By Federico Gutierrez
Chief Investigator in the 49th Judicial District Attorney’s Office
Last year, Jeff Case, a DA Investigator in Wilbarger County, did all prosecutor investigators a service by laying out several TCOLE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement) requirements that were arriving all at once: new-hire documentation, the Target 100 training initiative, new model policies, and minimum standards for law enforcement (LE) agencies. His article answered the question many of us were asking at the time: “What changed?”[1]
A year later, the question itself has changed. The policies have been adopted, the first round of deadlines have passed, TCOLE has continued amending its rules, and agencies are being audited under the new framework. The question now is: “Can we prove we are doing what our policies say we do?”
That is a different kind of compliance problem, especially for a county or district attorney’s office. We are law enforcement agencies for TCOLE purposes, but most of us do not look like traditional patrol departments. Our investigators may work in unmarked vehicles, support prosecutors and grand juries, locate witnesses, execute warrants, handle evidence, provide courtroom security, and assist other agencies. Human resources, payroll, purchasing, records, information technology, and risk management may all be county functions located outside the investigative division. A policy written for a police department does not always fit neatly into that structure.
I have learned that compliance is no longer just a policy-binder project; it is an operational system and a Greek tragedy. The policy must match the mission; somebody must own each reporting requirement; and the office must be able to produce the supporting record when TCOLE asks for it. The policy will also have to navigate the waters of bureaucracy (aka county government).
Model policies are now part of the operating environment
The four TCOLE model-policy deadlines Jeff discussed in last year’s article have all passed. The Medical and Psychological Examination of a Licensee policy had an agency-adoption date of September 1, 2024. The Hiring Procedures, Misconduct Allegations, and Personnel Files policies each had an adoption date of June 1, 2025. TCOLE continues to instruct every LE agency to adopt the model policy or a substantively similar one and submit it to TCOLE.[2]
The important development since last year’s article is that several of these concepts are no longer living only in a model-policy document. Effective November 1, 2025, amended 37 Texas Administrative Code §211.29 placed significant misconduct-investigation and file-maintenance duties directly into the rule governing agency chief administrators. Among other things, the rule requires an agency to initiate an appropriate investigation when it becomes aware of qualifying misconduct; complete the investigation even if the licensee separates; make required reports to TCOLE; maintain personnel and department files; and provide those files when required.[3]
For chief investigators, that changes the mindset. A policy cannot simply be adopted, signed, and shelved. If the policy requires an investigation, notification, file entry, training record, or report, there needs to be a repeatable process that makes that action happen and leaves a record showing that it happened.
The audit file is not the same thing as the HR personnel file
One of the most useful documents is TCOLE’s current Appointing Agency Audit Checklist. It tells an agency what TCOLE expects to find in an appointment file, depending on whether the person is a new licensee, has a break in service of 180 days or less, or has a break longer than 180 days.[4]
The checklist includes familiar documents such as the Personal History Statement, F-5R, National Decertification Index check, Background Confirmation Form, applicable L-2 and L-3 records, CCH and fingerprint returns when required, proof of citizenship and education when applicable, military discharge records, certified court dispositions, annual firearms qualification, and the L-1 or L1-T. The checklist also warns agencies not to submit the L-1 until all required pre-appointment documentation is in place and states that the BCF must be approved before the L-1 is entered in TCLEDDS (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Data Distribution System).[5]
But the sentence I would put a box around is at the bottom of the checklist: TCOLE directs agencies to keep all auditable documents together in a secure but easily accessible folder, separate from personnel files or unrelated documents, and to retain that audit file for at least five years after termination of the appointment.
That can be counterintuitive in a prosecutor’s office. County HR departments may have an excellent employment file. The elected prosecutor may have an administrative file. The investigative division may have training records. None of that necessarily means the TCOLE audit file is complete. The person responsible for TCOLE compliance should be able to pull one licensee’s audit file and walk through the current checklist line by line without hunting through several departments.
