Texas Legislature

 Texas Legislature

To: Members of the Texas House of Representatives and the Texas Senate From: A Constituent Date: July 5, 2026 Subject: A Concurrent Resolution to Halt State-Approved Training That Teaches Violation of Texas Law and Results in Mass Incarceration and Official Oppression

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Texas Legislature has already written every statute needed to prevent mass incarceration and official oppression. …………………….. Executive SummaryX

State-approved training has created a pipeline from the classroom to the jail cell. ……………………………………………….. Section I

Six Statutory Commands That Training Has Replaced with Illegal Practices. ……………………………………………….. Section II

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fifteen Point One Six commands officers to take arrestees before a magistrate without unnecessary delay. ……………………………………………….. Section II.A

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fourteen Point Zero Six imposes the same mandatory duty for arrests without a warrant. ……………………………………………….. Section II.B

The Texas Transportation Code Section Five Hundred Forty Three Point Zero Zero Two requires the nearest magistrate for traffic arrests. ……………………………………………….. Section II.C

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fifteen Point Zero Nine commands magistrates to issue warrants upon receiving a proper complaint. ……………………………………………….. Section II.D

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Eleven Point Zero Five makes habeas corpus a mandatory judicial duty. ……………………………………………….. Section II.E

The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Twenty A Point Zero Five One commands grand juries to inquire into all offenses. ……………………………………………….. Section II.F

The Texas Government Code Section Five Hundred Fifty Two Point Three Two One Five Subsection E requires Public Information Act complaints against prosecutors to be filed with the Attorney General. ……………………………………………….. Section II.G

The Texas Penal Code Section Thirty Nine Point Zero Three defines official oppression as intentionally unlawful detention by a public servant. ……………………………………………….. Section II.H

The Constitutional Authority and Duty of the Legislature to Intervene. ……………………………………………….. Section III

The Texas Constitution vests all legislative power in the Legislature, and the other branches may not ignore the statutes the Legislature enacts. ……………………………………………….. Section III.A

The separation of powers doctrine protects legislative supremacy, not executive or judicial independence from law. ……………………………………………….. Section III.B

The Legislature has exclusive authority to define crimes, and when the bench and bar ignore that definition, they violate expressed legislative intent. ……………………………………………….. Section III.C

A concurrent resolution making formal legislative findings is the proper constitutional vehicle for the Legislature to declare that these practices must end. ……………………………………………….. Section III.D

Proposed Concurrent Resolution Language. ……………………………………………….. Section IV

Conclusion and Next Steps. ……………………………………………….. Section V

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.05 ………………………………. Section II.E Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.06(a) …………………………… Section II.B Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.09 …………………………… Section II.D Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.16(a) …………………………… Section II.A Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20A.051 …………………………… Section II.F Texas Government Code § 552.3215(e) …………………………………….. Section II.G Texas Penal Code § 39.03 ……………………………………………….. Section II.H Texas Transportation Code § 543.002 …………………………………….. Section II.CX

CASES

Eric D. Neil v. State, No. 10-16-00331-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 8863 (Tex. App.—Waco Sep. 20, 2017) ……………………………………………….. Section III.CX

In Re Allcat Claims Service, L.P. and John Weakly, 356 S.W.3d 455 (Tex. 2011) ……………………………………………….. Section III.B

State v. Hall, 829 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) ……………………………………………….. Section III.C

State v. Rhine, 297 S.W.3d 301 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) ……………………………………………….. Section III.A

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Tex. Const. art. II, § 1 ……………………………………………….. Section III.B Tex. Const. art. III, § 1 ……………………………………………….. Section III.A Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. No. MW-261 (1980) ……………………………………………….. Section III.BX

Executive Summary

The Legislature has written every law needed

The Texas Legislature has already written every statute needed to prevent mass incarceration and official oppression. The Texas Penal Code and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure form a fine mosaic of interlocking commands. These laws require officers to take arrestees directly to a magistrate. They require magistrates to issue warrants and writs of habeas corpus on proper application. And they command grand juries to inquire into all offenses. If these laws were followed as written, the “school-to-prison pipeline” would not exist, because state actors would lack the legal authority to create it. A problem now exists.

State-approved training teaches violation of the law

The problem is that state-approved training teaches law enforcement, prosecutors, and even judicial officers to ignore these statutory commands. Instead of taking arrestees to the nearest magistrate as the law requires, officers are trained to take them to a centralized county jail. Instead of issuing warrants on probable cause, magistrates are trained to defer to prosecutorial discretion. Instead of inquiring into all offenses, grand juries are trained to act as a rubber stamp for the district attorney. This training, delivered under the authority of the State of Texas, has created a system where the plain text of the law is routinely violated, resulting in unlawful detentions that constitute the state-law crime of official oppression.

The Legislature’s constitutional duty to intervene

The Texas Constitution vests all legislative power in the Legislature. The executive and judicial branches are constitutionally bound to follow the laws the Legislature enacts. When these branches ignore statutory commands, they violate the separation of powers. It is not an “interference” for the Legislature to demand that its laws be followed; it is the Legislature’s constitutional duty to preserve the balance of powers by ensuring the other branches operate within their lawful bounds. This white paper details the specific statutory violations, confirms the Legislature’s authority to intervene, and proposes the text of a concurrent resolution to restore the rule of law.

Section I. State-approved training has created a pipeline from the classroom to the jail cell.

A system that bypasses the magistrate

The Texas Legislature designed a system where a neutral and detached magistrate stands as a gatekeeper between the citizen and the jail cell. The Code of Criminal Procedure repeatedly commands that an arrested person must be taken “without unnecessary delay” before the “nearest or most accessible” magistrate. The magistrate’s duty is to determine if probable cause exists to believe an offense was committed. Without that independent finding, detention is unlawful. This structure protects citizens from arbitrary arrest and ensures that only those against whom there is actual evidence are deprived of their liberty. This statutory framework is not a suggestion. It is a command.

The classroom-to-jailhouse pipeline

State-approved training has dismantled this system. Law enforcement officers are now trained in a procedure that violates the plain text of the law. Instead of taking an arrestee to the nearest magistrate, they are taught to transport the person directly to a centralized county jail for “processing” and “booking.” The magistrate is bypassed entirely. This practice is not an isolated error; it is a systemic procedure taught in state-sanctioned academies. The consequence is that thousands of Texans are held in jail cells, sometimes for days, without the probable cause determination that the Legislature made a mandatory prerequisite for detention. This pipeline from the classroom to the jailhouse is a direct result of training that treats the Legislature’s commands as optional.

This pipeline flows into the courtroom

The same dynamic infects the rest of the system. Magistrates are trained to defer to prosecutors before issuing warrants, though the statute commands them to act upon receiving a sufficient complaint. Grand juries are trained to believe they work for the district attorney, though the statute commands them to be an independent body that “shall inquire into all offenses.” Prosecutors are trained to withhold public records, like the names of grand jurors, even when no statute permits the secrecy. Each of these practices, born of state-approved training, inverts the system the Legislature created. It replaces a system of checks and balances with a system of collusion, where the rights of the citizen are subordinated to the convenience of the state actor.

Section II. Six Statutory Commands That Training Has Replaced with Illegal Practices.

A. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fifteen Point One Six commands officers to take arrestees before a magistrate without unnecessary delay.

The Legislature’s command for arrests made with a warrant is absolute. Officers must take the person before the magistrate who issued the warrant, or another magistrate in the same county if the first is unavailable. The statute provides no exception for “booking” or “processing” at a jail. The exact text of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.16(a) states:X

“(a) The officer arresting a person under a warrant of arrest shall without unnecessary delay take the person or have the person taken before the magistrate who issued the warrant or, if the magistrate is not available, before the most accessible magistrate in the same county as the magistrate who issued the warrant.”

Training that directs an officer to take an arrestee to a jail instead of the magistrate teaches a direct violation of this statute.

B. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fourteen Point Zero Six imposes the same mandatory duty for arrests without a warrant.

For arrests made without a warrant, the Legislature imposed the same mandatory duty. The arresting officer must take the person before a magistrate for a probable cause determination. The law provides a maximum time limit of 48 hours, but it does not permit any “unnecessary delay” within that period. The exact text of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 14.06(a) states:X

“(a) …the person making the arrest or the person having custody of the person arrested shall without unnecessary delay, but not later than 48 hours after the person is arrested, take the person arrested or have the person arrested taken before some magistrate of the county where the person was arrested…”

Training that treats the 48-hour period as a grace period for administrative convenience, rather than an outer limit constrained by the “without unnecessary delay” command, teaches a violation of this statute.

C. The Texas Transportation Code Section Five Hundred Forty Three Point Zero Zero Two requires the nearest magistrate for traffic arrests.

The Legislature provided even more specific instructions for arrests arising from traffic offenses. The law explicitly commands that the arrested person be taken before a magistrate who is the “nearest or most accessible to the place of arrest.” This language leaves no room for interpretation or discretion. The exact text of Texas Transportation Code § 543.002 states:X

“(a) A peace officer who arrests a person for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall immediately take the person before a magistrate… (b) The person must be taken before a magistrate who: (1) has jurisdiction of the offense; (2) is in the county in which the offense charged is alleged to have been committed; and (3) is nearest or most accessible to the place of arrest.”

Training that directs an officer to transport a person arrested for a traffic offense to a centralized county jail, bypassing nearer and more accessible magistrates, teaches a direct and unambiguous violation of this statute.

D. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Fifteen Point Zero Nine commands magistrates to issue warrants upon receiving a proper complaint.

The Legislature commanded magistrates to issue warrants upon the filing of a sworn complaint that establishes probable cause. The statute uses the mandatory term “shall.” It does not grant the magistrate discretion to consult with or defer to a prosecutor. The exact text of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.09 states:X

“If the magistrate be satisfied from the complaint that the offense charged has been committed, he shall issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused.”

Training that instructs magistrates to wait for a prosecutor’s approval before issuing a warrant, or to refuse a valid complaint from a citizen, teaches a violation of this statute.

E. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Eleven Point Zero Five makes habeas corpus a mandatory judicial duty.

The Legislature made clear that the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is not a discretionary tool. The statute commands that it is the “duty of the court” to grant the writ “on proper application.” The Legislature did not create procedural loopholes or grant judges the power to deny the writ based on local rules or preferences. The exact text of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.05 states:X

“The writ of habeas corpus is a writ of right and shall never be suspended. It is the duty of the court or judge on proper application to issue the writ under the rules prescribed by law.”

Training that encourages judges to deny or delay habeas applications based on procedural technicalities not found in the statute teaches a violation of this fundamental command.

F. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article Twenty A Point Zero Five One commands grand juries to inquire into all offenses.

The Legislature established the grand jury as an independent investigative body of the people, not an arm of the prosecutor’s office. The statute commands that the grand jury “shall inquire into all offenses.” This is not a suggestion; it is a duty. The law does not state that the grand jury may only inquire into cases brought by the district attorney. The exact text of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20A.051 states:X

“The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any grand juror may have knowledge or of which the grand jury is informed by the attorney representing the state or by any other credible person.”

Training that teaches grand jurors that they are subordinate to the district attorney, or that they may not pursue investigations of their own accord, teaches a violation of this statute.

G. The Texas Government Code Section Five Hundred Fifty Two Point Three Two One Five Subsection E requires Public Information Act complaints against prosecutors to be filed with the Attorney General.

The Legislature created a specific enforcement mechanism for when a district attorney or other prosecutor violates the Public Information Act. A person who believes a prosecutor has failed to comply with the act can file a complaint with the Attorney General. The exact text of Texas Government Code § 552.3215(e) states:X

“(e) A person who claims to be the victim of a violation of this chapter by an officer for public information of a… district attorney, criminal district attorney, or county attorney may file a complaint with the attorney general.”

Training that teaches prosecutors they can deny requests for public information, such as grand juror names, without citing a specific statutory exemption or requesting an Attorney General opinion, encourages violation of the Public Information Act and subverts the enforcement mechanism the Legislature created.

H. The Texas Penal Code Section Thirty Nine Point Zero Three defines official oppression as intentionally unlawful detention by a public servant.

The Legislature defined the crime of official oppression with great clarity. When a public servant, acting under color of office, intentionally subjects another to unlawful detention, that public servant has committed a Class A misdemeanor. The exact text of Texas Penal Code § 39.03 states:X

“(a) A public servant acting under color of his office or employment commits an offense if he: (1) intentionally subjects another to mistreatment or to arrest, detention, search, seizure, dispossession, assessment, or lien that he knows is unlawful…”

When a peace officer, following training that violates the Code of Criminal Procedure, takes an arrestee to jail instead of a magistrate, that detention is unlawful. Because the training is systemic and the statutes are clear, the act is intentional. This practice, taught in state-approved classrooms, is the literal definition of official oppression.

Section III. The Constitutional Authority and Duty of the Legislature to Intervene.

A. The Texas Constitution vests all legislative power in the Legislature, and the other branches may not ignore the statutes the Legislature enacts.

The Texas Constitution is unambiguous. It creates three distinct branches of government and assigns each its own power. Article III, Section 1 vests “all legislative power” in the Legislature. The power to write the law belongs to the Legislature alone. The executive branch must enforce the law as written. The judicial branch must apply the law as written. As the Court of Criminal Appeals held in State v. Rhine, “The Texas Constitution vests lawmaking power in the legislature… Only the legislature can exercise that power.” When executive agencies or judicial officers adopt practices that contradict the plain text of a statute, they are exercising a legislative power they do not possess.X

B. The separation of powers doctrine protects legislative supremacy, not executive or judicial independence from law.

The doctrine of separation of powers, found in Article II, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, is not a shield for the other branches to hide behind when they disobey the law. It is a sword for the Legislature to wield to protect its exclusive lawmaking authority. As a Texas Supreme Court justice wrote in the dissent in In Re Allcat Claims Service, “if the Separation of Powers provision means anything, it is that the Executive must enforce the laws that the Legislature passes.” A 1980 Texas Attorney General Opinion confirmed this, stating, “If one branch exceeds its authority and usurps powers which it does not possess, its acts are a nullity.” A legislative resolution demanding compliance is not an interference; it is a constitutional course correction.X

C. The Legislature has exclusive authority to define crimes, and when the bench and bar ignore that definition, they violate expressed legislative intent.

The Legislature has the sole power to define what constitutes a crime in Texas. As the Court of Appeals held in Eric D. Neil v. State, “The legislature has the exclusive authority to define crimes.” When the Legislature defines official oppression in the Penal Code, that definition is the law. It is not a guideline that can be overridden by “standard procedure” or “prosecutorial discretion.” As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in State v. Hall, for the bench and bar to use a different definition of misconduct than the one the Legislature wrote “would appear to be contrary to expressed legislative intent.” The current training regimen teaches a practice that the Legislature has already defined as a crime.X

D. A concurrent resolution making formal legislative findings is the proper constitutional vehicle for the Legislature to declare that these practices must end.

The Legislature has the authority and the precedent to address this crisis through a concurrent resolution. While such a resolution does not amend the law, it does not need to—the law is already clear. A concurrent resolution serves as a formal declaration of legislative findings and intent. It puts the executive and judicial branches on notice that the Legislature is aware of the systemic violation of its statutes and that it considers these practices to be contrary to the law of Texas. It provides a clear statement that can be used in court to challenge these unlawful practices and to hold public servants accountable for official oppression. The Legislature has used this tool before to direct state agencies to comply with existing statutes, and it must use it now to restore the rule of law.

Section IV. Proposed Concurrent Resolution Language.

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION of the 89th Texas Legislature, making formal findings that certain law enforcement, prosecutorial, and judicial practices and procedures are not in concert with standing law, and asserting the intent of the Legislature that all such practices and procedures be adjusted to comply with the law as enacted.

WHEREAS, The Constitution of the State of Texas vests all legislative power in the Legislature, and the duty of the executive and judicial branches is to faithfully execute and apply the laws as enacted by the Legislature; and

WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Texas has enacted a comprehensive and interlocking body of law governing criminal procedure, the conduct of public servants, and the rights of the people, including the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Texas Transportation Code, and the Texas Penal Code; and

WHEREAS, Specific practices, taught and promulgated through state-approved training, have been brought to the Legislature’s attention that are inconsistent with the plain text of existing statutes, thereby undermining the rule of law and the separation of powers; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Texas makes the following formal findings:

FINDING: The practice of transporting arrested persons to a jail for booking or processing before taking them to a magistrate for a probable cause determination violates the “without unnecessary delay” command of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Articles 15.16(a) and 14.06(a), and the “nearest or most accessible” magistrate command of Texas Transportation Code § 543.002.

FINDING: The practice of magistrates deferring to prosecutorial discretion before issuing a warrant violates the mandatory duty to “issue a warrant” upon a sufficient complaint under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 15.09.

FINDING: The practice of courts denying or delaying writs of habeas corpus on procedural grounds not found in statute violates the mandatory “duty of the court… to issue the writ” under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.05.

FINDING: The practice of grand juries acting as a subordinate body to the district attorney, rather than an independent investigative body, violates the command that the grand jury “shall inquire into all offenses” under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 20A.051.

FINDING: The practice of prosecutors denying Public Information Act requests without citing a specific statutory exemption or seeking an Attorney General opinion subverts the enforcement mechanism of Texas Government Code § 552.3215(e).

FINDING: The practice of intentionally detaining a person in a manner known to be unlawful, such as detaining them without a prompt magistration as required by law, constitutes the Class A misdemeanor of Official Oppression as defined by Texas Penal Code § 39.03.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That it is the intent of the Legislature that all Texas law enforcement agencies, district attorneys, courts, and judicial officers shall immediately review and adjust their practices and procedures to comply scrupulously with the statutes cited herein as written; and, be it

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That any practice, policy, or training curriculum inconsistent with the plain text of these statutes is not in concert with the law of this State and is contrary to the expressed will of the Legislature; and, be it

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Secretary of State forward official copies of this resolution to the Attorney General of Texas, the Director of the Department of Public Safety, the Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, the Texas Judicial Council, and the district and county attorneys of this State, with the instruction that it be distributed to all relevant personnel.

Section V. Conclusion and Next Steps.

The law is clear and the crisis is real

The law is not the problem. The Texas Legislature has provided a clear, effective, and just framework for criminal procedure. The problem is a culture of non-compliance, fostered by state-approved training that teaches public servants to violate the very laws they have sworn to uphold. This has created a crisis that fills our jails with people who have not had a probable cause determination, that shields official misconduct from grand jury review, and that erodes the public trust upon which our system of justice depends. This is not a partisan issue; it is a constitutional crisis that strikes at the heart of the rule of law.

A resolution is the first step

A concurrent resolution is the necessary first step. It is a declaration by the lawmaking body of this State that the law is not a set of suggestions. It is a command. Passing this resolution will reassert the Legislature’s constitutional authority, put state actors on formal notice that their illegal practices must end, and equip citizens and attorneys with the clear statement of legislative intent they need to defend their rights in court. We urge you to sponsor and support this resolution and to begin the urgent work of restoring the fine mosaic of Texas law to its rightful place as the supreme guide for the conduct of our government.