Georgia CommonsHouse · Engrossed · 2025-2026 Regular Session
HB 460: Evidence; exclude certain communications made between attorney and client when client is in a penal institution
Last action March 31, 2026 · Senate Tabled
House Bill 460 would make attorney-client phone and electronic communications privileged and generally inadmissible in Georgia court when the client is held in jail or prison, and would require penal institutions to provide a nonrecording line for those calls.
The summaries below were written by an AI model (claude-sonnet-5) from the text of the bill and are not part of it. Quote the text, not the summary. The stored text is the Comm Sub version, the latest the General Assembly's website lists.
In plain language
Georgia law already protects attorney-client conversations from being used as evidence. This bill amends that law (O.C.G.A. § 24-5-501) to specifically cover telephonic or electronic communications between an attorney and a client who is held in a penal institution, using the definition of that term found in Georgia's wiretapping law (O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56). The bill requires every penal institution to give an incarcerated client access to a nonrecording phone or electronic device to talk with their attorney. It also sets rules for when an intercepted attorney-client communication could still be used in court: parties must get a copy of the court order authorizing the interception at least ten days before any hearing, and a person can move to suppress an intercepted communication if it was unlawfully intercepted, the authorizing order was defective, or the interception did not follow the order's terms. If a suppression motion is granted, the communication is treated as obtained illegally, though a judge may let defense counsel inspect portions of it if that serves the interests of justice.
What the bill does
- Extends attorney-client privilege under Georgia evidence law to phone and electronic communications made while a client is held in a penal institution.
- Requires penal institutions to provide a nonrecording phone or electronic device so clients can privately communicate with their attorney.
- Bars intercepted attorney-client communications from being used as evidence unless all parties received the authorizing court order at least ten days beforehand.
- Creates a process for an aggrieved person to move to suppress an unlawfully intercepted attorney-client communication before trial.
- Allows a judge discretion to let defense counsel inspect portions of a suppressed or intercepted communication if it serves the interests of justice.
Who it affects
People held in Georgia penal institutions such as jails and prisons, their defense attorneys, penal institution staff who must provide communication equipment, prosecutors, and judges who handle motions over intercepted attorney-client communications.
Why it matters
Incarcerated defendants would gain a guaranteed, non-recorded way to speak privately with their lawyers, and prosecutors would face new limits on using any intercepted attorney-client conversation in court, affecting how criminal cases involving jailed defendants are investigated and tried.
Key provisions
- Section 1 amends O.C.G.A. § 24-5-501(a)(2) to include telephonic and electronic communications with clients held in a penal institution, as defined in O.C.G.A. § 16-10-56, within attorney-client privilege.
- Requires each penal institution to provide a nonrecording telephonic or electronic device for attorney-client communication (new subparagraph (A)).
- Bars use of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications as evidence unless parties receive the authorizing court order and application at least ten days before the proceeding (new subparagraph (B)).
- Allows an aggrieved person to move to suppress intercepted communications on grounds of unlawful interception, a facially insufficient order, or noncompliance with the order (new subparagraph (C)).
- Requires suppression motions to be filed before the proceeding starts, with exceptions, and lets a judge grant defense counsel limited access to suppressed material if in the interests of justice (new subparagraph (D)).
- Section 2 repeals conflicting laws.
From the bill
“Each penal institution shall provide access to a nonrecording telephonic or electronic device for a client held in custody to communicate with his or her attorney”
“The contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted pursuant to this chapter, or any evidence derived therefrom, shall not be received in evidence”
Discussed in meetings (3)
The House and Senate meetings that took this bill up, from their machine transcripts. Each account was written by Georgia Commons with AI and is not part of the record; the video is what was said.
Senate Judiciary Committee, March 19, 2026
From 0:21:22 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said HB 460 responded to a Georgia Supreme Court decision allowing use of recorded jail calls between a defendant and an attorney because the court found the conversations procedural rather than requests for legal advice. The sponsor argued that people in custody need private telephone access to lawyers, especially when an in-person visit requires substantial travel. The sponsor said the bill would explicitly protect telephone and electronic attorney-client communications, require penal institutions to provide a non-recording device, and require attorneys to register so facilities can recognize their numbers. The sponsor also said intercepted communications and evidence obtained from them could not be used in state court proceedings. A committee member reported having experienced a similar recording problem and moved for passage. The committee unanimously recommended passage.
Senate Rules Committee, March 30, 2026
From 0:36:01 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel
Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said prosecutors and law enforcement could listen to jail calls between attorneys and clients, and described HB 460 as stopping that practice. No substantive questions followed. A member selected it, and the committee unanimously approved the calendar containing it.
Status timeline
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
- Senate Recommitted (Senate)
- Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
- Senate Tabled (Senate)
- Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
- Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
- Senate Read and Referred (Senate)
Show full history (14 actions)
- House Passed/Adopted By Substitute (House)
- House Third Readers (House)
- House Committee Favorably Reported By Substitute (House)
- House Second Readers (House)
- House First Readers (House)
- House Hopper (House)
Sponsors
- Esther Panitch (D, HD-51)
- Tyler Paul Smith (R, HD-18)
- Stacey Evans (D, HD-57)
- Scott Holcomb (D, HD-101)
- Yasmin Neal (D, HD-79)
- Terry Cummings (D, HD-39)
- Bill Cowsert (R, SD-46)
Votes
- House voteMarch 6, 2025
172 yea, 0 nay (4 not voting, 4 excused)
- Senate voteMarch 31, 2026
39 yea, 10 nay (2 not voting, 3 excused)
Topics
- attorney-client privilege
- criminal justice
- jails and prisons
- evidence law
- wiretapping