Texas Department of Public Safety and Christina Mitchell, in Her Official Capacity as 38th Judicial District Attorney v. Texas Tribune; ABC News; CBS News; Cable News Network, Inc.; Dow Jones & Co.; Gannett Co., Inc.; Graham Media Group, Houston; Graham Media Group, San Antonio; NBC News; The New York Times Co.; Pro Publica, Inc.; Scripps Media, Inc.; Tegna Inc.; And the Washington Post

ACCEPTED
15-24-00010-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
10/15/2025 5:07 PM
No. 15-24-00010-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK
RECEIVED IN
15th COURT OF APPEALS
IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
OF TEXAS 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk

Texas Department of Public Safety and Christina Mitchell, in her
Official Capacity as 38th Judicial District Attorney

Appellants
v.

Texas Tribune; ABC News; CBS News; Cable News Network,
Inc.; Dow Jones & Co.; Gannett Co., Inc.; Graham Media Group,
Houston; Graham Media Group, San Antonio; NBC News; The
New York Times Co.; Pro Publica, Inc.; Scripps Media, Inc.;
Tegna, Inc.; and The Washington Post
Appellees

Appeal from the 53rd District Court, Travis County, Texas

Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District’s
Amicus Brief Supporting Appellees

Philip Fraissinet David J. Campbell
THOMPSON & HORTON LLP Amber King
3200 Southwest Freeway THOMPSON & HORTON LLP
Suite 2000 8300 N. MoPac Expressway
Houston, Texas 77006 Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78759

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Uvalde CISD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 3

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................................................... 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................... 5

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 6

I. DPS has presented no argument regarding its
continued withholding of the school district’s video
surveillance footage under the law-enforcement
exception. ................................................................................. 7

II. The law-enforcement exception does not justify
DPS’s continued withholding of the school
district’s video footage. ............................................................ 8

III. There is no longer any legitimate reason for DPS
to continue withholding the school district’s
surveillance videos. ............................................................... 10

CONCLUSION & PRAYER .................................................................... 11

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE................................................................. 13

APPENDIX .............................................................................................. 14

2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Page

Statutes

20 U.S.C. 1232g ......................................................................................... 5
Tex. Educ. Code § 11.051 .......................................................................... 4
Tex. Educ. Code § 4.001(a) ........................................................................ 4
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(a) ............................................................... 7, 10
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(a)(1)................................................................. 9
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(a)(2)............................................................... 10
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(b)(1)................................................................. 8
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(b)(2)............................................................... 10

Rules

Tex. R. App. P. 11(c) .................................................................................. 4

3
INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District is committed to

ensuring that all Texas children in the 1,093 square miles in and around

Uvalde, Texas have access to a quality education that enables them to

achieve their potential and fully participate now and in the future in the

social, economic, and educational opportunities of our state and nation.

See Tex. Educ. Code § 4.001(a). Uvalde CISD is governed by its elected

school board members. Tex. Educ. Code § 11.051. As the locally-elected

representatives of the Uvalde CISD community, the Board believes

transparency and accountability are vitally important to help the

community attempt to heal and move forward from the tragic shooting

that occurred on May 24, 2022. Amicus is paying all fees for the

preparation of this brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 11(c).

After the shooting at Robb Elementary School, Uvalde CISD provided

video surveillance footage to state law enforcement officials. DPS has

refused to release that video footage to the public and recently refused to

provide a copy of the footage to Uvalde CISD. Uvalde CISD files this

amicus brief because the school district believes the video footage should

be released to the public.

4
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE FIFTEENTH COURT:

Uvalde CISD adamantly believes that all information that can be

made public regarding the tragic shooting at Robb Elementary School

should be shared with the victims’ families, the Uvalde community, and

the entire State of Texas. In particular, Uvalde CISD believes strongly

that the school district’s video footage, which was provided to state law

enforcement authorities in good faith, should be released to the public

pursuant to the trial court’s order.1

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Shortly after the shooting, state law enforcement authorities

requested that Uvalde CISD turn over all video surveillance footage from

Robb Elementary School from the day of the shooting. In good faith,

Uvalde CISD did so without keeping any copies of the footage.

Apparently, Uvalde CISD’s video footage ended up in the possession of

the Texas Department of Public Safety (“DPS”).

1 To the extent that any minors’ faces are captured in the school district’s
surveillance videos, the trial court appropriately ordered that their faces should
be blurred, which is required based on common law privacy rights and the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (”FERPA”), 20 U.S.C. 1232g.
5
Over three years later, the video footage should be released to the

public. In July of 2022, the Texas House Investigative Committee

released the most relevant portions of the surveillance footage, showing

the shooter entering the school and showing officers prepared to confront

the shooter. CR.1834. Additionally, both the City of Uvalde and Uvalde

County have released hours of body-camera footage.

