Comité Public Safety and Homeland Security de la Cámara de Representantes, 28 de enero de 2026

Transcripción

687 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:20:17

   All right, good afternoon, everybody. I know we are, uh, a little bit past 1:00. Um, still got a couple folks signing up. Uh, we're trying to make sure we get everybody signed up that wants to speak on these bills today. Um, but in the interest of time, we're gonna go ahead and try to get started. We've got three bills, and apparently a lot of folks that have opinions on those. And, um, we have to be out of here by 3:00, 'cause there's another committee that's scheduled right after us. So we're gonna move along rather briskly. Um, hopefully things will go well.

2. 0:20:48

   Um, I, I now have, I brought with me, I have a tiny gavel, and I'm not afraid to use it. So, um that's what you... It's not a judiciary committee, so I only get a little bitty gavel, but, but, uh, I can work it. Um, anyway, we are going to start off, and we're gonna go a little bit out of order. I know everybody's gotta be in multiple places, and we always face that this time of the year. Um, but we're gonna start with House Bill 350, uh, Representative Cameron's bill, and, uh, see if we can get that knocked out.

3. 0:21:21

   And, um, get him onto his next bill he has to present in another committee. So Representative Cameron, if you would come up and... Actually, just hold on for me just one second. Um, I'm gonna get, uh, Representative Richardson, if he'd open us up in prayer. Um, what number are you? 23?

4. 0:21:48

   22, I think. She told me I was gonna go.

5. 0:21:50

   All right, we'll do 22. Thank you.

6. 0:21:55

   Let us pray. Our most gracious Heavenly Father, I come to you today thanking you and praising you, Lord, for who you are and for what you've done in our lives. Lord, we just ask for wisdom and guidance and direction as we go through this meeting today. Lord, we thank you for each and every person that's here. Lord, we ask you to be with them as they present their asides. And Lord, we just, uh, just ask you to give us wisdom as we make the decisions that affect all the citizens of Georgia. In all these things, I pray in the precious and holy name of Jesus.

7. 0:22:26

   Amen.

8. 0:22:26

   Amen.

9. 0:22:28

   Amen.

10. 0:22:28

    Thank you, sir. All right. Representative Cameron, the floor is yours.

11. 0:22:33

    Good afternoon, uh, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to come before the committee, and thank you for the committee. Uh, I bring HB 350. We had this bill before this committee last year, and we didn't get over the, we didn't get over the hump with it. Uh, what this bill does is allows for, uh, the, the implementation of infant safety devices, AKA baby boxes, in the state of Georgia. The state of Georgia does not purchase these things. It's the individual communities or entities, like fire halls, police stations, ambulance services, or a hospital.

12. 0:23:06

    They can place one of these on an exterior wall in a conspicuous place. Uh, a person can place the child in the infant safety device. It's like an incubator. And when they close it, it sets off an alarm, okay? That's one alarm. The, uh, then the, there's a door on the backside of it inside that they can remove the child from and take it, uh, from there, and then take it to a hospital to have it evaluated. And for that, but if, say, a fire department in a small town, uh, has a baby delivered there, and they're not there, there is another, uh, the redundant alarm that will ring over to a 911 or somewhere where the baby can, uh, someone will know there's a child in there, and they, and they can let somebody know that there's, they need to get the child out.

13. 0:23:54

    Uh, also there's another redundancy that twice a day, wherever these are placed, if they're placed at a hospital or a fire department or a police department, twice a day, someone's gotta check that box from the backside to make sure that there's no one in place. And also, once a month, there are random tests on the, uh, the entire system to make sure it's performing adequately. No one, no child is gonna be left in there for a long period of time. And the idea is, is if the, you know, and the idea of a woman having to surrender a child is a painful decision.

14. 0:24:27

    It's one of the most painful things that I can imagine. The one- They can do that anonymously. They don't have to fill out anything. They can just put it there. And this is not a new concept. In Europe, over the last 500 years, they've had these in various cities. In Poland, they call them windows of life, because it's a box, but it has a window in the front of it, so people in town square will see that there's a child in there so somebody can get it out. But this is a modern version of this. They're in over 20 states right now. Um, and I live on the Tennessee border.

15. 0:24:57

    A lot of you know I live on the Tennessee border. There's one in a city called East Ridge in their fire department. And then, uh, about five miles from there, there's another one in a Chattanooga Fire Department, uh, location. And last spring, a baby was delivered there, and they were able to get the baby out. They took it to a hospital to have it evaluated, and then got it into protective services, where the child could get into foster care, whatever, to, to protect the, the child. But you know, unfortunately, we don't live in a world that I grew up in, in the '60s and '50s, where, you know, people had all their babies in hospitals.

16. 0:25:32

    Now, children are born in the woods, they're born in cars, empty houses, all kinds of places. Uh, someone came to my office last year, um, wanting, uh, a request for foster care funds, and he showed me a picture of the, his adopted daughter. She was born on the side of a railroad track. The side of a railroad track. And just someone saw them- and took them to the hospital. But I can imagine, because we know what the side of a railroad track looks like, big rocks. So children are born in all kinds of places.

17. 0:26:02

    Unfortunately, we had a situation in Columbus earlier last year in the summer where a child was found in a dumpster. And at the University of Kentucky, we had a cheerleader who ha- gave birth to a baby and it was found in a closet. So this is an idea that, that could potentially save lives. It's, we don't... There's no quantification of how many lives it could save, but having these available, if, if a community wants to, to do this and purchase it, they can do it. And, uh, so that's essentially the bill, Mr.

18. 0:26:34

    Chairman. I'll answer any questions.

19. 0:26:37

    Okay. Uh, any questions from members of the committee?

20. 0:26:43

    I also want to thank all the people who've come out in support of this today, and there's quite a few.

21. 0:26:47

    Okay. All right. Uh, Representative Richardson.

22. 0:26:50

    Uh, my question is, uh, you said that it would be checked twice a day. So who, whoever, wherever it's being-

23. 0:26:58

    Yeah

24. 0:26:58

    ... positioned, those people are-

25. 0:27:00

    Yeah

26. 0:27:00

    ... making the commitment to check-

27. 0:27:01

    If it's at your local fire department, then they're required by the statute to check it twice a day from the backside, open it up, see if everything's all right, if there's a child in there where the alarm didn't go off. That's twice.

28. 0:27:12

    So, so whoever accepts having it there-

29. 0:27:15

    Yes, sir

30. 0:27:15

    ... is accepting the responsibility of monitoring it or checking it twice a day.

31. 0:27:20

    Yes, sir, Representative.

32. 0:27:21

    Thank you.

33. 0:27:24

    Okay. Uh, Representative Mathis.

34. 0:27:27

    Mr. Chairman, at the proper time I'd like to make a motion that we do pass.

35. 0:27:31

    Okay. Um, we have a couple folks signed up that want to speak, and then I'll come back to you, okay? Thank you.

36. 0:27:36

    I'll wait.

37. 0:27:37

    Okay. Um, we have a few folks signed up. Uh, Amy, I know you were signed up first. You want to come up and come to the podium? Uh, Amy Anderson and Brittany on the same line, so I guess y'all are gonna-

38. 0:27:51

    We're gonna go. We're gonna tag team it

39. 0:27:52

    ... tag team it. All right. I like it. All right, go ahead.

40. 0:27:56

    All right. Thank y'all so much for hearing us today. We really appreciate it. Um, this is a bill that is near and dear to our hearts, and, um, I think that Representative Cameron did a great job of explaining everything. Um, these, there are over 400 of these in use throughout the country already in 25 states. In our area, our state and South Carolina are the only states that do not have them. Alabama, Tennessee, Florida, and everybody to Texas has them. Um, everybody all the way, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, you name it.

41. 0:28:29

    Um, there have been over 75 babies since 2017 that have been surrendered in this way. Um, the, the issue is that currently Georgia law requires face-to-face surrender, and a mother having to make the choice of handing over her baby to someone and saying, "I can't do this, you can do it better," is just something that is an incredibly difficult decision to make. I actually learned about this because my daughter is a pediatric nurse.

42. 0:29:00

    She was part of a surrender, and when she, when she talked to me about the surrender, it was horrendous. I could not believe that a mother... And, uh, with her surrender, there was a grandmother involved also. The mother and the grandmother, you know, told the, told the nurses, "We can't do this." And I was mad at the mother, I was mad at the grandmother, I was mad at everybody. I was like, "How in the world?" Well, the mother had an addiction problem. The mother wanted to go to rehab. She could not go to rehab with a baby.

43. 0:29:30

    Grandmother couldn't take the baby 'cause Grandmom already was taking care of the other babies. There was, there were so many barriers to the grandmother doing what she needed to do, to the mother doing what she needed to, and for this baby. And so this baby was lovingly surrendered and is now been adopted and is living its best life. But we, we run the risk, if you don't have the support system to say to you, "I'll walk with you and go into the fire station, or go to the hospital and help you surrender this baby," then we run into th- the situation that we had in Columbus, and you find a big ugly green dumpster behind a nasty, ratty hotel, and you put the baby in it and you hope for the best.

44. 0:30:07

    And that's what we're trying to, to prevent. We are trying to prevent babies being found in places that are not safe for babies, places that babies don't belong, and we want to make this possible. We are not asking for any government dollars. These are all funded through grassroots fundraising. They are taken care of by the facilities that chooses to participate. We're not asking you to mandate it. We want people to do this who want to do it. We don't want to ask anybody to do something they're not wanting to do.

45. 0:30:38

    Um, but we do want your support in getting it passed this time. Thank you.

46. 0:30:44

    Um, thank you again for listening to us about our support for, um, HB 350. So kind of as Amy said, I personally adopted a safe haven baby that was surrendered or under our current safe haven law. Um, but let me tell you a little bit about his biological mother. Um, while she did surrender him under the current safe haven law, um, she didn't go the full way. She, um, called up the hospital and said, "Hey, can you meet me in the parking lot?" So she didn't get out of her car and then walk into the hospital doors. She had them come to her.

47. 0:31:15

    Um, and he was, he still had the placenta attached to him. So where he was born at, I can only imagine that it was the car, and she drove to the closest hospital that she could get to to surrender him. Um, he is a thriving three-year-old today, so I am thankful every day that she knew about our current safe haven law. But I can only imagine that she would have surrendered him in a newborn safety device had that option been available to her as well, instead of having to do that face-to-face. So thank you again.

48. 0:31:44

    All right. Thank y'all very much. Amy, thank you. You, I know you've been a, a, a tireless advocate since I first started talking to you about three years ago about this, so thank you. Um, Kelby Murphy, Front Line.

49. 0:32:00

    Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Kelby Murphy, and I'm with Frontline Policy. This is my first time testifying before a committee, and I'm extremely excited to do so. I want to thank Chairman Crowe for hearing this bill and Representative Cameron for his leadership on this legislation. This straightforward and nonpartisan bill is about one thing, saving lives. By preventing the unnecessary death of newborns, this bill allows our communities to show care and compares- compassion for women seeking to remain anonymous, desiring to preserve the life of their child, and facing incredibly difficult situations.

50. 0:32:37

    Georgia has had a safe place for newborn law on the books since 2002. HB350 does not replace that framework, it builds on it, and aligns Georgia with the best practices that are already saving lives in other states by expanding authorized safe surrender locations. As mentioned earlier, baby boxes are now installed in more than 25 states with over 400 devices in operation nationwide. Reporting indicates anywhere from 200 to 500 infants have been saved through baby boxes.

51. 0:33:10

    HB350 does not encourage abandonment. It does not replace adoption or family preservation, and it does not weaken existing child welfare protections. Instead, it recognizes the reality that when someone in, is in crisis, the state can provide a safe place for a child to live and for a parent to walk away without committing a fatal act. I believe there was a sincere effort made to get this done last year, and Frontline wishes to express its full support behind passage and implementation this year.

52. 0:33:41

    Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our state.

53. 0:33:46

    Thank you very much. Um, Chairman Sainz, you have a question. Do you want to ask it now, um?

54. 0:33:51

    I can wait until after, if that... W- whatever is the pleasure of the chair.

55. 0:33:54

    All right, go ahead. And we'll ask, uh, Representative Cameron. I think he can probably answer it.

56. 0:33:58

    Sure. And, and I looked up an example. I know, uh, Representative, you've mentioned what's on the box, and I don't see any requirements for a Georgia legislation, so I'm looking at an Alabama example that, um, you and oth- uh, your, uh, coalition shared. But is there any requirements here or any intention of any resource information that's gonna be on the box? Is there any re- or is there any restrictions on what can be, or will it look like a typical box in another state?

57. 0:34:26

    It would be like a typical box.

58. 0:34:28

    Receptacle.

59. 0:34:28

    Other states. 'Cause there's, I think there's only one manufacturer right now, and that may change someday if there's more of these. But it's a basic, uh, like an incubator inside box and, uh, attached to the alarm system of wherever it's located.

60. 0:34:43

    And I apologize for using the word box, 'cause I think that's a misnomer to what it actually is-

61. 0:34:47

    Yeah, yeah

62. 0:34:47

    ... which is an entry point.

63. 0:34:49

    Yeah. Yep. Thank you, Representative.

64. 0:34:50

    Okay. Thank you. Um, Representative Panitch.

65. 0:34:54

    Thank you. Over here.

66. 0:34:57

    Yep.

67. 0:34:57

    Thank you for bringing this bill. My question is, how... And maybe this happened last year and I just don't remember. How did y'all settle on, uh, 30 days as the, as the limit? Is that an arbitrary number th- or was it-

68. 0:35:10

    I think it's-

69. 0:35:10

    ... a compromise?

70. 0:35:11

    ... that's a number that's been, um, in other states. That, that's just the number that peop- that, a lot of other states use, and so we settled on that.

71. 0:35:19

    Do you know what state has the furthest number?

72. 0:35:23

    No, I do not. I'd have to look, I'd have to research it and find out.

73. 0:35:27

    Would you be open to adding a few days to it?

74. 0:35:30

    I think Amy can help answer that, too. Do you want to come back to the podium real quick, Amy?

75. 0:35:36

    Thank you.

76. 0:35:37

    We're gonna phone a friend.

77. 0:35:38

    Sorry, Representative.

78. 0:35:41

    No, that's-

79. 0:35:41

    Representative Cameron, we're gonna let you phone a friend.

80. 0:35:43

    Oh, thank you.

81. 0:35:43

    There we go.

82. 0:35:44

    Um, the reason that it's 30 days is because current safe haven law, the one that's been in effect since 2002, says 30 days. And so rather than trying to make a whole bunch of changes to a law that was already in existence, we just went with what we had. Um, currently it ranges in the country anywhere from three days to one year. So I think it's three days in California, and it is, um, one year, I think, in North Dakota, but don't quote me on that.

83. 0:36:16

    Um-

84. 0:36:16

    Okay. Thank you.

85. 0:36:17

    Do you... Well, do you, is there anybody who would have an objection to, to making it a longer term?

86. 0:36:26

    Are you talking about the entire safe haven law in general?

87. 0:36:30

    Well, specific to the statute, and I guess we'd have to go back to the other, unless this is the safe haven law.

88. 0:36:36

    Yeah. Yeah, these boxes, we are including these in the current safe haven legislation, so...

89. 0:36:48

    Then yes, the whole safe haven law.

90. 0:36:50

    Okay. All right. Well, we're not in a position for amendments just yet-

91. 0:36:54

    Okay. Thank you

92. 0:36:54

    ... so if you wanna think about that. Um, number two. Is that, uh... Hi. All right, go ahead.

93. 0:37:03

    Uh, you know I love this bill, and I'm so happy that you're bringing it back. My question is kind of a, of, of follow-up because of, uh, Representative Panitch's question. And I'm kind of wondering, if you go beyond the 30 days, what happens? You know, so I miss the exact 30 days, I bring it in, you know, 45 days. Since it's supposed to be pretty much anonymous and a doctor would have to be able to look at the baby and say, "Okay, well, you were born maybe over that," what happens?

94. 0:37:39

    That's a question, having to determine how old the baby actually is- ... if we go further.

95. 0:37:46

    Okay. 'Cause my concern, I don't want it to be a situation where the mother's going to be in trouble 'cause she didn't get it there exactly at that time-

96. 0:37:54

    Mm-hmm

97. 0:37:54

    ... and she went a little bit over. But if I was working in the fire department, I wouldn't say no.

98. 0:38:00

    Yeah.