There is also a second distinction worth remembering. Under the TCOLE Personnel Files model policy, “personnel file” and “department file” have specific meanings. The personnel file includes commendations, disciplinary documents arising from sustained misconduct, and periodic supervisor evaluations. Other agency-use information, including certain records involving allegations that are not sustained, belongs in the department file under the model-policy framework.[6] These TCOLE categories do not always match the names your county HR department uses. Agree on the vocabulary before the auditor arrives.
A recent audit
Chief Investigator Ruben J. Segovia of the Criminal District Attorney’s Office in Bexar County recently shared with fellow investigators the result of his May 27, 2026, TCOLE audit. He reported that the review took three to four hours and resulted in no deficiencies. The TCOLE Chief Administrator Audit Scoresheet classified the review as a successful audit and reflected a Career Audit Score of zero.[7]
What I found just as useful was what happened after a successful audit. Chief Segovia explained that he nevertheless came away with two additional policies he intended to create and put in place. In other words, “no deficiencies” did not mean “nothing left to improve.” The audit also served as technical assistance and a chance to tighten the agency’s compliance program before a gap became a deficiency.
The scoresheet itself is worth understanding. TCOLE’s form describes a baseline audit; a successful audit; an audit with deficiencies; and an audit involving multiple, repeated, or uncorrected deficiencies. It also explains that corrective action is tied to an agency chief admin- istrator’s career audit score and that rule violations discovered during an audit may be referred separately to TCOLE Enforcement.
That is consistent with the rule. Under 37 Texas Administrative Code §211.26, LE agencies are audited at least once every five years, and agencies with deficiencies may be evaluated more frequently. If deficiencies are identified, the chief administrator must tell TCOLE in writing within 30 days what corrective steps are being taken and the expected compliance date. TCOLE may perform a follow-up audit, and failure to correct deficiencies may lead to administrative penalties or other disciplinary action.[8]
Texas Occupations Code §1701.507 separately authorizes an administrative penalty against a law enforcement agency or governmental entity of up to $1,000 per day, per violation. The statute requires a Chapter 2001 proceeding and directs TCOLE to consider the seriousness and history of the violation, deterrence, corrective efforts, and other matters justice may require.[9] That is not an automatic $1,000 fine every time an auditor finds an error, but it should get every chief administrator’s attention.
Hiring is still where small gaps become large problems
Prosecutor offices frequently hire experienced peace officers from other agencies. This practice can create a false sense of simplicity because the applicant is already licensed. TCOLE’s model hiring policy and audit checklist show why that assumption is risky.
A background investigator must obtain the required consent, review prior law-enforcement employment records, check the National Decertification Index, complete the required criminal-history and fingerprint work, document the review, and make the required TCOLE submissions. TCOLE’s Hiring Procedures model policy says prior-agency file review may be done electronically or in person, but not simply by telephone. If a prior agency has no records, does not respond, or no longer exists, the investigator should document what was done to locate the records and why they could not be obtained.[10]
The practical answer is to make the current TCOLE audit checklist part of the hiring packet. Do not wait until after the investigator is appointed to discover that a fingerprint return, certified disposition, background confirmation, or prior-agency documentation is missing. A supervisor should perform a second-person review before the L-1 is submitted. In short, your elected prosecutor may not be aware how intrusive TCOLE requires the licensing component to be.
Misconduct investigations require a reporting workflow
The Misconduct Allegations model policy is another area where prosecutor offices should slow down and map the process. The policy:
• requires an appropriate administrative or criminal investigation when the agency becomes aware of qualifying misconduct,
• calls for completion within 180 days absent other controlling law or agreements,
• requires reporting of certain criminal investigations to TCOLE within 30 days after completion, and
• requires a summary report of an administrative misconduct investigation within the applicable reporting period. Separation does not end the duty to finish the investigation.[11]
This becomes especially important in a prosecutor office because the same event can touch several roles at once: the elected prosecutor, chief investigator, county HR, civil counsel, internal-affairs investigator, and sometimes a criminal prosecutor. Decide in advance who opens the ad- ministrative file, who watches the 180-day clock, who determines whether a Misconduct Investigation Report is required, who makes the TCOLE submission, and where the final report is stored. A shared calendar entry or a simple tracking log can prevent a missed statutory or policy deadline.
TCOLE’s new employment database changes the day-to-day workflow
Another major change since Jeff’s article is the statewide OpenText Records Repository, or OTRR. TCOLE announced in its July 2026 The Briefing newsletter that OTRR is now available statewide and that agencies can begin submitting personnel files for separated licensees. Background investigators will use OTRR to access personnel files, medical and psychological examination failure records, Misconduct Investigation Reports, fitness-for-duty records, and department-file documents as allowed by law.[12]
Access is not automatic. Chief administrators or delegates must assign OTRR roles through the new Assignment Status Manager in TCLEDDS. TCOLE also cautions that existing SecureShare users will not automatically carry over to OTRR as SecureShare is phased out. For agencies with zero to 99 peace officers, TCOLE currently allots two OTRR users.
That is a small administrative detail with a large operational consequence. If only one person knows the system and that person is out, retires, or changes assignments, a hiring or separation deadline can become somebody else’s emergency. Designate a primary and backup user, make sure both can actually log in, and document the office’s upload and background-investigation workflow now.
Prosecutor offices have a classification issue
Effective November 1, 2025, TCOLE amended Rule 211.1 to add definitions for full-time peace officer, part-time peace officer, and reserve law enforcement officer. TCOLE explained that the change was intended to improve the correct categorization of appointments.[13]
This matters to prosecutor offices that use retired officers, unpaid investigators, or investigators who work limited schedules. The label an office has historically used is not necessarily the appointment category TCOLE will apply. In our office, we reviewed the status of non-payroll investigators in light of the new definitions and the statutory authority for prosecuting attorneys to appoint reserve investigators. The broader lesson is simple: Compare every investigator’s actual work, compensation, benefits, and statutory appointment authority against the current TCOLE definition, then make sure TCLEDDS reflects the correct category. A short conversation with your regional TCOLE field agent can save a much longer correction later.
Do not copy a patrol policy without adapting it
One reason these requirements are puzzling for CA and DA investigators is that some minimum standards were drafted around functions our offices rarely perform. Vehicle pursuits are an easy example. We investigators have traditionally driven unmarked units and do not conduct routine traffic enforcement or patrol. That does not mean the office should ignore a required policy; it means the policy should accurately state the office’s mission, equipment, authorization, supervisory expectations, and operational limitations.
The same principle applies to evidence storage, uniforms, public-access signage, use of force, communications equipment, and other minimum standards. A policy that says your office never does things it never does is not better compliance. Rather, a policy that clearly explains how the requirement applies to your actual operation is far more useful to your investigators and to an auditor.
TCOLE’s pending September 1 framework is also worth watching closely. In May 2026, TCOLE proposed amendments to Rule 211.16 that expressly listed agencies consisting of county or district attorney investigators among the entities presumed to provide public benefit. The same proposal would require an annual continued-compliance report between January 1 and March 1. TCOLE’s July 2026 The Briefing reports that the commission adopted amended §211.16 on June 25, 2026, with an effective date in the proposed text of September 1, 2026.[14] Because the final filed text should control, chiefs should verify the final version as it is published before relying on any specific new subsection.
The practical effect of that policy list became clearer while Brad Hendricks, an Assistant Criminal District Attorney in the Civil Division of the Kaufman County District Attorney’s Office, and I compared our manuals. We exchanged ideas to comply with the directives set out in §211.16, including domestic-abuse protocols and barricaded-subject response. For active-shooter response, Hendricks obtained ALERRT’s model policy and modified it to better fit a district attorney’s office while keeping the ALERRT framework at its core. That is the balance prosecution offices should be looking for: Meet the standard but write the policy for the agency that will actually have to use it.[15]
The same exchange exposed another requirement that is easy to overlook. The proposed §211.16 text requires a public area with written notices posted and visible 24 hours a day explaining how to obtain immediate emergency assistance, how to make a nonemergency crime report, and how to submit a compliment or complaint about an agency member. That sounds simple until the courthouse doors lock. Hendricks asked his TCOLE representative how Kaufman County should comply when it has no public lobby open around the clock. The representative advised that placing the required notices in the notice box outside the courthouse door would satisfy the requirement. That is field guidance rather than language in the rule, but the lesson is valuable: If your building is not open 24 hours, do not wait for an audit to decide what “visible 24 hours a day” means at your location. Ask your field service agent, document the answer, and build the solution into your compliance file.
Know to whom the September 1 deadline applies
House Bill 33 created Public Information Officer (PIO) certification requirements, but prosecutor offices should be careful not to read that requirement too broadly. Government Code §411.3735 applies the law-enforcement-agency PIO requirement to municipal police departments, sheriff’s offices, county constable’s offices, school district police departments, and the Department of Public Safety. Separately, Government Code §418.332 requires a municipality, county, independent school district, open-enrollment charter school, and the Texas Division of Emergency Management to employ or appoint a PIO. The proposed §211.16 language tracks the specifically listed LE agencies and does not list county or district attorney investigator agencies in its PIO subsection.[16]
For a prosecutor office, that distinction points toward coordination rather than duplication. The county’s certified PIO may already satisfy the county-level obligation, while a district attorney’s investigative agency is not expressly listed among the agencies subject to §211.16’s PIO subsection. Covered PIOs who were already serving before House Bill 33 took effect have until September 1, 2026, to obtain the required certification. Before creating a separate investigative- division position solely for compliance, confirm the office’s status with TCOLE and county counsel, and document the answer.
Training did not end with Target 100
The 2021–2025 training cycle that drove the Target 100 push is over, but training compliance should remain on the chief administrator’s dashboard. The current two-year unit runs from September 1, 2025, through August 31, 2027. TCOLE’s current guidance requires peace officers to complete at least 40 hours for the unit, including the legislative update, “Protecting Your TCOLE License,” and 16 hours of ALERRT (Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training). TCOLE also states that peace officers must have completed ALERRT Level 1 by August 31, 2027.[17]
Do not wait until the summer of 2027 to run the report. Review each investigator’s MyTCOLE compliance status at least quarterly and build enough lead time for course availability, travel, medical leave, military duty, and new appointments.
The system that has worked for me
If I had to reduce TCOLE audit readiness to one practice, it would be this: Build the audit before the audit is scheduled. Keep a master TCOLE compliance folder for the agency’s adopted policies, proof that the policies were submitted, current organizational information, minimum- standard documentation, user-access assignments, annual reporting confirmations, and correspondence with the field service agent. For each licensee, maintain the separate auditable appointment file required by the TCOLE checklist. Use the current checklist as the file index. Review the files periodically and again before any appointment or separation submission. Thank you, Deputy Chief Ricardo Mendez, for maintaining this methodology within our agency.
Next, assign an owner and a backup for every recurring duty: TCLEDDS, OTRR, hiring backgrounds, misconduct reports, training compliance, firearms qualification, racial-profiling reporting or exemption, PIO compliance, and policy updates. In a prosecutor office, responsibility can easily fall between the investigative di- vision and county administration because each assumes the other is handling it. Put the assignment in writing.
Finally, maintain a relationship with your TCOLE field service agent. The experience shared by Chief Segovia reinforces something I have also found: The field service side of TCOLE can be a valuable technical-assistance resource. Asking a question before an appointment, filing, or policy decision is much easier than explaining the same issue during an audit.
Final thoughts
The new TCOLE environment can feel awkward for prosecutor investigators because we are being measured under standards designed for the entire Texas law-enforcement community while our day-to-day mission is different. However, the solution is not to treat the rules as somebody else’s problem. Our advantage is that prosecutor offices already understand proof. We build cases by documenting what happened, when it happened, who was responsible, and where the evidence can be found. TCOLE compliance requires the same approach.
There’s a lesson here in Homer’s Odyssey. Odysseus always knew his destination was Ithaca, but reaching it required him to adapt to the conditions he encountered along the way. TCOLE sets the destination by establishing the standards an agency must meet. How a prosecutor office sails there can, and should, reflect its own mission, staffing, facilities, and responsibilities. We can make a policy our own without changing the destination. We can chart our own course, but we still must reach Ithaca.
Adopt the right policy. Make the policy fit the office. Assign responsibility. Keep the proof. Then audit yourself before TCOLE does.
[1] Read his article at www.tdcaa.com/journal/tcoles-requirements-for-prosecutors-offices.
[2] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE), The Briefing, July 2026, p. 14, “Adopted Model Policies,” www.tcole.texas.gov/document/briefing-july-2026.pdf.
[3] 37 Tex. Admin. Code §211.29; Texas Register, adopted rule effective Nov. 1, 2025, www.sos.state.tx .us/texreg/archive/October242025/Adopted%20Rules/37.PUBLIC%20SAFETY%20AND%20CORRECTIONS.html.
[4] TCOLE, Appointing Agency Audit Checklist, Rev. 7-11-25, www.tcole.texas.gov/document/agency-audit- checklist-rev7-4-25.pdf.
[5] Id.
[6] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, State of Texas Model Policy: Personnel Files, www.tcole.texas.gov/ document/mp-pf.pdf; Tex. Occ. Code §1701.4535.
[7] TCOLE, Chief Administrator Audit Scoresheet, Ruben J. Segovia, May 27, 2026 (copy provided to author); email from Chief Ruben Segovia regarding audit experience (copy provided to author).
[8] 37 Tex. Admin. Code § 211.26; Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, TCOLE Statutes and Rules Handbook (Nov. 1, 2025), pp. 20-21, https://tcole.texas.gov/ document/tcole-handbook-2025.pdf.
[9] Tex. Occ. Code §1701.507; 37 Tex. Admin. Code §223.2.
[10] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, State of Texas Model Policy: Hiring Procedures, www.tcole.texas.gov/ document/mp-hp.pdf; Tex. Occ. Code §1701.451.
[11] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, State of Texas Model Policy: Misconduct Allegations, www.tcole.texas.gov/document/mp-ma.pdf; Tex. Occ. Code §1701.4522.
[12] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, The Briefing, July 2026, pp. 2–6, www.tcole.texas.gov/document/ briefing-july-2026.pdf.
[13] 37 Tex. Admin. Code §211.1; Tex. Gov’t Code §41.102; Texas Register, adopted rule effective Nov. 1, 2025, www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/ October242025/Adopted%20Rules/37.PUBLIC%20SAFETY%20AND%20CORRECTIONS.html.
[14] Texas Register, proposed amended 37 Tex. Admin. Code §211.16, May 22, 2026, www.sos.state.tx.us/ texreg/archive/May222026/Proposed%20Rules/37.PUBLIC%20SAFETY%20AND%20CORRECTIONS.html; TCOLE, The Briefing, July 2026, p. 14 (reporting adoption June 25, 2026).
[15] Email from Brad Hendricks, Assistant Criminal District Attorney, Civil Division, District Attorney’s Office in Kaufman County, regarding §211.16 policy development, ALERRT model-policy adaptation, and 24-hour public-notice guidance from the office’s TCOLE representative (copy provided to author).
[16] Tex. Gov’t Code §§411.3735, 418.332–.334; HB 33, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), enrolled version, https://capitol .texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00033F.htm; Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, The Briefing, July 2026, p. 7, Public Information Officer Certification, www.tcole.texas.gov/document/briefing-july-2026.pdf; Texas Register, proposed amended 37 Tex. Admin. Code §211.16, May 22, 2026.
[17] Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, The Briefing, October 2025, pp. 4-5, www.tcole.texas.gov/ document/briefing-october-2025.pdf; 37 Tex. Admin. Code §218.3.