HB 460: Evidence; exclude certain communications made between attorney and client when client is in a penal institution

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

• 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.

1. 2026-03-31Senate Tabled (Senate)
2. 2026-03-20Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
3. 2026-01-12Senate Recommitted (Senate)
4. 2026-01-12Senate Taken from Table (Senate)
5. 2025-04-02Senate Tabled (Senate)
6. 2025-03-27Senate Read Second Time (Senate)
7. 2025-03-27Senate Committee Favorably Reported (Senate)
8. 2025-03-10Senate Read and Referred (Senate)

• Esther Panitch (D, HD-051)Primary sponsor
• Tyler Smith (R, HD-018)
• Stacey Evans (D, HD-057)
• Scott Holcomb (D, HD-101)
• Yasmin Neal (D, HD-079)
• Terry Cummings (D, HD-039)
• Bill Cowsert (R, SD-046)

1. PassedHouse voteMarch 6, 2025

   172 yea, 0 nay (4 not voting, 4 absent)

   Passage: House Vote #208

2. PassedSenate voteMarch 31, 2026

   39 yea, 10 nay (2 not voting, 3 absent)

   Motion To Table Remaining Legislation On The Rules Calendar: Senate Vote #912

• attorney-client privilege
• criminal justice
• jails and prisons
• evidence law
• wiretapping