99. 0:38:00

    You know, or th- or get into a debate about how old the baby is. If it looks like, you know, um, um, like that's an infant, I-

100. 0:38:10

     Yeah, to that point, I think that, um, the 30 days on the safe haven law was just to try to, and, and I wasn't here obviously when that was put in place, but I think that it's trying to make sure that if somebody's going to do that, that you, you limit the time. You don't want somebody bringing a three-year-old and, you know, um, that was the idea behind it. But, you know, we also don't want, if somebody's going to be in a position where they're not able to care for the baby, uh, when they have the baby, we want them to try to get them into proper care as quick as we can.

101. 0:38:39

     Yeah.

102. 0:38:40

     So you want to have, you know, somewhat of an urgent timeline on that. So, um, we got a couple of last speakers, and then I think we're gonna move on. Um, Mike Griffin. You the... There you are.

103. 0:38:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike Griffin. I'm public affairs representative with the Georgia Baptist Mission Board. And, uh, we did support your bill three years ago when you introduced that, and we do certainly appreciate Representative, uh, Cameron putting this bill forward again and continue to work on that. We do support this legislation. Um, you know, we're living in a post-Roe era where there's got to be a lot of focus on protection, rescue, and, uh, provisions for newborns.

104. 0:39:26

     We need to be doing that. Uh, now I'm an old country boy. Y'all might figure that out. Uh, born in South Georgia. I remember we used to call, uh, some of these, uh, grocery stores 7-Elevens. Y'all remember that? Now they're called convenience stores, and there's a reason why they call them convenience store. It's because it's convenient. And we need to make this more convenient for the opportunity to protect as many lives as possible. And as was mentioned a while ago, if it's only one life, because each life is created in the image of God and worthy of protection and taking care of.

105. 0:40:03

     So we would wholeheartedly, uh, encourage the committee to, uh, vote in favor of this bill, and we appreciate the opportunity to speak for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

106. 0:40:12

     All right. Thank you, Mike. Um, Suzanne Guy.

107. 0:40:27

     Thank you so much for giving this bill a chance. And I don't know that I have much more to add. I think, um, all my wonderful friends have done a beautiful job, and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Suzanne Guy. I do a lot of pro-family lobbying, and I appreciate each of you so much. I, I will just say a couple things, and I think most of this has already been said. Um, obviously, uh, we are not arguing the safe haven law. We're just giving permission to install and operate this infant safety device. And all procedure after the surrender is exactly the same as if it was face to face.

108. 0:41:02

     And this is, and, and my wonderful friends have said this, this is one more option for women in crisis to keep their baby safe and not abandon their baby illegally. And as Kelby so beautifully said, I really think it's a nonpartisan issue. This is a, a win-win situation for precious women and a win-win situation for children. So thank you all so much for your kindness and this opportunity, and I, I pray it passes. Thank you.

109. 0:41:29

     All right. Thank you, Suzanne. All right. That's everybody we had signed up to speak. Um, Representative Mathis, I believe that you were wanting to make a motion, and I will entertain that now.

110. 0:41:40

     Yes, sir. I would make a motion that this bill do pass.

111. 0:41:44

     Okay. We have a motion that this bill do pass.

112. 0:41:48

     Second.

113. 0:41:48

     And we have multiple seconds. And Representative Panitch, you would like to, uh, make an amendment, I'm assuming?

114. 0:41:56

     I would. I would. And-

115. 0:41:58

     Okay

116. 0:41:58

     ... Representative Cameron, I would like your input because you've worked very hard on this bill, and I don't want to throw a wrench into something if you think it's going to get, have a problem down the road with the Senate. I would, um, move to amend to one year because I think that's not unreasonable. Uh, but i- if it's not a friendly amendment, I really don't want to, I don't want to get in the way.

117. 0:42:22

     A year, another year is too long, Representative, and I, and I respect your opinion, because I think we're trying to get them as soon as humanly possible to, through the process to where they can be in foster care. Uh-

118. 0:42:39

     What about six months?

119. 0:42:40

     And, and, and they're really not a newborn then. I, I don't know what's classified as a newborn under the law.

120. 0:42:46

     Yeah, I don't either. Representative Panitch, one concern I would have would be, um, and I appreciate what you're trying to do. That's sort of a separate, uh, issue than what we're dealing with here. Um, maybe we could take that and do it into a separate piece of legislation. Um, because I would be in favor. Uh, you know, anything we can do to try to encourage and-

121. 0:43:08

     Yeah

122. 0:43:09

     ... um, expand the opportunity for, for babies to be made safe. Um, but I think that that may, you know, we're trying to get this piece here moved.

123. 0:43:19

     Yes.

124. 0:43:19

     And I think that one might, uh, it, it might raise some questions and would add more debate to this situation than what we necessarily would want to have right now.

125. 0:43:27

     And I don't want to-

126. 0:43:27

     So

127. 0:43:28

     ... do anything to stop this bill.

128. 0:43:29

     Yeah.

129. 0:43:29

     So I will likely put forth some new legislation-

130. 0:43:32

     Okay. All right

131. 0:43:32

     ... on that issue.

132. 0:43:33

     Thank you.

133. 0:43:33

     So I'll withdraw my amendment.

134. 0:43:34

     All right. Thank you very much.

135. 0:43:36

     Thank you.

136. 0:43:36

     And Representative Neal.

137. 0:43:39

     Yes. Thank you to, to the Chair. Thank you for the bill. Um, just for the purposes of, uh, the comment you just made, a newborn infant, based on 31-1-3.2, is defined as an infant after delivery but before discharge from the hospital. And then Safe Place for Newborns Act 19-10-2, a newborn's defined a child who is no more than 30 days old.

138. 0:44:02

     Okay.

139. 0:44:02

     So those are your two options.

140. 0:44:04

     All right. Thank you. I appreciate it, Representative.

141. 0:44:06

     All right. Thank you. All right. We have a motion and a second. Uh, don't see any other discussion. All those in favor say aye.

142. 0:44:15

     Aye.

143. 0:44:15

     Any opposed say no. All right, very good. Thank you, Representative Cameron.

144. 0:44:20

     Thank you, Mandy. I appreciate it.

145. 0:44:22

     And, uh, we'll get this on to Rules. You got the form for me? I will sign that before you go.

146. 0:44:27

     Yes, sir.

147. 0:44:28

     All right, we're going to move on to Senate Bill 29 now, if we want to get, um... Y'all wanna go ahead and be getting set up while I finish up this paperwork.

148. 0:45:44

     All right, Senate Bill 29. Um, and as y'all may be realizing here now, these are all bills that we heard, uh, last session that have been recommitted. And so, uh, there may be a few new elements to some of them, but none of it is gonna be a, a new issue that we're dealing with. So, uh, Chairman Rick Williams, if you would like to present, the floor is yours, sir.

149. 0:46:10

     Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I bring before you LC 62-0283S. This is a substitute to Bill, Senate Bill 29. There's a couple of changes in it, um, and I appreciate your indulgence, and I have Ms. Ashley Spence back with us again this year. If, uh, some of you remember, she gave her testimony as to her experience last year, and we even named the bill after her in her honor for what she did, and that was thank you from someone on your committee that did that.

150. 0:46:49

     Um, what we're after, ladies and gentlemen, is not only to catch the guilty and put the bad guys in prison, but we wanna make sure the innocent are free, and DNA can do that, and will do that. But on this bill, the things that have been changed, one of the main things was, um, that the State of Georgia, s- for consistency's sake, will furnish the DNA kits, the swabs, the envelopes, and everything, and it will be postage paid.

151. 0:47:26

     So this will not be an imposition on any law enforcement agency, sheriff's department, or anyone else as to collecting the DNA and forwarding this on to, uh, the GBI for analysis or their contractor. Uh, so that's basically, um, what the, uh, changes are in the bill, and the effective date was July 1, 2028, so there's plenty of time for appropriations and to work on that.

152. 0:48:01

     And I'll be glad to entertain, answer any questions. And, um, you know, just keeping up with, uh, trial begins 35 years after DeKalb County killings because of DNA, and the person was found guilty. So, you know, the, the DNA, and there's a fast track DNA now that can be done, and you can speak better on that than I can.

153. 0:48:31

     Within 90 minutes, yes.