On August 15, 2025, Uvalde CISD requested that DPS provide the

school district with a copy of video footage it had previously provided to

state law enforcement authorities. Appx. 1. However, DPS has refused to

provide copies of Uvalde CISD’s video footage to the school district citing

its reliance “upon the arguments presented in appeal 15-24-000010-CV

concerning these materials.” Id.

ARGUMENT
In this appeal, DPS has provided the Court with many arguments, but

it has provided no argument that justifies DPS’s continued withholding

of the school district’s video footage from Robb Elementary School on the

day of the shooting. The Texas Public Information Act exists to ensure

that the public receives “complete information about the affairs of

government” and expressly prohibits government officials from deciding

6
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to

know. Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(a). Consistent with that important

statutory mandate — and in the interest of transparency to the public —

Uvalde CISD urges the Court to (at a minimum) affirm the trial court’s

order requiring that DPS release the video footage from Robb Elementary

that the school district provided, in good faith, to state law enforcement

officials. 2

I. DPS has presented no argument regarding its continued
withholding of the school district’s video surveillance
footage under the law-enforcement exception.

It is notable that in this appeal, DPS has not presented the court with

any argument about the video footage. Other than mentioning twice that

the “footage taken by cameras in the school” was requested (Appellants’

Br. at 2, 8), DPS never mentions the video surveillance footage in its brief.

DPS explains that it generically asserted to the Attorney General’s Open

Records Division that “releasing those records would interfere with

ongoing investigations, reveal law-enforcement techniques, or risk future

criminal prosecutions.” Appellants’ Br. at 10. But DPS never explains

2 Uvalde CISD takes no position in this amicus brief about the other requests
for information that gave rise to this appeal.
7
how any of those concerns could apply specifically to Uvalde CISD’s video

footage.

II. The law-enforcement exception does not justify DPS’s
continued withholding of the school district’s video footage.

Although DPS never discusses Uvalde CISD’s video footage in its brief,

DPS generally argues that the video surveillance footage—and the rest

of the information in the 2 terabytes of data that is responsive to the

requests—can be withheld because of the law-enforcement exception to

the Public Information Act. See Appellants’ Br. at 20–25. But none of the

provisions of the law-enforcement exception apply to Uvalde CISD’s video

footage.

DPS initially relies on Section 552.108(b)(1), which protects “[a]n

internal record or notation of a law enforcement agency or prosecutor

that is maintained for internal use in matters relating to law enforcement

or prosecution.” Appellants’ Br. at 21 (quoting Tex. Gov’t Code §

552.108(b)(1)). This exception clearly does not apply to the school

district’s video footage. There is no plausible argument that the school

district’s video footage could be considered an “internal record or notation

of a law enforcement agency.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(b)(1).

Although DPS lists a number of responsive documents that might fall
8
under this exception, DPS does not contend Uvalde CISD’s video footage

could be crammed into this exception. See Appellants’ Br. at 22.

DPS next relies on Section 552.108(a)(1), which exempts records from

release if the release would “interfere with the detection, investigation,

or prosecution of crime.” Appellants’ Br. at 23 (citing Tex. Gov’t Code §

552.108(a)(1)). DPS does not argue that the school district’s video footage

would interfere with any current investigations or prosecutions. DPS’s

brief includes a redacted paragraph listing various records, which DPS

claims could “provide clues to the direction and focus of several law-

enforcement agencies’ investigations.” Appellants’ Br. at 24. Although it

is unclear what is included in that redacted list, DPS can no longer

plausibly contend at this time that the video footage from the elementary

school provides any clues as to the direction and focus of any

investigations or prosecutions, particularly in light of the fact that the

most relevant video footage from the elementary school was already

released by the Texas House Investigative Committee over three years

ago. See CR.1834. There is no reason to believe any remaining video

footage that is not already publicly available will interfere with or

disclose the direction of any law enforcement agency investigations.

9
Finally, DPS relies on the “dead suspect loophole,” which DPS explains

is meant to protect “the rights of those whom an investigation ultimately

exonerates.” Appellants’ Br. at 25 (citing Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.108(a)(2),

(b)(2)). Again, DPS does not argue that this exception would allow it to

continue to withhold the school district’s video footage. See id. Nothing in

the school district’s surveillance videos could possibly infringe on the

rights of any individuals who have been exonerated by the investigations

into the shooting.

III. There is no longer any legitimate reason for DPS to continue
withholding the school district’s surveillance videos.

Over three years have passed since the shooting occurred at Robb

Elementary School. But the Uvalde community continues to have

questions. The school district’s surveillance videos may or may not

answer any of those questions, but regardless, it is the public’s right to

see the videos. Under the Texas Public Information Act, it is not for DPS

to decide what is good for the people of Uvalde to know and what is not

good for the people of Uvalde to know. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(a).

