TITLE 37. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 28. DNA, CODIS, FORENSIC ANALYSIS, AND CRIME LABORATORIES
SUBCHAPTER
N.
The Texas Department of Public Safety (the department) adopts new §§28.211 - 28.215, concerning Texas Crime Laboratory Records Portal. These rules are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the April 25, 2025, issue of the Texas Register (50 TexReg 2575) and will be republished.
These new rules implement Senate Bill 991, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023), which establishes an electronic discovery portal hosted by the department that makes crime laboratory records equally available to prosecutors and defense counsel.
The department accepted comments on proposed new §§28.211 - 28.215 through May 27, 2025. Comments were submitted by Lauren Woolridge with NMS Labs and District Attorney Philip Mack Furlow with the 106th District Attorney's Office. Several of the comments were questions on the portal mechanics relating to operational issues, instead of substantive comments on the rules. These items will be addressed by direct communication to the commenter. The comments received and the department's responses are summarized below.
COMMENT:
Written comments submitted by Ms. Woolridge indicate that record recipient contact information should be provided to the lab.
RESPONSE:
This comment relates to the operational mechanics of the portal and has no impact on the proposed rule. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation and operation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.212 submitted by Ms. Woolridge state that labs should be given instructions regarding resource availability and associated plans for setup support and deployment of the portal with implementation timelines based on resource availability and key milestones.
RESPONSE:
This comment relates to the operational mechanics of the portal implementation and has no impact on the proposed rule. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.212(c) submitted by Ms. Woolridge recommend that instead of assigning a set number of cases, participation should be required based on the business' overall percentage of Texas casework.
RESPONSE:
The department disagrees with this comment. This recommendation would result in an undue burden on smaller laboratories while simultaneously exempting larger laboratories with more prevalent caseloads in Texas. For example, if a percentage was set at 10%, a small laboratory only capable of working ten cases per year, one of which was in Texas, would be required to participate in the portal. Whereas a large laboratory working 100,000 cases per year could work up to 9,999 cases without participating in the portal. This would result in an imbalance that is not in the best interest of discovery practices in the state of Texas. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.213 submitted by Ms. Woolridge state that the proposed rules do not provide guidance on how to isolate and securely transfer only Texas-relevant data to the portal. She indicates without clear segregation requirements, there is a risk of over-disclosure or inadvertent sharing of non-Texas or non-criminal case data. Ms. Woolridge also suggests the department define how the request mechanism will work and establish a request notification system to ensure compliance.
RESPONSE:
This comment relates to the operational mechanics of the portal and has no impact on the proposed rule. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation and operation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.213 submitted by Ms. Woolridge state that labs can produce 30,000+ reports in a calendar year where less than 10% are needed for court and suggests the department rephrase the rule to be in alignment with Government Code §411.162 to include the following language, "Requested case specific records…," in order for labs to comply for records specifically requested.
RESPONSE:
The department disagrees with this comment. The proposed rule was developed in collaboration with a diverse group of stakeholders from the criminal justice community, including representatives from forensic laboratories, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. Through that process, it was determined that providing complete case records through the portal regardless of whether the records were requested for a specific court proceeding best supported transparency, consistency, and timely access to information in criminal litigation. In addition, discovery requirements under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 39.14 are not limited to records needed for court. It is the department's position that the rule aligns with the statutory intent and reflects a balanced approach. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.213 submitted by Ms. Woolridge recommend including a specific timeframe by which records must be uploaded, such as one month, instead of "as soon as practicable" because it lacks specificity. Ms. Woolridge also requested to clarify how attorneys in the state of Texas will know when and how to make requests for case records.
RESPONSE:
The department disagrees with this comment. The phrase "as soon as practicable" is consistent with language in the Texas criminal discovery statute under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 39.14, and provides flexibility while considering feasibility and practicality. The second part of the comment relates to the operational mechanics of the portal and has no impact on the proposed rule. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.214(a) submitted by Ms. Woolridge suggest allowing proprietary records to be flagged and made available only upon request through an NDA, subpoena, or a protective order and allow for the file request mechanism to support file attachments for subpoenas to be included with the request.
RESPONSE:
This comment relates to the operational mechanics of the portal and has no impact on the proposed rule. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation and operation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.214(b) submitted by Ms. Woolridge recommend aligning the request mechanism in the portal to include both case and non-case specific records to streamline the process for both the lab and the attorneys; providing additional instructions regarding multiple or supplemental requests following use of the request mechanism through the portal, including guidance on how to conduct communications related to the request; standardizing the education for attorneys and courts on locating documents needed; providing instruction to the lab regarding document hierarchy, data tags, and search criteria to better understand how documents must be made available within the portal; and standardize the education for attorneys and courts on locating documents needed.
RESPONSE:
These comments relate to the operational mechanics of the portal and have no impact on the proposed rule. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation and operation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.215 submitted by Ms. Woolridge related to the safety and security of portal contents and was a series of questions instead of comments or recommendations on the rule proposal.
RESPONSE:
The questions either relate to the operational mechanics of the portal and have no impact on the proposed rule or ask for legal advice, which is beyond the scope of the rulemaking process. The department will continue to communicate and work with laboratories, prosecutors, and defense counsel in the implementation and operation of the portal as it continues to be developed. No changes were made to the proposed rule based on this comment.