154. 0:48:32

     Within 90 minutes they can touch and have your DNA results in 90 minutes now. And this can be uploaded to CODIS. And I was talking to some district attorneys, we had all them here at the Capitol today, and the one from Columbus was telling me they had, um, someone arrested in Columbus that, um, was a convicted sex abuser from New York down in Columbus because of a DNA hit just, uh, not very long ago.

155. 0:49:08

     But, um, I'll be glad to tell any of the stories or testimony again if anyone needs refreshing, or I can just be up to ask, answering questions.

156. 0:49:20

     Okay, we got a couple of questions. Uh, Chairman Petrea, we'll start with you.

157. 0:49:25

     Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, my good friend, for bringing this bill again. I just wanna be clear, the only changes that were made from last session, just to make sure I've got it, is, are, are lines 56 through 58, where you've made it very clear that the cost is borne by the state, and, uh, even the, the kits and the postage pre, is all prepaid. That's the only, only change in this substitute.

158. 0:49:50

     That, that's as far as I remember, yes, sir.

159. 0:49:54

     Thank you.

160. 0:49:55

     Thank you.

161. 0:50:00

     All right, Representative New.

162. 0:50:04

     Thank you. And, um, Ms. Spence-

163. 0:50:06

     Mm-hmm

164. 0:50:07

     ... can you explain the difference between this DNA database and the one from, like, somewhere like ancestry.com?

165. 0:50:14

     Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you. Um, that's a great question, and people get very confused now. They think it's 23andMe, and they think what's going into our DNA database, CODIS, is everything. So what makes us human is three billion markers. That's our DNA genome. What goes into CODIS is completely different. So what goes into ancestry.com is all of those markers. It would say I'm Lebanese, who my siblings are, if I'm predisposed to any genetic diseases. But what goes into our, um, national DNA database, the Combined DNA Index System, is completely different.

166. 0:50:48

     So genetic scientists, they picked 20 to 24 markers, which is just two sets of numbers out of the three billion, and those are what goes into the database. And it wouldn't say that I'm Lebanese, if I'm predisposed to any genetic diseases. You can only see male or female. Now, um, you cannot sell and share data. In ancestry.com, 23andMe, you can. Now, CODIS is so protected that there are heavy fines and jail time if anyone violates that, and it's been around since 1998. It's not a new database.

167. 0:51:19

     So y'all are already participating in it when someone is convicted of a felony. It's the same system. Um, so it's a really good system that's never been breached, and it doesn't have any of that information, and it has to be completely expunged and destroyed if you're found not guilty. Very different than the others.

168. 0:51:33

     Thank you.

169. 0:51:34

     Thank you for your question. All right. Uh, Representative Panitch. Over here. Thank you for being here. My question is, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I believe that the Constitution presumes us all innocent until proven guilty, and my concern with this bill is who, someone who has been arrested but not convicted. Do you have any of the examples that you said, and this is really more for the senator unless you know, of people who have been matched just by arrest and not by conviction?

170. 0:52:06

     I think the ones you mentioned were already convicted of crimes. I'm not sure I understood your question completely, um, but in the bill, if, if they're arrested for one of the seven deadly sins, this is not all felonies, and if they are found innocent by trial, then their, then their DNA is expunged. I understand that, but what about the use of the DNA between the arrest and a disposition of a case, which could be years?

171. 0:52:44

     Well, it goes into CODIS, and if they are innocent and hadn't done anything else, then there won't be a problem. I have a case I could talk to. Huh? I have a case I could talk to. I, I can't hear you. An exoneration case that I could speak to. Yeah, you go ahead. So there, um, one really great example of this I think about, there was an 11-year-old girl in New Mexico. Her name was Victoria Sandoval, and she was brutally raped and murdered. And there was a guy that they said did this crime. He was mentally not capable of answering the questions, so they said, "Oh, he admitted to doing it." He actually was finally able to go to trial after a year and a half of waiting, um, and they found him guilty.

172. 0:53:23

     So fast-forward, New Mexico passed what is called Katie's Law. They collect for every single felony arrest. My home state of Texas does, too, and my perpetrator was caught in California. They do this as well there. That is how he was caught, because they collect for every felony arrest. They introduced this law, and then another man, Israel Diaz, ended up getting arrested for a felony burglary. They swabbed his cheek upon his arrest. They uploaded it into CODIS, and what happened was it hit a match back to the young Victoria Sandoval's rape and murder. So we had an exoneration of an innocent man that was wrongfully put into prison, and we had the right person that actually had to serve time.

173. 0:53:57

     So I'm just equally, I'm, thank you for what you do. I'm equally as passionate about justice and truth. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, Representative Neal. Yes. Thank you to the chair. Thank you, uh, to, uh, the presenters. Um, so I do have a number of questions, um, and, and please just advise as I go. And so, um, and just full disclosure, I'm not sure if I'll be fully against or fully supportive.

174. 0:54:27

     Um, I understand and support the overall notion, but I do have some concerns about how we get there and what that looks like and our respect for agencies that have to do this work. So I guess my first question would be, um, has anyone talked to GBI in relation to the cost and what that looks like, um, for them? And to include the cost for the postage, the cost for the, to the state for the kits, the cost of processing the kits, because a lot of the work that I do, especially in this body, I try to cut down on what the citizens are coming out of pocket for. Um, and so if you could advise in relation to the cost and what GBI has stated that they, if this is sufficient for them to handle as well.

175. 0:55:06

     Yes, ma'am. I've got some of those figures here, and the GBI are here, and they'll be able to testify for it, too. Okay. Uh, the swabs average $15 per 100. The boxes are about $30 per 100. A safe estimate rounding up are around 50 cent per person- Okay ... per kit, plus postage. Um, I have, um, other information, but, um, I'll tell you and reiterate what happened down in Effingham County on the coast.

176. 0:55:48

     It was a Black couple that was murdered in a church, and there was two main suspects. Someone called the sheriff's department and told them, and they relayed to the GBI agent that, "It couldn't have been John Smith. He was at work at the Piggly Wiggly that day. I'm his boss. I was his supervisor. I'll vouch for him." Well, they didn't check out that lead, that alibi.

177. 0:56:20

     So they zeroed in the, on the other guy, sent him to prison. He served 25 years in prison for a double homicide. Under the cold case unit that we created just a few years ago, thanks to, uh, I think, uh, Representative Houston Gaines was the main author of that. Mm-hmm. Um, they go back on the cold case, and they start going back through the evidence, and they find some hair in the lady's glasses hinge.

178. 0:56:55

     And, uh, they test the hair and test it against the person in prison, and it didn't match. They went to the other guy, and he wouldn't give them his DNA, but his mother did, and it was a dead match. So the state is gonna have to pay restitution to this man for 25 years he spent in prison. Hmm.

179. 0:57:26

     I don't know of an amount that anybody can give any man or any person that has been robbed of 25 years of their life. Whatever it cost for the GBI to do it-

180. 0:57:46

     I think this number one state to do business in this, in the United States, I think they're gonna ante up. We're so pro-law enforcement. We believe in our sheriffs and our police and our state patrol and our district attorneys and our judges and our justice system, that I think that we can afford it. I think we cannot not afford it.

181. 0:58:09

     Right.

182. 0:58:09

     Every state around us has been doing this for over 15 years. Alabama has been doing it about 18 years. We're the only one not doing it. What's wrong, Georgia? Why? What's wrong? We don't want to send the guilty to prison? We don't want to set the innocent free? I'm sorry. I'll get on my soapbox.

183. 0:58:34

     No, it's okay. I appreciate your soapbox. Um, you addressed, uh, most of what I was gonna ask. Um, my follow-up would be, um, um... So as a, as a former detective, I, I'm used to doing warrants for DNA, and I'm used to that process.

184. 0:58:48

     Yes, ma'am.

185. 0:58:49

     Um, so when it comes to this process, um, my only question is constitutionality and doing this right. So my first question would be line 84, 85, it references a blood withdrawal. Now, based on... So most of your bill is constitutional based on, uh, Maryland v. King, which is a Supreme Court ruling. My question is line 84 and 85, it references withdrawal of blood samples using needles, and the needle aspect is unconstitutional based on Supreme Court rulings.

186. 0:59:32

     So my question to you is what is the purpose of this particular language here, um, in the bill, if you can elaborate?

187. 0:59:40

     I don't know. That would be somebody smarter than me in legislative council.

