Loading…
Four historical standing orders registered together: (1) Special Order 72472 (December 11, 2019) directing the Sheriff's Department and Court Security to use the Cadena Reeves Justice Center sally-port exit when escorting jurors and the public after hours; (2) Special Order 35751 (October 5, 2001, with its six-page opinion) authorizing grand jury summons to federal agencies under the Privacy Act exceptions; (3) Special Order 64807 (February 1, 2012) attaching a HIPAA standing order to the Criminal District Attorney's trial subpoenas to covered entities; and (4) the August 18, 2011 Joint Order of Referral sending all Article 18.18 disposition-of-contraband matters to the Criminal Law Magistrate unless a district court retains them. Items (2) and (3) have since been re-entered and combined by the July 2023 Standing Order Regarding Subpoenas (TOPICs doc 1488); item (4) is the operative referral for contraband dispositions, and item (1) directs court security rather than litigants.
Registered by Bexar County as the criminal district courts' standing orders; the operative practice rule in the set is the 2011 referral of Article 18.18 contraband-disposition matters to the Criminal Law Magistrate. The subpoena orders of 2001 and 2012 are carried here as history — the current versions are the July 2023 Fair Credit Reporting and HIPAA/federal-agency standing orders (TOPICs docs 1487 and 1488). Historical benches signed each order; no judge join. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
[The file compiles five instruments of the Bexar County district courts giving preference to criminal matters, each a certified or stamped copy.] [Instrument 1, stamped 72472; recording notation in the left margin: 12/18/2019 VOL 5235 PG 101-, last digit cut off] SPECIAL ORDER NO. 72472 STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL MATTERS AND § 144TH, 175TH, 186TH, 187TH, 226TH, 227TH, 290TH, 379TH, 399TH, AND 437TH COUNTY OF BEXAR § OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS [The caption is partly covered by the seal of the District Court of Bexar County.] STANDING ORDER REGARDING ESCORTING OF JURORS AFTER HOURS The Criminal District Court Judges of Bexar County do hereby issue this Standing Court Order as follows: The Bexar County Sheriff’s Department and Bexar County Court Security are hereby ORDERED to use the Sally Port exit out of the Cadena Reeves Justice Center when they are called upon after hours to escort potential jurors, existing jurors, former jurors, and members of the public out of the Paul Elizondo Tower and Cadena Reeves Justice Center. SIGNED, ORDERED AND ENTERED THE [handwritten: 11th] day of [handwritten: December], 2019. [signature] RAY OLIVARRI, JUDGE, 144TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] CATHERINE TORRES-STAHL, JUDGE, 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] JEFFERSON MOORE, JUDGE, 186TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] STEPHANIE BOYD, JUDGE, 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] VELIA MEZA, JUDGE, 226TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] KEVIN O’CONNELL, JUDGE, 227TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] JENNIFER PEÑA, JUDGE, 290TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] RON RANGEL, JUDGE, 379TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] FRANK CASTRO, JUDGE, 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] LORI I. VALENZUELA, JUDGE, 437TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [Footer: Case Number: 72472, Document Type: SPECIAL ORDER, Page N of 3] CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE STATE OF TEXAS I, MARY ANGIE GARCIA, BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD AS INDICATED BY THE VOLUME, PAGE AND COURT ON SAID DOCUMENT. WITNESSED MY OFFICIAL HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE ON THIS: December 18, 2019 MARY ANGIE GARCIA BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS By: [signature] ERIC GLORIA, Deputy District Clerk (NOT VALID WITHOUT THE CLERK’S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE.) [Seal of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas] [Instrument 2, stamped 35751] SPECIAL ORDER NO. 35751 IN RE: § STATE OF TEXAS GRAND JURY SUMMONS § COUNTY OF BEXAR STANDING ORDER In consideration of the Court’s Opinion issued on this date, the Court issues the following Order pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7) & (11): IT IS ORDERED that the Foreperson of any Grand Jury empaneled by this Court and the attorney representing the State before the Grand Jury are hereby authorized, without further Order of this Court, to request from any entity all information necessary to resolve criminal investigations undertaken by the Grand Jury. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be attached to all Grand Jury Summons that are directed to a federal agency as that term is defined in 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f)(1), 552a(a)(1). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the federal agency or individual identified by the Grand Jury Summons attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference shall forthwith comply with the Grand Jury Summons. If necessary, the federal agency shall supply an employee who is competent to provide testimony before the Grand Jury related to the requested information. SO ORDERED on this the [handwritten: 5] day of October, 2001 [signature] JUANITA VASQUEZ GARDNER, JUDGE, 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT [signature] RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE, 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT [Instrument 3, stamped 35752 at the head and foot of each page] IN RE: § STATE OF TEXAS GRAND JURY SUMMONS § COUNTY OF BEXAR OPINION ON STANDING ORDER On this day, the Court considered the impact of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, upon the function of grand juries empaneled under this Court’s jurisdiction for the purposes of investigating criminal complaints. Pursuant to the terms of the Privacy Act, federal agencies, as defined at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(1), 552(f)(1) & 552a(a)(1), are prohibited from disclosing "any record¹ which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains...." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). This prohibition against the disclosure of records on individuals maintained by federal agencies has hampered the investigations conducted by grand juries empaneled by this Court by proscribing the ability of federal agencies to comply with summons issued by the grand jury. However, this Court finds that two statutory exceptions to the prohibition against disclosure apply to summons from the grand jury, and this Opinion and Standing Order shall effectuate them both. See, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552a(b)(7) & (11). ¹ "...the term ‘record’ means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(a)(4). Law Enforcement Request The Privacy Act provides an exception to the prohibition against disclosure where disclosure is made “to another agency or ´to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). The Court takes judicial notice that the State of Texas, and the County of Bexar, Texas, are governmental jurisdictions within and under the control of the United States. All individuals residing in Bexar County have the right to have a grand jury consider any felony charges brought against them, and no individual shall be tried upon felony charges unless the individual is indicted by a grand jury or chooses to waive the right. See, U. S. CONST. amend. V; see also, TEX. CONST. art. I, § 10. In order to facilitate felony prosecutions in compliance with the individual’s right to a grand jury hearing, the Texas Legislature has empowered this Court to summon and select qualified individuals to serve upon the grand jury. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 19.04(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). This Court reviews the qualifications of individuals summoned for grand jury service, and the Court rejects those that do not meet certain statutorily mandated qualifications. Id., TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 19.08, 19.20, 19.21, 19.22, 19.23, 19.24 (Vernon 1977 & Supp. 2001). Once the Court has obtained fourteen qualified individuals, the grand jury is empaneled. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 19.26(a) (Vernon Supp. 2001). Once empaneled, the grand jury is charged with the duty of "inquir[ing] into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.09 (Vernon 1977). In order to allow the grand jury to investigate the allegations brought before it, the law authorizes the grand jury to issue summons and subpoenas to obtain evidence. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 20.10, 20.11 (Vernon 1977). The summons and subpoenas issue under either the signature of the Grand Jury’s Foreperson or the signature of the attorney representing the State before the grand jury. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 20.10, 20.11, 20.12 (Vernon 1977). The Grand Jury Foreperson presides over the grand jury, conducting and organizing the business of the grand jury. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.07 (Vernon 1977). The grand jury is a law enforcement instrumentality that is authorized by law to investigate complaints of felonious criminal conduct and to issue indictments where warranted. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.09 (Vernon 1977); see, Regard to Gren, 633 F.2d 825, 827 (9th Cir. 1980), quoting, In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 486 F.2d 85, 89-90 (3rd Cir. 1973). The Grand Jury Foreperson clearly heads this instrumentality. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.07 (Vernon 1977). As writs of process, summons and subpoenas are "written requests" as that term is employed in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7). The issuance of summons and subpoenas comprise the investigatory activity that is the grand jury’s duty to perform, and the issuance of subpoenas and summons by the grand jury is specifically authorized by law. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 20.09, 20.10, 20.11 (Vernon 1977). The summons issued by Grand Juries empaneled by this Court are directed to specific individuals or to the Custodian of Records of a specific entity, and also specify what, if any, records are being sought for review by the grand jury. Due to the secrecy requirement for grand jury investigations, the specific subject matter of the investigation is not revealed by the summons, but the summons clearly shows that it relates to a grand jury investigation. This Court FINDS that summons or subpoenas which are issued pursuant to law comply with the requirements of the law enforcement request exception to the Privacy Act. See, 5 U.S.C. § 522a(b)(7). Disclosure Pursuant to Court Order The Privacy Act provides a second exception to the prohibition against disclosure