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.
CriticalImmediate action required
Low Cost
Effective:2025-09-01
Enforcing Agencies
Personal Bond Offices • Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCD) • Agencies designated by magistrates to supervise bond release • Courts/Magistrates
01
Compliance Analysis
Key implementation requirements and action items for compliance with this legislation
Implementation Timeline
Effective Date: September 1, 2025
Compliance Deadline:August 1, 2025 (Recommended). Systems and staff must be tested and operational prior to the effective date; the first violation occurring on 9/1/25 triggers the new immediate reporting requirement.
Agency Rulemaking: The statute does not mandate state-level rulemaking. However, individual Courts and Magistrates will likely issue local standing orders or contract addendums defining their specific expectations for "immediate" reporting.
Immediate Action Plan
1.Audit Software: Immediately open development tickets to add "Tampering" specific flags to reporting templates and automate email distribution to defense counsel.
2.Update Protocols: Draft written internal policies defining the timeline for "Immediate" reporting and the steps required to establish "Reasonable Cause."
3.Review Insurance: Contact your carrier to confirm your Professional Liability policy covers statutory failure-to-report claims.
4.Client Communication: Send a preemptive memo to your contracting judges/counties outlining how your agency will meet the new September 1 standards.
Operational Changes Required
Contracts
Service Level Agreements (SLAs): Review all contracts with counties and courts. If your current SLA defines a reporting window of "24 hours" or "next business day," you are non-compliant. Amendments must reflect the statutory "immediate" requirement.
Indemnification: Expect counties to demand stricter indemnification clauses. You must ensure your liability coverage includes specific Errors & Omissions (E&O) protection for "failure to report" or "delayed reporting."
Hiring/Training
24/7/365 Monitoring: "Immediate" notification applies regardless of the time or day. If you currently rely on automated batch reporting over weekends, you must transition to staffed or automated real-time escalation protocols.
"Reasonable Cause" Protocols: Staff must be trained to distinguish between technical glitches (GPS drift) and actual tampering. You must document the verification steps taken to establish "reasonable cause" before notifying the court.
Reporting & Record-Keeping
New Reporting Recipients: Personal Bond Offices must update case management software to automatically distribute monthly reports to the Accused Person’s Attorney, in addition to the State’s Attorney and the Clerk.
Specific Violation Codes: Monthly reports must now explicitly state if a failure to comply involved "tampering with an electronic monitoring device." Generic "non-compliance" codes are insufficient.
Data Discovery: Treat all EM location data and contact logs as discoverable evidence. Retain raw data in a format that can be easily exported for subpoena response, as it is no longer shielded as judicial work product.
Fees & Costs
Operational Overhead: While the state imposes no new fees, businesses should budget for increased labor costs associated with 24/7 monitoring and potential increases in liability insurance premiums.
Strategic Ambiguities & Considerations
Definition of "Immediately": The statute does not define "immediately" in minutes or hours. This leaves vendors vulnerable to judicial discretion. Strategy: Do not wait for case law. Define "immediately" in your own operational protocols (e.g., "Within 60 minutes of alert verification") and incorporate this definition into your client contracts to establish a standard of care.
"Reasonable Cause" Threshold: The law requires notification upon "reasonable cause," not absolute certainty. If you wait too long to verify a tamper, you violate the "immediate" clause; if you report too quickly, you risk false positives. You must document your verification logic clearly to defend against negligence claims.
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.
Electronic monitoring devices are integral tools utilized to increase public safety and promote accountability upon the release of defendants on house arrest or as a condition of community supervision, parole, mandatory supervision, or release on bail.
S.B. 1020 requires more detailed record-keeping by personal bond offices, requires prompt notification of electronic monitoring device violations to the courts, and clarifies that certain electronic monitoring information is not considered judicial work product.
As proposed, S.B. 1020 amends current law 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.
RULEMAKING AUTHORITY
This bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, institution, or agency.
SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS
SECTION 1. Amends Sections 5(a) and (b), Article 17.42, Code of Criminal Procedure, as follows:
(a) Requires a personal bond pretrial release office established under Article 17.42 (Personal Bond Office) to take certain actions, including submitting a copy of the record containing information about any accused person identified by case number only who, after review by the officer, is released by a court on personal bond before sentencing in a pending case to the attorney representing the state and the accused person's attorney and, as applicable based on whether the accused person violated a condition of release on bond in the preceding month, an update to that record. Makes nonsubstantive changes.
(b) Requires the office, in preparing a record under Subsection (a), to include in the record certain statements, including a statement of whether the person has failed to comply with conditions of release on personal bond, including failing to comply by tampering with an electronic monitoring device.
SECTION 2. Amends Chapter 17, Code of Criminal Procedure, by adding Article 17.431, as follows:
Art. 17.431. NOTIFICATION BY PERSONAL BOND OFFICE REGARDING ELECTRONIC MONITORING DEVICE VIOLATION. Requires a personal bond office established under Article 17.42, not later than 48 hours after the personal bond office becomes aware that a defendant supervised by the office has violated a condition of release on bond related to an electronic monitoring device, to notify the court before whom the case is pending of that violation.
SECTION 3. Amends Subchapter P, Chapter 42A, Code of Criminal Procedure, by adding Article 42A.7515, as follows:
Art. 42A.7515. NOTIFICATION OF SUPERVISION OFFICER REGARDING ELECTRONIC MONITORING DEVICE VIOLATION. Requires a supervision officer, not later than 48 hours after the supervision officer becomes aware that a defendant supervised by the officer has violated a condition of community supervision related to an electronic monitoring device, to notify the judge of that violation.
SECTION 4. Amends Section 21.013(a)(1), Government Code, to redefine "judicial work product."
SECTION 5. Makes application of Articles 17.431 and 42A.7515, Code of Criminal Procedure, as added by this Act, prospective.
Honorable Pete Flores, Chair, Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
FROM:
Jerry McGinty, Director, Legislative Budget Board
IN RE:
SB1020 by Huffman (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.), As Introduced
No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.
It is assumed that any costs associated with the bill could be absorbed using existing resources.
Local Government Impact
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is anticipated.
Source Agencies:
212 Office of Court Administration, Texas Judicial Council, 696 Department of Criminal Justice
LBB Staff:
JMc, MGol, DA, NTh
Related Legislation
Explore more bills from this author and on related topics
SB1020 fundamentally shifts the legal standard for electronic monitoring (EM) supervision from a passive, periodic reporting model to an immediate notification duty. Effective September 1, 2025, all Personal Bond Offices, Community Supervision Departments (CSCD), and private EM vendors must notify the court immediately upon determining reasonable cause of a device tamper or violation. Additionally, the law strips "judicial work product" protection from EM location data, making your internal records fully discoverable in criminal proceedings.
Q
Who authored SB1020?
SB1020 was authored by Texas Senator Joan Huffman during the Regular Session.
Q
When was SB1020 signed into law?
SB1020 was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 29, 2025.
Q
Which agencies enforce SB1020?
SB1020 is enforced by Personal Bond Offices, Community Supervision and Corrections Departments (CSCD), Agencies designated by magistrates to supervise bond release and Courts/Magistrates.
Q
How urgent is compliance with SB1020?
The compliance urgency for SB1020 is rated as "critical". Businesses and organizations should review the requirements and timeline to ensure timely compliance.
Q
What is the cost impact of SB1020?
The cost impact of SB1020 is estimated as "low". This may vary based on industry and implementation requirements.
Q
What topics does SB1020 address?
SB1020 addresses topics including corrections, corrections--jails & prisons, courts, courts--judges and crimes.
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.