188. 0:59:44

     Okay. And if legislative council wants to advise on the constitutionality of 84 and 85, 'cause it, the rest of the bill is non-invasive, which is constitutional, swab. But when you reference needles, it switches. And pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong there, but if legislative council could advise me.

189. 1:00:06

     And the only person that can take the blood would be a licensed practical nurse, a correctional health nurse technician, physician, registered professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, graduate laboratory technician, or phlebotomist. So it's only those people that are licensed to w- would take blood anyway that would be taking blood.

190. 1:00:32

     All right. We got, um, our legislative council. Megan, what number is that microphone you've got there?

191. 1:00:39

     15.

192. 1:00:40

     15. Okay. You, you have an opinion.

193. 1:00:44

     Um, well, I actually don't have, um, an opinion on that specific provision right now. I actually, um, am not the one who drafted this bill, but I will say that, you know, the law in this area, there's, needs a lot to still be determined in most of these issues that I've been looking at. Reasonable minds could disagree as to what may or may not be allowed, and it's hard to sort of determine for sure how the, how the court would rule. So I don't actually have, um, a strong opinion in this specific language.

194. 1:01:16

     I haven't looked at since I didn't draft, but I would be happy to look at more.

195. 1:01:21

     Okay.

196. 1:01:21

     All right. Thank you.

197. 1:01:22

     Um, and so too, I think-

198. 1:01:23

     Um, wait. Hang on one, one second. Philip, are you out there hiding behind that pole?

199. 1:01:29

     Yes, sir.

200. 1:01:34

     Do you-

201. 1:01:34

     Good afternoon, gentlemen.

202. 1:01:34

     Do you happen to have any insight on the portion we're talking about? Are you familiar with what we're talking about, um, in lines 84 and 85? Have you seen that portion of the bill or have any input on that?

203. 1:01:47

     No, sir.

204. 1:01:49

     If, if you can come up to the podium, that would be great.

205. 1:01:52

     You want me to?

206. 1:01:52

     Sorry, I don't mean to put you on the spot. Well, I mean, I guess I do mean to put you on the spot, but I'm gonna apologize for it.

207. 1:01:57

     We're okay with striking those lines.

208. 1:01:59

     Oh.

209. 1:01:59

     Yeah. Okay.

210. 1:02:00

     I'm good. Thank you.

211. 1:02:01

     S- s- so that, that's where I was going.

212. 1:02:03

     I would love to see it. I'd love your feedback. Yeah.

213. 1:02:03

     So, uh, good afternoon, everybo- everyone. My name's Philip Curtis. I'm attorney with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. I was hiding behi- behind this pole just until recently.

214. 1:02:10

     Sorry for the effect.

215. 1:02:10

     Um, my understanding, uh, after speaking with Senator Williams is that the purpose of the collection in this case, in this context, is via buccal swab, swabbing the inside of the cheek.

216. 1:02:21

     Right.

217. 1:02:21

     Um, uh, that, that has been decided with, Supreme Court President just, uh, mentioned moments ago, and I, and I think that would be, um, what would be the, the intention here in this case, um, and what is allowed by law, verse what you were speaking to just a moment ago-

218. 1:02:36

     Yeah

219. 1:02:36

     ... which is collection via a needle.

220. 1:02:38

     Right. So striking would be a solution?

221. 1:02:41

     Uh-

222. 1:02:41

     Uh, y- well, Senator Williams, I'll, I'll leave that to you, but what the, what the law says is let's select or let's collect by buccal swab-

223. 1:02:50

     Swab

224. 1:02:50

     ... on the inside of the cheek.

225. 1:02:51

     Okay. Okay.

226. 1:02:52

     And this, this portion here that you're talking about... Thank you, Philip.

227. 1:02:55

     Yes, sir.

228. 1:02:55

     Um, this portion you're talking about was something that was already included. It, it was already in the law before. Um, the only part that was added in this bill is specifying that people won't be held liable, um, or they won't be relieved from liability for negligence in withdrawing the b- blood sample.

229. 1:03:15

     Yeah, so the new language is-

230. 1:03:16

     As long as they're using chemically clean, sterile, disposable needles. So that's the only part that's being added. So this is, there's a lot that is in here about all DNA collection of, of many types, but, uh-

231. 1:03:32

     Well, the rest of it seems pretty solid. That's the only one that switches over to a needle that I think we'll have a problem with.

232. 1:03:38

     Well, there's a portion that talks about who can draw it via a needle as well, uh, earlier part of the bill. But-

233. 1:03:44

     And is that current language?

234. 1:03:46

     Yeah, that's current language. And, and, and this other part we were talking about is current language.

235. 1:03:50

     Yeah.

236. 1:03:50

     I don't remember where it went to. Um, it's moved around

237. 1:03:59

     Lines, uh, 77 through 79, um, talks about a correctional health nurse, technician, physician, registered professional nurse, licensed practical nurse, graduate laboratory technician, or phlebotomist shall withdraw any sample of blood to be submitted for DNA analysis. And that's something that's already in code.

238. 1:04:20

     Yeah, so the thing about the constitutional, cons- constitutionality of it is when you insert anything that is invasive, like a needle, that's where it switches. And so that's why I was just making the reference to tighten up the bill-

239. 1:04:34

     Mm-hmm

240. 1:04:34

     ... and to reduce any challenges would be, I think, to strike it and, and if the senator was agreeing with it, I, I'm just trying to tighten it up.

241. 1:04:42

     Yeah. I, I, I don't know the effects of that because it's something that's already in the law. There, there are other pieces that are already here, and there are other times that I would believe that there are DNA s- samples collected, um, that can use invasive procedures if it's a court order or something like that. So, um, I, I don't want to, I, I don't want to necessarily strike something from existing law without knowing what we're doing. But, hey, you can make any amendment suggestion you want to make, so we'll-

242. 1:05:12

     No, you, you all have the first report on that

243. 1:05:12

     ... we'll think about it and we'll continue on.

244. 1:05:14

     Oh.

245. 1:05:15

     Um, all right. Did you have any more questions? Then we'll, we'll figure that part out.

246. 1:05:19

     Yeah. So, no. My only thing is, um, t- to tighten it up and get more support for it. Just striking those two lines, I think, would make it solid, but that's just me. Um, and if you're open to that, I, I would love to make that amendment.

247. 1:05:31

     Well, you know, in looking at it, like, uh, Chairman Crowe said, those other verbiage was already there. All that was added was, "And chemically clean, sterile disposable needle shall be used for the withdrawal of all blood samples." So what we're advocating, and what we're actually doing, is passing this bill to get a swab. This little swab like we... Some people clean their ears with them.

248. 1:06:03

     Some people, um, do whatever. But this is a little swab to take, uh, Representative Neal, this is, this is the swab.

249. 1:06:13

     Okay. I'm familiar.

250. 1:06:15

     Yes, ma'am.

251. 1:06:16

     Yes.

252. 1:06:16

     Okay, so we got one more question. And so you were just talking about striking the part that's been added, not anything that was already in current law?

253. 1:06:23

     Right. Yeah.

254. 1:06:25

     Okay. Um, Representative Cummings?

255. 1:06:31

     I, I'm going to withdraw my question.

256. 1:06:33

     Okay. All right. And then Representative Holcomb, you are a learned person in the world of DNA.

257. 1:06:40

     Something like that. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, good to see you again, actually.

258. 1:06:47

     Yes.

259. 1:06:47

     Um, Senator Williams, my good friend. Um, do you know why this hasn't passed? Because it passed, I think, pretty overwhelmingly out of committee last year, and there have been prior versions, too. So my suspicion is that there are likely some unstated civil liberties concerns or something along those lines that have held it up. Do you have any insight into that in terms of why? Because there have been versions in, like, 2015 and '16.

260. 1:07:17

     I've done some homework on it, and I'm just wondering why it hasn't moved forward to the governor's desk.

261. 1:07:25

     I, I really don't know. It was hung up in rules last session, and I never was able to get it to the, uh, the House floor. But, uh, I r- I really don't know.

262. 1:07:36

     Okay. I, um, I appreciate what you said and, and I, I, I also have, I think, some folks are familiar with some understanding of both the issues that you talked about in terms of both the DNA testing and its great value and, um, and success, particularly with rape cases and sexual assault cas- cases. And we have a deplorable clearance rate on those crimes, like less than 10%.

