"Reputable news sources have a First Amendment right to that information," said Rep. Travis Clardy, R-Nacogdoches, who co-sponsored House Bill 2633, which would limit the release of accident reports to the Department of Public Safety, the law enforcement agency, the court and any person directly involved with the accident, according to chron.com.It also was intended to allow newspapers and broadcast news organization to also obtain information.
"What they're not going to do is be careless with people's private information, with their home addresses. They're going to be respectful." Even the lawmaker who got the amendment passed in the waning minutes of Sunday night's Senate session acknowledged the language likely would be removed in the House.
"It has come to light in recent hours that there have been legal challenges that have shown similar language to be unconstitutional," said Travis McCormick, a spokesman for Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock.
"While the language will likely be stripped in conference committee to avoid legal challenges, Sen. Perry is glad the Legislature was able to start a dialogue on this crucial issue," McCormick said. "In the coming years this topic will inevitably resurface both in the Legislature and the courts as technology continues to evolve and Americans demand more protections for their quickly eroding privacy rights."
Rep. Ana Hernandez, D-Houston, said the purpose of the bill she sponsored was to discourage ambulance chasing, or "barratry," when attorneys seek out and solicit potential new clients at or soon after they are involved in traffic accidents.
Perry, however, had other thoughts for the legislation. Late Sunday, just minutes before the upper chamber was slated to adjourn for the night, the freshman senator put forth an amendment that would bar police from making public any information about a motor vehicle crash beyond the location, the time and date, and the make and model of the vehicles involved.
Unless criminal charges are filed against someone involved in the accident, the police would be barred from releasing to news media the names or other identifying information of those involved.
That would significantly hamper the media's ability to report on accidents that do not rise to the level of criminal charges.
Senators cite confusion
Perry said he wanted to make the change to protect crash victims and their families from "victimization" of the 24-hour news cycle.The amendment was adopted and the bill was passed by a 28-2 vote, with just Sens. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, and Royce West, D-Dallas voting against. Afterward, in response to questions from reporters, several lawmakers - all Democrats - said they had intended to vote against the amendment and the bill, blaming confusion and the late hour for their aye votes. They subsequently had their votes officially changed. By noon Monday, the official recorded tally showed the bill passed by a 19-11 vote, largely along party lines.
"It undermines what our intent was," said co-sponsor Justin Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, said of Perry's amendment. "I would suggest that we not concur with that change."
If they do not agree, Senate and House leadership would appoint a conference committee to hash out a compromise bill to send to Gov. Greg Abbott.
Texas freedom of information advocates and press associations urged the House on Monday to reinstate the media protections, saying it would be a game-changer for press freedom and public access to important public safety information.
"This is terrible public policy," said Donnis Baggett, executive vice president of the Texas Press Association. "We have been reaching out to House members all day, and we're encouraged by the response that we're getting."
Not the first time
Baggett gave the example of a serial drunken driver involved in a crash that results in his death, as well as someone else. Under the amended bill, reporters would not have access to the identities of either the drunken driver or victim since no criminal charges would be filed.Public officials who seek to avoid criminal charges also would not be subject to media scrutiny under this bill, he added.
"Anyone who has been in this business very long knows that sometimes there are efforts to cover up information that could be considered embarrassing to someone in public position," Baggett said. "That's much easier to do if the law is written in such a way that it's not part of the public record."
Kelley Shannon, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said, "Journalists use accident reports to tell the public about current situations and ongoing dangerous traffic problems. Many times the identity of someone involved is important to the story."
It is not the first time such legislation has been tried.
In 2000, Travis County state District Judge Paul Davis overturned a 1997 law that sought to discourage barratry by restricting access to traffic accident information and prevented it from being published online.
©2015 the Houston Chronicle, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency
