licensure, triggering HB108 enhancements.
Hiring/Training
In-House Security Audit: Review all proprietary security (bouncers, loss prevention, in-house guards). If they wear vests but are not licensed as Commissioned Security Officers or Personal Protection Officers, they do not qualify for the exemption. You must either license them or remove their armor.
Zero-Tolerance Policy: Implement a policy that prohibits issuing body armor to any employee with a pending, suspended, or expired license.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
Daily Rosters: Shift logs must now include the specific license/commission number of every armor-wearing employee next to their name.
Digital Wallets: Maintain real-time digital copies of DPS-issued pocket cards. In a use-of-force incident, you must be able to prove the employee's "exempt status" to law enforcement immediately to avoid enhanced charging decisions.
Fees & Costs
No Direct Fee Changes: The bill does not impose new state fees.
Insurance Review: Review General Liability policies. If an employee is charged with an enhanced felony (e.g., Aggravated Assault becomes a higher degree felony due to armor), insurers may more aggressively apply "Criminal Acts" exclusions to deny coverage.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
Lapsed Licenses: The statute exempts a "security officer" as defined by the Occupations Code. It is unclear if a license expired by a single day voids this exemption. Operational Stance: Assume strict liability. An expired license equals no exemption.
"Use" of Armor: The statute penalizes "use." While this implies wearing the armor, prosecutors could argue that holding a vest as a shield constitutes use. Training must reflect that armor is strictly for wearing by licensed personnel only.
Need Help Understanding Implementation?
Our government affairs experts can walk you through this bill's specific impact on your operations.
Information presented is for general knowledge only and is provided without warranty, express or implied. Consult qualified government affairs professionals and legal counsel before making compliance decisions.
The bill author has informed the committee that body armor can provide criminals with a tactical advantage, making it harder for law enforcement to employ effective strategies to apprehend suspects during the commission of a crime or when fleeing a scene. This issue has been highlighted in numerous high-profile violent incidents, such as the 2012 Aurora shooting, the 2017 Sutherland Springs shooting, and the 2022 Boulder shooting, according to news outlets such as The Denver Post, TheWashington Post, and NPR. The bill author has informed the committee that while state law currently prohibits individuals with felony convictions from possessing body armor, there is no state law against the use of body armor during the commission of a crime. C.S.H.B. 108 seeks to address this issue by requiring an affirmative finding relating to the use of body armor during the commission of certain offenses in the trial of the offense and by increasing the punishment for an offense in which such an affirmative finding is made in the trial.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE IMPACT
It is the committee's opinion that this bill expressly does one or more of the following: creates a criminal offense, increases the punishment for an existing criminal offense or category of offenses, or changes the eligibility of a person for community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution.
ANALYSIS
C.S.H.B. 108 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require the judge in a trial of an offense against the person punishable as a third degree felony or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony, if at the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, the judge or the jury, whichever is the trier of fact, determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant used metal or body armor during the commission of the offense, to make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case. The bill defines "metal or body armor" by reference as any body covering manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of protecting a person against gunfire.
C.S.H.B. 108 amends the Penal Code to increase the punishment for an offense against the person to the punishment prescribed for the next highest category of offense if such an affirmative finding is made in the trial of the offense.
C.S.H.B. 108 applies only to an offense committed on or after the bill's effective date. An offense committed before the bill's effective date 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 these purposes, an offense was committed before the bill's effective date if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2025.
COMPARISON OF INTRODUCED AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 108 may differ from the introduced in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following summarizes the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
While the introduced and substitute both require a judge to make an affirmative finding of fact and enter the affirmative finding in the judgment of the case, the introduced applied the requirement to an offense against the person punishable as a Class A misdemeanor or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony, whereas the substitute applies the requirement instead to an offense against the person punishable as a third degree felony or any higher category of offense, other than a first degree felony. Accordingly, the substitute does not include the provision of the introduced that increased the minimum term of confinement to 180 days for an offense that is a Class A misdemeanor and for which the affirmative finding is made.
Honorable John T. Smithee, Chair, House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
HB108 by Plesa (Relating to the use of metal or body armor while committing an offense; increasing a criminal penalty.), As Introduced
Increasing the penalty for an existing offense may result in additional demands upon state correctional resources due to a possible increase in the number of individuals placed under supervision in the community or sentenced to a term of confinement. The fiscal implications of the bill cannot be determined due to the lack of data to estimate the prevalence of conduct outlined in the bill's provisions that would be subject to increased criminal penalties.
The bill would make certain offenses against a person subject to a penalty enhancement if the actor used metal or body armor during the commission of the offense and would establish procedures related to an affirmative finding regarding the use of metal or body armor.
The fiscal impact and any impact on state correctional populations or on the demand for state correctional resources cannot be determined due to the lack of data to estimate the prevalence of conduct outlined in the bill's provisions that would be subject to increased criminal penalties.
Local Government Impact
While the fiscal impact to units of local government cannot be determined, increasing the penalty for an existing offense may result in additional demands upon local correctional resources due to a possible increase in the number of individuals placed under supervision in the community or sentenced to a term of confinement.
Source Agencies:
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 302 Office of the Attorney General, 304 Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff:
JMc, MGol, AMr, QH, SZ, NPe, JPE, THO, NAz
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
HB108 enacts a penalty enhancement for felonies committed while wearing body armor, effective June 20, 2025. While aimed at criminal actors, this law creates immediate operational risk for businesses employing armed guards or loss prevention teams: only licensed security officers are exempt. Employing unlicensed or expired personnel who wear armor and engage in use-of-force incidents now exposes your organization to heightened vicarious liability and negligence claims.
Q
Who authored HB108?
HB108 was authored by Texas Representative Mihaela Plesa during the Regular Session.
Q
When was HB108 signed into law?
HB108 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on June 20, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce HB108?
HB108 is enforced by Texas Criminal Courts, District Attorneys and Law Enforcement Agencies.
Q
How urgent is compliance with HB108?
The compliance urgency for HB108 is rated as "low". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of HB108?
The cost impact of HB108 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does HB108 address?
HB108 addresses topics including courts, courts--judges, crimes, crimes--miscellaneous and criminal procedure.
Legislative data provided by LegiScanLast updated: November 25, 2025
Need Strategic Guidance on This Bill?
Need help with Government Relations, Lobbying, or compliance? JD Key Consulting has the expertise you're looking for.