263. 1:08:07

     It's really, uh, tragic, uh, uh, is just how much, um, violence is, is not addressed and, and that there isn't accountability. And then the, on the other end, you have people who can be exonerated. So conceptually, I'm supportive of what you're trying to do, but I, I also am mindful of that that is balanced against a constitutional right, the Fourth Amendment rights of an unreasonable search and seizure. And, and my understanding with Maryland v.

264. 1:08:37

     King is that part of what the court took solace in was that it was after arraignment. So I have a, a couple of amendments I'd like to potentially propose, but I wanted to discuss them with you first as, as a courtesy, of course. One would be a- after line, um, 60 s- or on line 67, you can be arrested based on probable cause, and that can just be from an officer. A- and as a safeguard, uh, I'm considering proposing, and I want to get your reaction to it, adding a line that would say, "However, if the person is arrested without a warrant, then the DNA sample shall not be taken until a probable cause determination has been made by a judge or grand jury," which would just have some oversight of the probable cause determination, but it would still be people who would be arrested, not convicted.

265. 1:09:33

     And so it's, it's a friendly way to try to address the civil liberties issues with some oversight in the instances where the arrest warrant wasn't by a magistrate, to then go to it after the fact. Is that something you'd be open to?

266. 1:09:51

     Well, I think it can get a little ... I mean, can I say something to this maybe?

267. 1:09:55

     You want to address that?

268. 1:09:57

     Maybe just at the beginning. Are you okay with

269. 1:10:00

     Um, there was a great state representative that really got behind these rape kits and got those things called up, and I thank you very much for that. There were many, but thank you. Thank you. And this, as so many families have had family members violated, we all want to make sure that it stops. Um, I don't know the legality, and you're the attorney.

270. 1:10:34

     I don't know about making that amendment to the bill. I don't know if that's gonna help it get across the finish line. Um, I don't know.

271. 1:10:48

     Do you wish to address it?

272. 1:10:52

     Mr. Chair, thank you so much for all you do. I know you work a lot with Joy For Heart, too, and all the work you do, it means so much. And, and I completely hear your concern. I haven't seen that in a lot of states, so I don't know what y'all will be doing here. But, um, you know, from what I know and how I understand the Fourth Amendment in Maryland versus King, you know, it is ... Right now we're talking about the seven deadly sins, as y'all say, and so we're talking about homicide, violence, sexual assault, a very limited number right now. Um, and so when we're looking at it, I do believe if you are arrested for one of those, you know, that is probable cause to take a ...

273. 1:11:29

     They call it a booking procedure. You know, so they compared, in that case, it is a reasonable part of the booking procedure to take a minimally invasive cheek swab, and therefore under the Fourth Amendment, you know, they compared it to fingerprinting. And, you know, I believe that sometimes by delaying the process of where it is taken, I think at booking we streamline the process. In Texas, I can speak to, um, you know, you take the photographs, fingerprints, and the minimally invasive swab, and that helps to really streamline the process. That's what they did in California with my perpetrator.

274. 1:12:00

     And so I'm, it ... I'm not at the liberty to speak to what you all should do in this bill, but I just, I, from what I've seen in other states, they, they streamline it, and we're talking about a very small number of very violent felonies. Okay. And do you have an understanding for the other states? Because I haven't looked at it. Do you all, do they all do that after arraignment, though? Because arraignment is where you get to go in front of a judge, which is a big distinction between being arrested just on probable cause, which any, uh, post certified officer has the ability to arrest on probable cause. But that's not somebody who, who heard your case on probable cause and actual issued a warrant.

275. 1:12:36

     It's like a second step. So I agree with everything that you said. It's, it's, it's who, uh ... Is there any judicial oversight in the states that you talked to, or are they just doing it off of an officer without an arraignment? Because I thought the arraignment portion was pretty compelling, a factor in why the court allowed it in Maryland versus King.

276. 1:13:01

     The majority of states that I have worked in, they collect it at booking. Um, they just collect it at booking. But I know, you know, West Virginia, we're working a similar legislation. Okay. They had proposed arraignment as well, but not in the states that I've worked in. It's been at booking. Okay. But also, if they're found innocent- Yeah ... then it's expunged. So while they're being fingerprinted, they're being swabbed, they're being processed, and if they're found not guilty or, you know, if their charges are dropped or whatever, it's in the bill that the DNA would be expunged.

277. 1:13:36

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. So to that point, um, if they're found innocent, if they're never arraigned or it's a warrantless arrest and then they go to a, a warrant issuance hearing, uh, and there's never one issued, then I would suspect that that would be expunged then, right? Because there's, there's, they're not gonna be found innocent because they've never gonna actually be charged officially, uh, and a warrant will never be issued. Is that, uh, for- Is that your way of thinking too, Scott?

278. 1:14:06

     It is. And, and one of the other concerns, I do have some issues on those, for those categories because another possibility could be if the charges are downgraded from a felony, which the court was very limited in the category of individuals that this would be applicable to, but if you downgrade to a misdemeanor as well, that raises some questions, which I think legislative council was, was stating this isn't perfectly clear. We don't have great precise contours of what's, um, legally permissible or, or not.

279. 1:14:38

     And everything I'm saying, just to be clear, is, like, friendly. I'm not trying- Um- ... to hurt your bill, uh, but rather to make sure that if it passes, and I'm wondering what the roadblock has been, that we have sufficient guardrails to get this both across the finish line and then to survive constitutional scrutiny. All right. Thank you very much. Um, Representative New. Thank you, Chairman, for being here today. We appreciate you being in the room with us. Um, I did want to look at lines 132 to 134.

280. 1:15:10

     They're just about the effective date. Um, it says, um ... I'm just curious the reason for the unusually long effective date. I guess that's my question, just to sum it up. It could go into effect sooner, but that would give time for appropriations. If the GBI needs to hire more scientists or, um, more technicians to process these cases, then this would give them, uh, time.

281. 1:15:40

     Uh, the GBI could possibly speak more on, you know, about that. Um- So it could go in sooner? I'm sorry? It could go in sooner than July 1st? I ... Yes, ma'am. Okay. 2028. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

282. 1:16:00

     Okay. Uh-

283. 1:16:01

     Looks like we've eliminated all of our questions. We got a couple people wanting to speak, and we're gonna try to, we're gonna try to step it up just a tad, 'cause we got one more to get to, and there's a lot of people to speak on that one. Um, Blake Feldman, you are up first if you want to come to the podium.

284. 1:16:28

     Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Blake Feldman. I'm with the Southern Center for Human Rights. Um, and we oppose this bill because we, uh, like, uh, Representative Panitch, uh, mentioned, we believe that this undermines the presumption of innocence, uh, by collapsing the distinctions between, uh, pre-conviction and post-conviction, um, and it enables a system of suspicion-less, uh, searches and warrant-less searches.

285. 1:17:01

     Um, but I'm not going to address... We do agree for all of the same reasons that GAPTLE articulated, uh, last year, last hearing before this committee, uh, for why this s- uh, system of post-arrest collection of DNA would violate the Georgia Constitution, uh, which is different and in many ways more protective than the U.S. Constitution when it comes to pr- the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures.

286. 1:17:33

     But, um, we do believe that, uh, some of the, uh, potential, potentially forthcoming amendments, uh, would improve the bill. Um, regarding what was just being discussed, uh, several states, including Maryland, uh, which the Supreme Court cons- the United States Supreme Court considered in Maryland v. King, um, they only allow the upload of the DNA profile to CODIS after a determination of probable cause. Um, North Carolina has a similar scheme.

287. 1:18:05

     Tennessee has a similar scheme. Virginia has a similar scheme. Um, so it's just if you are arrested without a warrant, then after there has been a judicial finding of probable cause, then the collection and upload, uh, of the profile to the system is allowed. Um, another thing that concerns us, it's been mentioned a lot that, like, if you're found innocent, it's going to be expunged. There's two different ways that states are doing this.

288. 1:18:36

     Some are if, for all the reasons mentioned in Section 4 of this bill. So, uh, statute of limitations runs, you're acquitted, uh, the charges are reduced to misdemeanors, any of those reasons that make you eligible for expungement. Some states put the onus on that innocent person to get their DNA profile expunged and their sample destroyed, uh, from the lab, and other states have automatic expungement.

