Free Minds & Free Markets

How the ‘Dead Suspect Loophole’ Lets Texas Police Hide Records of Jail Deaths and Shootings

A Reason investigation of a notorious Texas public records loophole found 81 cases where police hid records of shootings and deaths in custody.

Kenny Tong | Dreamstime.comKenny Tong | Dreamstime.comIn 2013, an Austin police officer shot 70-year-old John Schaefer twice in the chest, killing him on his own porch.

Schaefer had called 911 to report that he'd shot a neighbor's pit bull after the dog attacked him in his backyard. The officer arrived at Schaefer's house and positioned himself by the door without announcing himself. When Schaefer stepped outside with a holstered handgun, the officer grabbed him in an attempt to disarm him. Schaefer pulled away, drew the gun, and pointed it at the cop, at which point the officer shot and killed him, according to the police narrative of events.

In the immediate aftermath, Schaefer's family and friends were incredulous, a lawyer for the Schaefer family, Robby Alden, told local news outlets. They couldn't believe Schaefer, a gun safety instructor and range supervisor, would draw on a police officer.

A grand jury cleared the officer of criminal wrongdoing, but a month later, Alden filed a public records request to the Travis County district attorney's office for internal records concerning the shooting. What the Schaefers discovered, as many other Texans have, is that when someone dies in police custody in the state, it's nearly impossible to get anything besides the most basic incident reports.

Citing a controversial Texas public record statute that shields the release of police records in cases that didn't result in a conviction, the Austin Police Department denied the request. The Texas office of the attorney general, which reviews all such denials, upheld the rejection.

This statute is known by critics as the "dead suspect loophole," and it has been employed repeatedly by the state to prevent families, journalists, and others from accessing records concerning police shootings and jail deaths.

The loophole not only prevents loved ones from accessing information about how family members died, it protects police from scrutiny, forcing those seeking to pursue legal action against the police to navigate bureaucratic hurdles that can take years to overcome.

Up until now, however, it has never been clear how often the loophole has been used. But an investigation by Reason found that between 2003 and 2018, the loophole was used in at least 81 cases.

Those whose requests were categorically denied include family members trying to discover why their loved ones had died, as well as reporters investigating deaths in police custody. There have been 9,077 deaths in police custody since 2005, according to the Texas Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization that tracks deaths in police custody in the state.

The Texas legislature passed the statute, Sec. 552.108(a)(2), in 1997. It was intended to shield the privacy of the wrongfully accused and innocent, but media organizations and transparency advocates say the law has been twisted to shield the police from scrutiny. Texas state Rep. Joe Moody (D-El Paso) has introduced legislation to close the loophole.

"The idea behind that statute originally was to protect the living or, say, somebody who was falsely accused or investigated and found not to be worthy of being charged or brought to trial," says Kelly Shannon, the executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. "The way it's being used now is if a suspect dies in custody, the information is not made available to the public because the case didn't end in a conviction or deferred adjudication. Well, guess what? That case isn't going to end that way because the suspect is dead."

Reason searched more than 26,000 public records letter rulings from the Texas attorney general's website that cited the loophole between 2003 and 2018. The letters, which are generated in almost all cases where Texas agencies deny a records request, were then put into a searchable online database.

So far, Reason has identified 81 letters involving custodial death reports, which Texas law enforcement agencies are required to produce when someone dies in custody. Those reports, as well as arrest reports, are public record in Texas, but they only contain summaries of official police narratives.

In case after case—in response to requests from family members, lawyers, and reporters—police departments and cities cited the exemption to withhold nearly everything else, such as video footage, 911 calls, and other evidence that could corroborate or contradict those reports.

A separate investigation by news outlet KXAN in November that focused on Texas' 21 largest police departments identified at least 154 public information requests related to 52 in-custody deaths that cited the exemption to withhold records.

The use of the exemption has grown steadily over time. The Texas attorney general's office responded to 823 requests for rulings that cited 552.108(a)(2) in 2003, according to Reason's analysis. By 2017, that number ballooned to 3,046.

"It's big enough to drive a freight train through," Joe Larsen, a Houston open government attorney, says of the exemption.

The most infamous example is that of 18-year-old Graham Dyer, who died after being arrested by police officers in Mesquite, Texas, one night in 2013. Dyer was having a bad LSD trip and became extremely agitated. Two hours after his arrest he was rushed to a hospital. He died the following morning from severe head trauma.

Photo Credit: Kenny Tong |

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ReadMyLips88||

    I can't wait until we have strong Federal privacy laws. Can you imagine what the Feds and states will hide once that's in effect? #smh

  • ||

    WTF?? The feds are going to save us from the states? More gov, more centralization, more impersonal bureaucracy is the answer?
    I hope you're using sarcasm.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "That case isn't going to end that way because..." the cop union found a way to shield their murderers from conviction. Pretty neat.

  • RoyMo||

    Is there a single "privacy" law that isn't abused to hide abuse by the powerful against the weak?

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Peeping Tom laws?