COMMENT:
Written comments related to §28.215 from Mr. Furlow state this section exceeds the scope of the statute by requiring a prosecutor to "maintain up-to-date portal access" for, rather than merely designate, defense counsel and by expanding that duty to include unnamed "others" who may not be included within the scope of the statute. Mr. Furlow also states the phrase "maintain up-to-date portal access" is ambiguous and could be read to mandate more than mere identification of who can use the portal. In lieu of the proposed rule, Mr. Furlow suggests the department consider language more consistent with the statute as follows: Attorneys representing the state must identify at least one contact in their office to designate and keep up to date the person or persons who should be authorized to access the portal under Government Code §411.162.
RESPONSE:
The department does not oppose this recommendation and will adopt the rule with changes as it more closely aligns with the statutory language and does not result in a substantive change. Rule text language in §28.215 is being changed from "Attorney representing the state must designate at least one administrator to maintain up-to-date portal access to defense counsel and others assigned to the case consistent with Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 39.14 (d), (e), and (f)" to "Attorneys representing the state must identify at least one contact in the attorney's office to designate and keep up to date the person(s) authorized to access the portal under Government Code, §411.162."
These rules are adopted pursuant to Texas Government Code, §411.004(3), which authorizes the Public Safety Commission to adopt rules considered necessary for carrying out the department's work; §411.162, which authorizes the department by rule to establish and maintain a central computerized portal that facilitates the process for requesting crime laboratory records among crime laboratories, attorneys representing the state, and parties authorized to access the records pursuant to Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure; §411.163, which authorizes the department by rule to require mandatory participation in the transfer of crime laboratory records using the crime laboratory portal and provide exemptions; §411.164, which authorizes the department by rule to require the attorney representing the state to provide access and use of the crime laboratory portal to the defense; and Senate Bill 991, 88th Leg., R.S. (2023).
§
28.211.
(a) In this subchapter, the terms "accredited field of forensic science" and "forensic examination or test not subject to accreditation" have the meanings provided by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.01; and the terms "crime laboratory," "criminal action," and "forensic analysis" have the meanings provided by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 38.35.
(b) The Texas Crime Laboratory Records Portal (the portal) administered by the department, as required by Texas Government Code, §411.162, is a central computerized portal that facilitates the sharing of crime laboratory records between crime laboratories, attorneys representing the state, and defense counsel. The purpose of the portal is to ensure that attorneys representing the state and defense counsel have equal access to relevant forensic analysis records.
§
28.212.
(a) All crime laboratories that operate disciplines in an accredited field of forensic science and conduct forensic analysis for use in a criminal action in Texas must participate in the portal by transferring crime laboratory records as soon as practicable through the portal for at least those accredited fields of forensic science. A crime laboratory may also choose to participate in the portal for any forensic examination or test not subject to accreditation but for which the crime laboratory performs casework.
(b) A crime laboratory that only performs forensic examinations or tests not subject to accreditation is not required to participate in the portal but may choose to participate.
(c) A crime laboratory located outside of Texas but accredited by the Texas Forensic Science Commission that performs an average of fewer than 300 cases annually in Texas during the immediately preceding five-year period may submit a request to be designated exempt from mandatory participation in the portal.
(1) A crime laboratory's request to be designated exempt from mandatory participation must be made to the DPS Crime Laboratory Records Program Manager (manager) at CLRConnect@dps.texas.gov.
(2) The manager must respond to the request for exemption within 60 days of receipt of the request.
(3) A crime laboratory that is denied an exemption request may appeal that decision to the DPS Crime Laboratory Division Chief by mailing an appeal request with relevant information, including the exemption request and the response, to: Crime Laboratory Division Chief, Texas Department of Public Safety, Attn: CLR Connect Exemption Appeal, 5805 N. Lamar Blvd. (MSC 0460), Austin, Texas 78752.
(d) Exemptions are effective for two years. Subsequent exemption requests are not guaranteed and must be requested no fewer than 60 days before the exemption expires.
(e) The department must provide a list on the portal webpage of each crime laboratory that has been designated exempt from mandatory portal participation with the exemption effective date.
(f) A crime laboratory, regardless of an exemption designation, must continue to comply with all discovery obligations as set forth by Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 39.14.
§
28.213.
All case-specific records related to a criminal action's forensic analysis that have reached a crime laboratory's designated completion step must be made available through the portal as soon as practicable and obtainable by any authorized user with sufficient rights to access that case. A case-specific record is a record pertaining solely to a single case or cases linked to a specific criminal action.
§
28.214.
(a) A crime laboratory must make non-case-specific records available either through the portal or on the crime laboratory's public website. A non-case-specific record is a record relevant beyond a single case or cases linked to a specific criminal action, including information on instruments, techniques, laboratory personnel, or general methodologies. Crime laboratories that make records available on a public website must include information related to the location of those records on the portal.
(b) The portal must include a process for requesting non-case-specific records not otherwise available through the portal or made publicly available on a crime laboratory's website.
§
28.215.
Attorneys representing the state must identify at least one contact in the attorney's office to designate and keep up to date the person(s) authorized to access the portal under Government Code, §411.162.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 13, 2025.
TRD-202502000
D. Phillip Adkins
General Counsel
Texas Department of Public Safety
Effective date: July 3, 2025
Proposal publication date: April 25, 2025
For further information, please call: (512) 424-5848