289. 1:19:06

     So if that, if one of those circumstances happens, whether you're found not guilty, your case, or if it's, uh, the current scheme, which is after conviction, if you're, uh, get your conviction reversed, uh, you can have it expunged. Um, many states have it to where that automatically happens. Uh, North Carolina, again, Tennessee, Texas actually has the automatic expungement, uh, for those reasons, uh, and Virginia. What we see in states that just say you're allowed, if you're innocent, you're allowed to have it expunged, but, like, the clerk of court isn't automatically going to transmit the documentation to, uh, the state crime lab or Bureau of Investigation.

290. 1:19:51

     What we see is it's not happening. Uh, so, like, the Urban Institute did a massive survey of post-arrest collection of DNA in 2012, and they found that in states where the onus was on the innocent person, it was not being expunged. Um, in California, there was a state challenge to their scheme there where they have, um, if you're found innocent, you can petition, uh, to have your profile expunged and your sample destroyed. Um, last year, uh, they found that about 2,000 of hundreds of thousands of people, about 1% of people who are eligible to have their DNA sample destroyed actually had it destroyed.

291. 1:20:33

     The other approximately 99% still had it in the system. So we would also be supportive of an amendment which actually appeared in a 2016 Senate bill that passed the Senate but ended up not passing the House here in Georgia, um, that just said in any of those situations where you are entitled to expungement, just the clerk of court is gonna transmit that paperwork, and it just automates that process. Uh, we believe that, uh, two amendments, uh, amendments addressing those two things would, uh, greatly improve the bill and, uh, mitigate some of our concerns, uh, although we are, are still wary of the state constitutionality of, uh, the mandatory DNA collection upon arrest.

292. 1:21:23

     Okay. Thank you very much.

293. 1:21:24

     No problem.

294. 1:21:24

     I don't see any questions for you. Um, I may have some after.

295. 1:21:29

     All right.

296. 1:21:29

     But, uh, we gotta hurry, so uh, Mike Mitchell with the Georgia Sheriff's Association.

297. 1:21:39

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It's great to be back in front of you this year. Uh, we do come to you today with a very small request. It does not change the end result of this bill, uh, whatsoever, and I do want to applaud Senator Williams for his passion on this, and I want to assure him that we are, uh, on the same side of this. Uh, this is something that, uh, is very important. Uh, we have no opposition, but we would ask that, uh, the DNA sample be collected by the arresting officer versus the jail officer.

298. 1:22:14

     Uh, we make that request because, uh, the arresting officers are certified, they're mandated. Uh, they have training in evidence collection, storage, uh, transporting that evidence, and chain of custody. Uh, I would like the committee to understand that most jailers are not mandated. They are not certified peace officers. Uh, so we would just ask for that one small change. I think Senator Williams is agreeable to that. Uh, and again, I just want to stress that it does not change the end result of this.

299. 1:22:47

     So, uh, we would ask for your assistance with that. And if I may, uh, address that, Mr. Chairman, if you look at line 67, or otherwise processed at the detention facility rather than by the detention facility, if we change that one word,

300. 1:23:11

     because when the arresting officer brings the offender in, then it could be swab taken at the detention facility, not out on somewhere else in the back of the car or wherever, and it just doesn't say who's taking it and leave it up to the individual jurisdiction. Would you look at that? Do you have your copy in front of you, Mark? I don't have the most current version, but, but my, my preference would be that it's, it's spelled out clearer in statute that it is the responsibility of the arresting officer.

301. 1:23:47

     And you're gonna ... Y- you will have some investigators that take the swab before they leave the interrogation room. When they know the charge is gonna be made, they will, uh, take the swab, dress them out, bring them to the jail to have them booked in.

302. 1:24:05

     And, and I'm reading this, and, uh, bear with me. "Each DNA sample required pursuant to Code Section 35-3-160 from individuals who are arrested or to be incarcerated shall be collected at the time such individuals are received, booked, or otherwise processed at the detention facility." But you're wanting it to say, "By the arresting officer," is that correct?

303. 1:24:37

     Yes, sir. We would like for that to be clearer. I don't have a problem with that.

304. 1:24:45

     All right, we got a couple of questions. Um, Chairman Sainz. Well, I want to try to be quick, but right now, is, is ... Are you able to quickly mention, or is it very different per jurisdiction, what's a common, um, booking procedure when, uh, a, a individual's received by a county jail? Yes, sir. So, uh, they're brought in. There is a, a search and intake.

305. 1:25:16

     The arrest booking report is completed. Uh, the individual is fingerprinted, photographed, um, dressed out. Uh- If you could address- Yes, sir ... who is fingerprinting and photographing? That's what I'm not clear on. I've never ... Thank goodness I've never been there. I don't know about that one. Time and a place. N- neither have I, thank, thank goodness. Uh, but that, that is being conducted by the booking officer, the jailer that's working intake.

306. 1:25:47

     The jailer is doing that now? Yes, sir. Okay. And, and my ... And I understand the hesitation of creating an unfunded mandate. I understand that, but my hesitation is if we change this to the arresting officer, though they are, um, versed in evidence collection, we are taking it from a controlled environment at the time of processing with a single point of, of contact to ensure compliance to a, a, an extreme amount of points of contacts per individual officer in the field, and I don't know if that's a better course of a- uh, a course of action in terms of ensuring this is carried through.

307. 1:26:30

     And I mean, if the decision is made that the swab is done in the controlled environment there at the correctional facility, the jail, uh, but we make it clear that it's the responsibility of the arresting officer, they will, uh, maintain possession of that, and they will take it back to their respective agency or sheriff's office and, and, uh, enter it into evidence. So at the facility, but still the responsibility of the officer prior to, uh, the custody being transferred- Yes, sir ...

308. 1:27:00

     of the individual? Okay. Yes, sir. Thank you.

309. 1:27:07

     Yes. One ... Uh, we got a couple more questions, but one question I have about that, um, I just thought about, what if in a circumstance there's a warrant issued for this and the arresting officer is a sheriff's deputy- Mm-hmm ... that actually serves that warrant? Absolutely. Um, are they gonna be the arresting officer, or is the person who took the warrant gonna be the arresting officer? Y- you know what I mean? There are sometimes folks who there may be a warrant. You may have somebody else that transports them to the jail that's not the arresting officer, so- Right ...

310. 1:27:37

     sometimes the of- official arresting officer and the person transporting them to the jail, which is this now contained facility, are not the same person, which is why I think that having it done where they're processed at, and I know we had this conversation earlier, um, I think is a,

311. 1:27:57

     it, it's a, a safer, uh, more established way to do it because that's where all the processing is happening. Um, but, you know, again, I understand your concerns with that, but I think that-

312. 1:28:09

     That's where all the other processing is happening. So, um, we got a couple more questions. I think we had Representative Neal first.

313. 1:28:17

     Yes. Thank you to the chair, and, uh, thank you to my friends from the Sheriff's Association. Um,

314. 1:28:24

     so I've worked, been a detective or an investigator at both agencies, police department and the sheriff's office. Um, and then taking outside of sheriff's offices that are in bigger jurisdictions to include some of the smaller ones, um, oftentimes you might not have evidence in the traditional way you have them at some police agencies.

315. 1:28:45

     Mm.

316. 1:28:45

     And that's why oftentimes s- s- some sheriff's departments have to call out the police to go handle something anyway. But it would behoove you to listen to that advice because

317. 1:28:57

     currently the way we already do things, rape, robbery, murder, you name it, shell casings at any scene, crime scene, it's already collected in those external environments. So getting a swab in the field is no different than, you know, us picking up, um, ah, casings, you name it. But the problem is, and if you don't change it, you'll create a fight between the police department and the sheriff's office when they walk in there and they say, "Well, you are supposed to take it." "Well, uh, well, if I take it, you need to process it." "Well, we don't have a processing facility here." Well, the law we have to follow doesn't say either way.

318. 1:29:34

     So I think doing it that way and putting it inside of a process that is already happening in law enforcement agencies right now, instead of making it more confusing and a lot messier for the sheriff's offices, that a lot of times they probably won't be able to handle that, would be better when it comes to the efficiency of the flow of the bill.

319. 1:29:53

     And Representative Neal, you explained it much better than, than I did. But that- that's exactly correct. That- that is our concern.