  • Flinch||

    I'm guessing no, because I can't think of a single congressman that has ever been charged as a peeping tom. That is remarkable, considering their use of taxpayer dollars to hush up sexual harassment claims [with an accompanying NDA to protect the guilty, I wouldn't doubt]. Last I heard there were over 200 claims settled this way and... they may not even have to be legitimate. For all we know people get paid to make a claim to flush out some cash to launder back into a campaign.
    But thinking about this story, anyone shot by a police officer in Texas apparently has to sue for wrongful death in order to have any hope of discovery. That is a pitiful state of affairs in that it effectively means open season on poor people [who can't afford process].

  • n00bdragon||

    Argh! Dead men tell no tales!

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    There have been 9,077 deaths in police custody since 2005, according to the Texas Justice Initiative, a nonprofit organization that tracks deaths in police custody in the state.

    Even counting all of 2018 to make 14 years, that's 648 cop killers every year in Texas alone. Doesn't seem impossible, but does seem high, when other reports are of 1000 cop killers nationwide.

  • Zeb||

    Killed by cops, not killers of cops.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    Yes, I know. I wasn't clear enough, should have found a better adjecitve-noun pair. The question stands.

  • Zeb||

    OK, I see what you mean now.

    I think it's probably that "died in custody" doesn't always mean killed by cops. I'm sure cops have tricks to move people from one column to the other. But I don't doubt that there is a good number of people dying in police custody for reasons other than that the cops killed them.

  • Rob Misek||

    What, like old age or cancer?

    Custody means, in control and care of.

  • Qsl||

    So the standard libertarian response to a corrupt state is to vote with your feet.

    Or you could have a federal government bring racketeering charges against the local police, but that has its own problems of concentrated federal power.

    So how do libertarians work their way through this?

  • ||

    This libertarian (voluntarist) doesn't vote, period. Voting is forfeiting sovereignty to a ruling elite. That's the problem, not the solution. Expressing rejection by leaving is surrendering the country to the enemy. It's a good strategy if there was a free country to escape to. There isn't. I will stay and fight the ignorance, the willful blindness, the victims who defend their enslavers. I will fight with words of enlightenment, reason, and logic.

  • Robert Ore||

    Fire all the Law Enforcement Officers and replace them with Peace Officers.

  • Bubba Jones||

    It's not necessarily a corrupt state, it's a corrupt agency of the state.

    The correct response is to vote in more transparency.

  • Rob Misek||

    Unlike the honest, the corrupt plan to get away with crime. They look for and leverage human weaknesses like greed.

    Only the shared truth threatens them and they actively plan to prevent it.

    The only solution is to redouble our ability to discern and share truth.

    We need the human right to record every memory we witness everywhere we are. We now have the technology to do it.

    If someone is taken into custody the opportunity to be recorded continuously and retrieve the recordings must be a human right.

    The honest majority are largely unaware of the corruption around them, until they experience it. The media and government are corrupt and trusting them is the last thing we should be doing.

    We need to protect and expand our rights that enable our discerning and sharing of truth. This must be the plan of the honest and it will defeat the corrupt.

  • ||

    "We need to protect and expand our rights..." We can't have a sustainable society without rights. Protection of rights was the reason for the American Revolution and why a gov was created. However, that gov, under the Constitution, was granted sovereignty. A sovereign gov and sovereign individuals are impossible. They are opposites.
    Few, only the anti-Federalists, recognized this fact. When the Constitution was adopted, it was the beginning of the end for a sovereign people, the American Dream. It was a silent, covert, anti-American coup. We the victims are living with the proof all around us. And few are capable of identifying it, thanks to gov schooling, brainwashing.

  • ||

    To sum up the "catch 22" police use: You can't investigate the death of someone in police custody when they are dead.
    In a broader perspective, I would say you can't grant sovereignty to authorities and then hold them accountable.
    Expecting law enforcers to enforce the law against themselves is delusional. One must be brainwashed and living in denial of reality to do so. This describes most, its the result of the gov school system.

  • Rob Misek||

    It's unclear if your pining for justice or to be the supreme ruler,

    We can't all be sovereign so sovereignty isn't our objective. There are also corrupt sovereigns.

    Justice is based on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    Recording our memories and sharing them promotes truth, they are undeniable.

    Never before in human history have we had this opportunity. Here it is, the solution to corruption. The government and media want no part of it and apparently neither do many others.

    I guess the benefits of corruption outweigh the virtue of justice to them and they are blinded by their greed to see that corruption has a violent ending.

    So choose corruption or justice and know your enemy.

  • Gasman||

    "When Schaefer stepped outside with a holstered handgun, the officer grabbed him in an attempt to disarm him. Schaefer pulled away, drew the gun, and pointed it at the cop, at which point the officer shot and killed him, according to the police narrative of events."

    Well, it that's actually the police description of events, then sounds like first degree murder. Taking a man by surprise on his own porch is wrong, and just plain stupid. Cop deserved to have a surprised individual draw on him, and because the setup was of the cop's own doing, the cop does not get to gun the man down as a result of the cop's stupidity.
    If the police officer makes a fatal mistake, it is not acceptable for that officer to shift the fatality to some one else.


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online