Texas Attorney General Clarifies Scope of Statute Requiring Outside Agency Investigation of Jail Deaths
by Matt Clarke
On February 12, 2026, Texas Attorney General (TAG) Ken Paxton issued an opinion clarifying the scope of a statute requiring the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (TCJS) to appoint an outside agency to investigate the death of a prisoner in a county jail, § 511.021(a), Texas Government Code (TGC). Paxton opined that the statute did not mandate such appointments when the death of a jail prisoner occurred somewhere outside of the jail such as at a hospital.
The Tarrant County Sheriff’s Office requested the opinion after controversy erupted over the large number of jail detainee deaths and allegations that the jail neglected the medical needs of its detainees until they were at death’s doorstep, then transported them to a hospital so that the inevitable death did not occur at the jail.
More than 70 of the Fort Worth jail’s detainees died between 2017, the year Sheriff Bill Waybourn took office, and 2025. The jail has a capacity of 5,015 beds and an average daily population of 4,300 prisoners. Two jailers were indicted for murder related to the 2024 death of Anthony Johnson, Jr. Two other guards were convicted of falsifying cell check records related to the death of Javonte Meyers, who lay on his cell floor for hours suffering seizures that finally killed him.
Paxton noted that the “language in subsection 511.021(a) makes clear that [TCJS] ‘shall appoint’ an independent law enforcement agency to conduct an investigation ‘[o]n the death of a prisoner in the county jail.’” His opinion focused on the last six words. Did they mean a prisoner physically located in the jail or a jail prisoner no matter where the prisoner was located?
Paxton decided that the common usage of the language as well as its usage in other statutes favored the former interpretation: The prisoner must be physically located in the jail for the appointment of an outside investigation to be mandated by § 511.021(a). This is hardly a surprising outcome, as it was the position taken by both Waybourn and TCJS.
“This is an unfortunate decision and one that allows counties to avoid independent investigations if they can quickly transport a dying prisoner off the jail property,” read a statement issued by Dallas attorney Dean Malone, who represents the families of prisoners who died in custody. “And lest one think this cannot happen, counties already regularly discharge people from custody when they know the person is seriously ill and needs hospitalization. Counties do this to avoid the death occurring ‘in custody,’ thus avoiding responsibility for reporting the death to the [TCJS] or [TAG].”
The issue may not be so clear cut. As Paxton points out, TCJS has the authority to promulgate its own rules, one of which requires it be notified within 24 hours of all jail prisoner deaths “while in custody” and that TCJS “shall appoint a law enforcement agency, other than the local law enforcement agency that operates the county jail, to investigate the death” and submit a report on the death to TCJS, 37 Tex. Admin. Code § 269.1(5)(A).
TCJS argued that the real question was whether it had the authority to promulgate § 269.1(5)(A), which goes beyond the “baseline” established by § 511.021(c). Paxton noted that TCJS did not rely on § 511.021(c) during notice-and-comment rulemaking. Instead, TCJS invoked TGC §§ 511.085(a)(8) and (b)(2) as certifying it was a valid exercise of its authority.
Thus, Paxton wrote that his opinion regarding § 511.021(a) “does not mean [TCJS] lacks statutory authority to promulgate a rule requiring independent investigation of prisoner deaths while in custody.”
Waybourn will not be able to avoid those pesky independent jail death investigations after all. See: Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0517.
Additional source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login