SB 482: Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; persons requesting booking photographs to provide the first and last names of the individuals in the photographs; require

In plain language

What the bill does

Who it affects

Why it matters

Key provisions

From the bill

Discussed in meetings (17)

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.

1. Senate Public Safety Committee, February 18, 2026

   From 0:39:50 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would require people requesting booking photographs to identify the subject by first and last name and submit a notarized statement in person. The sponsor said the substitute also covered law enforcement videos. The stated goals were to identify requesters, curb businesses profiting from arrest images and reduce broad records requests. Asked whether identifiable individuals' records would remain available, the sponsor said yes. Representatives of the Georgia Press Association and Georgia Association of Broadcasters supported addressing misuse but warned that the requirements would also burden journalists and residents seeking public records. Both sought continued work on access protections. The president of the Georgia Sheriffs' Association supported the bill, describing bail scams and taxpayer-funded work reviewing videos. That witness said broad requests could require reviewing 100 to 120 hours of footage. The Paulding County sheriff described reputational harm from an incorrectly entered charge and images remaining online after charges were dismissed. A Georgia Justice Project witness supported the bill, saying earlier laws had not stopped companies' workarounds and that access for specific requests remained available. The committee approved the bill unanimously.

2. Senate Rules Committee, February 20, 2026

   From 0:04:16 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 482 would require people requesting booking photographs from sheriffs to identify the person pictured and sign an affidavit promising to follow Georgia law, including not charging people to remove photographs. The sponsor said the goal was to discourage companies and publications from obtaining everyone's booking photographs and posting them for entertainment. No questions or calendar action followed.

3. Senate Rules Committee, February 24, 2026

   From 0:10:50 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said the bill would change access to arrest photographs under open-records law by requiring an in-person request and a statement confirming that the requester would not post the image online and charge for its removal. The chair and another member expressed support. No substantive questions or vote followed.

4. Senate Rules Committee, February 25, 2026

   From 0:32:40 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: With the sponsor apparently absent, the chair briefly described the bill as preventing people from profiting from mugshots. There was no further presentation or discussion, and the bill was not selected for the floor calendar.

5. Senate Rules Committee, February 26, 2026

   From 0:14:27 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: Speakers characterized SB 482 as addressing mugshot profiteering. No requirements were explained, and no action followed.

6. Senate Rules Committee, March 3, 2026

   From 0:23:22 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair briefly described SB 482 as a measure preventing profit from booking photographs. There was no further explanation or substantive questioning. Members selected it for the calendar as part of the approved slate.

7. Senate Rules Committee, March 5, 2026

   From 1:21:46 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The chair listed SB 482 among bills carried over from the previous day for return to the floor calendar. Its provisions were not discussed. The committee unanimously approved the calendar package.

8. Senate floor session, March 6, 2026 (legislative day 28, part 1)

   From 6:34:55 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Confirmed by the bill's status history (Senate Tabled)

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 482 would require people requesting booking photos or law enforcement videos to appear in person, identify the subject and promise not to post the material and charge for its removal. The sponsor argued that the measure would discourage harassment and commercial exploitation while preserving public and press access. The sponsor's amendment exempted the people depicted and their attorneys or designated agents from the in-person process. A second amendment required disclosure of legislative employment-related settlements, including harassment and discrimination settlements, with the claimant's identity removed, and applied retroactively. Its author argued that lawmakers should accept public accountability. Another member noted that the amendment required disclosure of settlements without requiring a finding of guilt or liability, despite the author's explanation. Both amendments were adopted without objection. The Senate adopted the amended committee substitute and passed the bill, 53 to 0.

9. House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 24, 2026

   From 1:51:22 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

   Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 482 would require in-person requests and affidavits identifying the person whose booking photograph was sought, aiming to curb bulk publication for profit. The sponsor proposed letting video requests identify an incident’s date or an encounter’s time and location instead of everyone depicted, plus exceptions for credentialed members of the Georgia Press Association and Georgia Association of Broadcasters. Members questioned travel barriers, notarization, uncertain dates, access for attorneys and the public’s ability to recognize arrested people. The sponsor said people depicted and their representatives would retain existing access. Members also discussed a Senate-added provision disclosing certain Capitol harassment settlements; the chair raised concerns about changing confidentiality agreements. A Georgia Gazette representative opposed access barriers, citing cases where published photographs helped investigations and warned that in-person requests could increase staff work without stopping publication. Police chiefs and sheriffs supported protections for privacy and described misleading videos, mistaken charges and burdensome requests. The Suwanee police chief reported 181 video requests from one YouTuber in seven months. Georgia Justice Project supported the bill, citing lasting employment harm from online photographs. The Southern Center for Human Rights supported booking-photo changes but sought removal of video restrictions, citing accountability concerns. Press and broadcaster representatives supported an exception for their members. Possible permission to obscure unrelated people in videos was also discussed. No amendments or bill vote occurred. The chair deferred action until Thursday to prepare a revised version.

10. House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 26, 2026

    From 0:27:53 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

    Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor presented a substitute intended to identify requesters of booking photos and police videos, reduce agency burdens and prevent commercial exploitation. The sponsor said credentialed Georgia Press Association and Georgia Association of Broadcasters members could bypass in-person affidavit requirements. Video requests could identify a person or an approximate date, time and location, with redaction provisions protecting others. An added section would restrict government recordings depicting death or distress immediately before death, while allowing court-approved disclosure after an investigation closes. Its author cited requests for fatal-incident footage and demands for payment to remove posted footage. Members questioned the narrow family definition, exclusive press exemptions and delays in public access. The sponsor and section’s author said existing restrictions during open investigations would remain unchanged. Press association witnesses sought an exemption from the death-recording restrictions. Georgia Justice Project supported the first two sections. An ACLU of Georgia witness opposed the video restrictions, citing police accountability, family access and First Amendment concerns. The sponsor disputed that assessment and said the two-week period gave families notice and time to object. After a recess, members adopted amendments exempting credentialed members of the two press associations from the added restrictions and expanding covered relatives to siblings, legal guardians and similar relationships demonstrated to a court. The committee approved both amendments and the amended substitute by voice vote, without numerical counts.

11. House Rules Committee, March 31, 2026

    From 1:06:03 · Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel

    Summary by Georgia Commons: The sponsor said SB 482 would require in-person requests and identifying information for booking photographs and body-camera videos to curb bulk requests by people monetizing the material online. The sponsor said a committee addition would restrict access to government videos showing a death unless a demonstrated need outweighed the family's privacy interests. One member suggested allowing a single request for all recordings of an incident rather than separate requests for each camera; the sponsor was open to that amendment, but none was adopted here. A second member asked about companies charging to remove booking photographs. The sponsor said earlier laws had not stopped bulk publication and resulting employment harms, and argued that requiring a person's name would preserve newsworthy access while limiting mass requests. A third member asked why the House committee removed Senate language making legislative sexual-harassment settlements public with victims' names redacted. The sponsor did not know the reason, supported that language and said the Senate had unanimously passed the version containing it. No decision was recorded.

• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 10, 2026 (legislative day 16), 0:23:17
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 19, 2026 (legislative day 21), 0:35:04
• Read aloud: Senate floor session, February 20, 2026 (legislative day 22), 0:42:06
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 9, 2026 (legislative day 29), 0:54:33
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 10, 2026 (legislative day 30), 0:43:40
• Read aloud: House floor session, March 27, 2026 (legislative day 38, part 1), 0:38:36

Status timeline

Sponsors

Votes

Topics