10
CONCLUSION & PRAYER
Uvalde CISD is aware that its surveillance videos are a small part of

this appeal given DPS’s public statements that it is withholding

2 terabytes of information from the requestors in this case. However, it

is important to Uvalde CISD that its surveillance videos are released to

the public, and DPS has not provided the school district or the Court with

any compelling reason the school district’s surveillance videos should

continue to be withheld.

Accordingly, regardless of how the Court resolves the rest of this

appeal, Uvalde CISD respectfully requests the Court affirm the trial

court’s order requiring DPS to release the school district’s surveillance

videos with all minor’s faces blurred to protect their identities.

11
Respectfully submitted,

THOMPSON & HORTON LLP

/s/ David J. Campbell
David J. Campbell
State Bar No. 24057033
dcampbell@thompsonhorton.com
Amber King
State Bar No. 24047244
aking@thompsonhorton.com
8300 N. MoPac Expressway, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78759
Telephone: (512) 615-2350
Facsimile: (713) 583-8884

Philip Fraissinet
State Bar No. 00793749
pfraissinet@thompsonhorton.com
3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone: (713) 554-6767
Facsimile: (713) 583-8884

Counsel for Amicus Curiae
Uvalde Consolidated Independent
School District

12
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(3), I

certify that based on the word count of the computer program used to

prepare the foregoing document, the relevant sections of this document

contain 1,486 words.

/s/ David J. Campbell
David J. Campbell

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e), an automated

certificate of service will be generated when this document is e-filed.

/s/ David J. Campbell
David J. Campbell

13
APPENDIX
1. Correspondence with DPS regarding Uvalde CISD’s request
that a copy of its surveillance videos be returned.

14
From: Briana Webb
To: Katie Payne
Cc: Veronica Pena; Jessica Flores; Jacob Beach; Deborah Woltersdorf
Subject: Re: Texas Tribune case
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2025 10:03:27 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image004.png

Hi Katie,

DPS is not a party to the PIA suit which includes your client. The DPS PIA suit, No. 15-24-00010-CV, is
fully briefed and awaiting an opinion in the 15th COA. All evidence collected by the Texas Rangers,
including the materials you referenced, are included in the criminal investigation which resulted in two open
indictments. The prosecution of these indictments is pending. DPS relies upon the arguments presented in
appeal 15-24-00010-CV concerning these materials.

Briana M. Webb
Acting Division Chief
Law Enforcement Defense Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
T: (512) 463-4151

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message, including any attachment(s), contains information that may be
confidential, protected by the attorney-client or other legal privileges, and/or proprietary non-public information. If you
are not an intended recipient of this message please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from
your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message and/or any of its attachments (if any) by
unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

From: Katie Payne <kpayne@wabsa.com>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 4:09 PM
To: Briana Webb <Briana.Webb@oag.texas.gov>
Cc: Veronica Pena <cpena@wabsa.com>; Jessica Flores <jflores@wabsa.com>
Subject: RE: Texas Tribune case

Briana,
I have been asked by my client, Uvalde CISD, to request that a copy of any and all
video from the May 24, 2022, Robb ES incident which was collected from the school
district by DPS and/or the Texas Rangers be returned to the school district,
immediately. This request for a return of a copy of the UCISD’s records includes, but
is not limited to, all video taken by the UCISD’s hallway video cameras. I look forward
to your response. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thanks,
Katie
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Kate French on behalf of David Campbell
Bar No. 24057033
kfrench@thompsonhorton.com
Envelope ID: 106898824
Filing Code Description: Other Brief
Filing Description: Uvalde CISD's Amicus Brief Supporting Appellees
Status as of 10/16/2025 6:37 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Lori Mitchell Lori.Mitchell@haynesboone.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Laura Prather 16234200 laura.prather@haynesboone.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Maria Williamson maria.williamson@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Deborah Williams deborah.williams@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Reid Pillifant reid.pillifant@haynesboone.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

carey wallick carey.wallick@haynesboone.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Hannah Keck hannah.keck@haynesboone.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

David J.Campbell dcampbell@thompsonhorton.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Kate French kfrench@thompsonhorton.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Amber King aking@thompsonhorton.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Philip Fraissinet pfraissinet@thompsonhorton.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Dale Hicks dhicks-svc@tjhlaw.com 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Associated Case Party: Office of the Texas Attorney General

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Lanora Pettit lanora.pettit@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Christopher Lavorato chris.lavorato@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Jacob Beach Jacob.Beach@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM SENT

Sara Baumgardner sara.baumgardner@oag.texas.gov 10/15/2025 5:07:38 PM ERROR