where such disclosure is made “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). This Court is a court of “competent jurisdiction” as that term is employed in 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). “A court of competent jurisdiction is a court ‘having power and authority of law at the time of acting to do the particular act.’” In re: A Motion for a Standing Order, 1 Vet. App. 555, 559 (1990). State courts which are authorized by law with jurisdiction over the subject matter at issue are courts of competent jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Tucker, 689 A.2d 1214, 1215-1216 (D.C. App. 1997) ["...the court with jurisdiction over the substantive controversy likewise has jurisdiction to determine whether disclosure of the records in question should be required."] The judicial power of the State Texas has been vested in this Court by the Texas Constitution, and this Court has been specifically directed to investigate and litigate violations of Texas criminal law. TEX. CONST. art. V, §§ 1, 7 & 8; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 24.139(d) (Vernon Supp. 2001). This Court has jurisdiction over all felony grade cases, all misdemeanor cases involving official misconduct, and of certain misdemeanors transferred to the Court. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 4.05 (Vernon Supp. 2001). Grand juries empaneled by this Court are authorized to investigate any criminal matter arising in Bexar County, Texas. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 20.09, 21.01, 21.26 (Vernon 1977, 1989). Thus, this Court is a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the necessity of disclosing records protected by the federal Privacy Act when those records are relevant to criminal investigations conducted by the grand jury. See, Gilbreath v. Guadalupe Hospital Foundation, Inc., 5 F.3d 785, 787, 791 (5th Cir. 1993) [Where authorized by law, subpoenas issued by an administrative law judge constitute orders of a court of competent jurisdiction.] The purpose of the federal Privacy Act is to protect sensitive information on individuals from inappropriate public disclosure. See, Doe v. DiGenova, 779 F.2d 74, 84 (D.C. Cir. 1985). All grand jury deliberations are cloaked in secrecy pursuant to Texas law. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 19.34, 20.02 (Vernon 1977). Violations of the secrecy requirement may be punished with incarceration of up to thirty days and a five hundred dollar fine. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 20.02 (Vernon 1977). Thus, appropriate protections are in place to ensure that records containing information on an individual will not be made public unless the individual is indicted and the information becomes relevant evidence in a criminal prosecution. Therefore, the Court FINDS that a Standing Order commanding compliance with summons or subpoenas issued by the grand jury will comprise an Order from a court of competent jurisdiction, and will invoke the exception to the prohibition against disclosure found at 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11). The Court FURTHER FINDS that the issuance of the Standing Order is appropriate to ensure the viability of the grand jury system in this County, and that such Order will not conflict with the purposes of the federal Privacy Act. Thus, a strong public policy need exists for the implementation of this exemption. ENTERED on this the [handwritten: 5] day of October, 2001 [signature] JUANITA VASQUEZ-GARDNER, JUDGE, 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT [signature] RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE, 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT [The opinion pages are numbered 2 through 6 after the first.] [Instrument 4, stamped 64807; recording notation in the left margin: 02/01/2012 VOL 3816 PG 13 and PG 14] SPECIAL ORDER NO. 64807 STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL MATTERS AND § 144TH, 175TH, 186TH, 187TH, 226TH, 227TH, 290TH, 379TH, 399TH, AND 437TH COUNTY OF BEXAR § OF BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS [Seal of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas] STANDING ORDER REGARDING TRIAL SUBPOENAS The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act, 45 CFR 160 and 164 (HIPAA), provides that a covered entity may use or disclose protected health information to the extent that such use or disclosure is required by law and the use or disclosure complies with and is limited to the relevant requirements of such law. Permitted disclosures include, but are not limited to, 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A), which provides in pertinent part: (f) Standard: Disclosures for law enforcement purposes. A covered entity may disclose protected health information for a law enforcement purpose to a law enforcement official if the conditions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this section are met, as applicable. (1) Permitted Disclosures: Pursuant to process and as otherwise required by law. A covered entity may disclose protected health information: (ii) In compliance with and as limited by the relevant requirements of: (A) A court order or court-ordered warrant, or a subpoena or summons issued by a judicial officer. Pursuant to 45 CFR 164.512(f)(1)(ii)(A), and in recognition that the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney represents the State of Texas in all criminal cases in the County and District Courts of Bexar County, Texas, the Criminal District Court Judges of Bexar County issue this Standing Court Order. IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this Order shall be attached to all trial subpoenas issued at the request of the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney to covered entities for protected health information. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the covered entity identified in the subpoena attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference shall forthwith comply with the subpoena and remains subject to all enforcement provisions of the law and Chapter 24 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. SIGNED, ORDERED and ENTERED the [handwritten: 1st] day of February, 2012. [signature] ANGUS MCGINTY, JUDGE, 144th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] MARY ROMAN, JUDGE, 175TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] MARIA TERESA HERR, JUDGE, 186th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE, 187th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] SID L. HARLE, JUDGE, 226th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] PHILIP A. KAZEN, JR., JUDGE, 227th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] MELISA SKINNER, JUDGE, 290th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] RON RANGEL, JUDGE, 379th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] JUANITA A. VASQUEZ-GARDNER, JUDGE, 399th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [signature] LORI I. VALENZUELA, JUDGE, 437TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT [Footer: Case Number: 64807, Document Type: STANDING ORDER REGARDING TRIAL SUBPOENAS] CERTIFIED COPY CERTIFICATE STATE OF TEXAS I, DONNA KAY McKINNEY, BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK, CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD AS INDICATED BY THE VOLUME, PAGE AND COURT ON SAID DOCUMENT. WITNESSED MY OFFICIAL HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE ON THIS: February 01, 2012 DONNA KAY McKINNEY BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS By: [signature] ANNA MORIN, Deputy District Clerk (NOT VALID WITHOUT THE CLERKS’S ORIGINAL SIGNATURE.) [Seal of the District Court of Bexar County, Texas] [Instrument 5, stamped 64460; recording notation in the left margin: 09/02/2011 VOL 3738 PG 1848 and PG 1849] STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURTS AND § 144th, 175th, 186th, 187th, 226th, 227th, 290th, 379th, 399th, 437th COUNTY OF BEXAR § HANDLING CRIMINAL CASES JOINT ORDER OF REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE ON MATTERS INVOLVING DISPOSITION OF CONTRABAND In accordance with Article 18.18 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the Bexar County Criminal District Court Judges hereby execute this Joint Order of Referral. All matters involving issues of Disposition of Contraband described in Article 18.18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are hereby referred to and will be handled by the Criminal Law Magistrate, unless retained by a particular District Court. It is ORDERED that this Joint Order be spread upon the minutes of the respective courts and filed for a record in the offices of the District Clerk of Bexar County. SIGNED, ORDERED, AND REFERRED TO ON [handwritten: 8/18/11]. [signature] Judge Angus McGinty, 144th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Mary Román, 175th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Maria Teresa Herr, 186th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Raymond Angelini, 187th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Sid L. Harle, 226th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Philip A. Kazen, Jr., 227th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Melisa Skinner, 290th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Ron Rangel, 379th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Juanita A. Vásquez-Gardner, 399th Judicial District Court [signature] Judge Lori Valenzuela, 437th Judicial District Court
[The file compiles five instruments of the Bexar County district courts giving preference to criminal matters, each a certified or stamped copy.] [Instrument 1, stamped 72472; recording notation in the left margin: 12/18/2019 VOL 5235 PG 101-, last digit cut off] SPECIAL ORDER NO. 72472 STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURTS GIVING PREFERENCE TO CRIMINAL MATTERS AND § 144TH, 175TH, 186TH, 187TH,
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-08 from the TOPICs custody file (fifteen image-only pages, every page read through the vision lane). The four orders are transcribed; the 2001 Opinion on Standing Order (35752, six pages) is summarized rather than transcribed. The effective date carried is that of the most recent instrument in the set (December 11, 2019). Kept as a rule for the still-operative contraband referral; the juror-escort order is a security directive to the Sheriff and Court Security and the 2001/2012 subpoena orders are superseded editions (recorded here as history under edition precedence, with the 2023 editions published separately). [TRANSCRIBED BY EYE 2026-09-21 (corpus-0920 P12): every page of the registered file (sha256 f106f029d760..., 15 page(s), image-only scan; the OCR layer used as a typing base and corrected word by word from the page) read against the rendered file; verbatim, source typos kept, stamps/signatures bracketed; the earlier abstract replaced by the full instrument; confidence high. benchpath-tx-corpus0920-p12-2026-09-21]
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.