BILL ANALYSIS |
C.S.H.B. 644 |
By: Canales |
Criminal Jurisprudence |
Committee Report (Substituted) |
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Current law requires a search warrant to include a magistrate's signature but does not require the magistrate's name to be printed on the warrant. There have been reports of local law enforcement agencies illegally seizing money, drugs, jewelry, and other valuable items by signing illegible signatures on search warrants. C.S.H.B. 644 seeks to prevent such abuses.
|
||||||||||||
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. 644 amends the Code of Criminal Procedure to require a search warrant to contain the name of the magistrate who issues the warrant in clearly legible handwriting or in typewritten form with the magistrate's signature.
C.S.H.B. 644 amends the Penal Code to enhance the penalty for tampering with a governmental record from a Class A misdemeanor to a third degree felony if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was a search warrant issued by a magistrate.
|
||||||||||||
EFFECTIVE DATE
September 1, 2015.
|
||||||||||||
COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL AND SUBSTITUTE
While C.S.H.B. 644 may differ from the original in minor or nonsubstantive ways, the following comparison is organized and formatted in a manner that indicates the substantial differences between the introduced and committee substitute versions of the bill.
|
||||||||||||
|