320. 1:29:59

     Okay. That's all I got.

321. 1:30:02

     All right. Uh, Representative Holcomb.

322. 1:30:05

     Thank- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I- I'm curious in terms of the practical application of this, recognizing that we wanna plan for outliers, because outliers could give rise to litigation, and then, um, bad outcomes. But the majority of individuals that would be subject to this, my strong guess is, is that they likely would be from warrants issued from magistrates upon probable cause, because there'd be a fair amount of investigation for these type of crimes. Do you agree with that or not?

323. 1:30:35

     I mean, not necessarily.

324. 1:30:37

     Okay. Why?

325. 1:30:38

     Um, I mean, I can just think personally of a lot of cases where the arrest is made on the spot. You respond to a scene, you, um... It's one of the seven deadlies, you- you make the arrest there.

326. 1:30:49

     Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

327. 1:30:51

     Yeah.

328. 1:30:52

     All right, and last question, Representative Cummings, and then we are gonna continue on.

329. 1:30:58

     Thank you. Um, good afternoon.

330. 1:31:00

     Good afternoon.

331. 1:31:00

     I'm not sure if my, um... I just want to kind of like picture the process. So the person is arrested, they're taken to the station with a swab and a kit. They're at the station, 'cause the police are not going to carry it with them. So after they take the picture, they do the fingerprint, then the, um, police officer, not the sheriff's officer, will go to where the kits are, get the swab, do the swab, put it in the postage prepaid kit, and then leave it with the sheriff's office to mail because it's already pre, um, postage prepaid and furnished to law enforcement officers, or take it out with them?

332. 1:31:38

     It would be taken with them, uh, and it would be entered into their evidence. So if you have Atlanta PD, for an example, that makes an arrest for one of the serious violent felonies, they would take them to the, to the jail to be booked. Uh, the arresting officer would, uh, be responsible for doing the swab. Uh, they would be packaged up, taken back with them, entered into evidence at Atlanta PD. It would not, uh, remain in the custody of the jail. Very similar to DUI cases right now, where you do, do the blood draw.

333. 1:32:12

     I mean, you, you take the suspect to the hospital, have the blood drawn, the blood is handed back over to the arresting officer. They're responsible for getting that into evidence, and then the evidence tech for their agency's responsible for getting it to the crime lab at the GBI.

334. 1:32:27

     Thank you for that example.

335. 1:32:28

     Yes.

336. 1:32:29

     Okay.

337. 1:32:30

     All right. That's it. Thank you, Mike.

338. 1:32:31

     Thank you.

339. 1:32:32

     And now we have, uh, Brian Hines with the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This is unique. This is very unique for me, too. I just wanted to say, over the last couple years, uh, having worked with House Budget and Research, I've really enjoyed the relationship we've all built, and, uh, it's been an absolute pleasure. So from on this side, it's odd to me, too. Uh, just wanted to say that I think we would just echo what Representative Holcomb said. I think there's, the guardrails would be very helpful as far as the constitutionality.

340. 1:33:03

     I do think, I mean, I'm not gonna rehash what Capitol said in the past. The DUI case law over the past couple years has been very difficult, uh, for the state. And so I, I think at least the, uh, the first thing Representative Holcomb mentioned, uh, about the, uh, probable cause would be useful. I also think, uh, putting some form of a, a mandatory, uh, basis on the court, uh, to s- uh, submit this to the GBI would be useful so that it's not on the, on the defendant, uh, to do that when, you know, their case has been reduced from a serious violent felony to a misdemeanor or something to that effect.

341. 1:33:38

     I just think as a matter of fairness, I think that would be a good basis. So that's all we have, um, and I appreciate your time. All right. Thank you very much. All right, that is all of our speakers, um, and all of our questions. Now, uh, what is the will of the committee?

342. 1:33:57

     Move to pass.

343. 1:33:58

     Second.

344. 1:33:59

     Second.

345. 1:33:59

     Okay, we've got a motion to pass and some seconds. And on queue, we have Representative Holcomb. Yes, sir.

346. 1:34:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll have amendments to propose at the proper time, so I wanna just flag that if there's-

347. 1:34:14

     Well, if there's gonna be a time, this would be it.

348. 1:34:16

     Okay. Um...

349. 1:34:26

     All right, so bear with me. Uh, they're, they basically fall... I'll explain them first and then, um, while they're passing out. And just one issue on the draft is, uh, this was drafted by legislative council off of, um, the existing version, not the substitute, so I'll address the lines. But what I'm go- going to propose are two things. One is to have the judicial oversight part on the second, um, uh, for those that are arrests that are not made by an arrest warrant, with the idea being, um, from my perspective, I recognize that the majority of the committee may see it differently.

350. 1:35:06

     Um, but I could see a likely constitutional challenge on that. So the idea is to button it up and so it doesn't leave a differing application of the law from those that are arrested with a magistrate saying, "Yes, there's probable clause- cause here," and having an independent actor other than the arresting officers having that process built in, um, uh, to try to help just put that safeguard on.

351. 1:35:37

     So that's in lines two and three, so that would change, um, to line 67. So on the current, um, version, LC62-0283S, um, it would go right after or right before where the sentence each begins. It would say, "However, if the person is arrested without a warrant, then the DNA sample shall not be taken until prob- probable cause determination has been made by a judge or grand jury." And then the second part, um, would go with lines 128 and 130, so on the amendment that was passed out, change 127 to 128 and 129 to 130.

352. 1:36:22

     And what that does is it gives greater clarity and specificity to the incidents when it would not be able to be used and would need to, um, be removed. So for example, if there's a court order directing expungement, um, the court reverses and dismisses the conviction, the judgment of acquittal, uh, et cetera, with the idea being that if you're not found guilty of the crime, then it shouldn't be in, uh, the state's database anymore. And so, Mr.

353. 1:36:52

     Chairman, I don't know if you want me to do them collectively or individually, um, if you have a, a preference on that.

354. 1:37:02

     Um, I, I-

355. 1:37:02

     Or if there's questions.

356. 1:37:04

     There's a lot of lights blinking. Um-

357. 1:37:06

     Oh, geez.

358. 1:37:09

     There are... I, I, I would be fine with doing them collectively since you've got it as one amendment form.

359. 1:37:14

     All right.

360. 1:37:15

     Um,

361. 1:37:17

     are these questions... So I know Representative Neal has another amendment. Is yours a-

362. 1:37:23

     Yeah, it is amendment.

363. 1:37:24

     Okay. And is yours about his amendment?

364. 1:37:28

     No, it's a different amendment.

365. 1:37:28

     A different amendment. Good Lord. Okay. Um, Representative Sainz.

366. 1:37:33

     Thank you, Rep- Representative Holcomb. And I know y- you're versed in this more than I, so this is a genuine question. In terms of the first, uh, um, intended amendment you're making, uh, uh, your line two and three, um, let, practically, my concern is are we exposing, uh, whether it be the intake at the jail or the officer at, on the field if something else changes, but let's just say the intake for the jail at this point, if, if we were to have this, we're having two different pro- intake processes for individuals, which I'm not aware of really exists at this point.

367. 1:38:12

     There, there's a common uniform standard per inmate.

368. 1:38:15

     Mm-hmm.

369. 1:38:15

     If, uh, if it was inaccurately captured, 'cause I do agree Georgia has a higher, uh, level of privacy in our Constitution than most.

370. 1:38:24

     Sure.

371. 1:38:24

     And I don't know if this, uh, is the solution or not, but, but off that premise, is, if we put this language, is there liability tied to a, an inaccurate capturing? Is there a way to put this language in place to where if it's inaccurately sampled, it's just not usable? I, uh, do, do you have any clarification? I know that's a very generalistic, but I do not know a better way to ask it.

372. 1:38:52

     I, I, I think if there's any issue with the manner in which the evidence is taken is you would be subject to the evidence being suppressed. And I know many of you know this, but I didn't say it. I am a former prosecutor, too, so that's part of the lens that I come at, you know, through this. Um, this is consistent with North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. They do have a judicial oversight of the warrant process. They don't just let the arresting officers do it.

373. 1:39:24

     A- and so certainly if the committee wants to go in a different direction, that's fine, and, and I certainly under- understand that. But as I said at the beginning, if I were defense counsel, which I'm not, um, in the criminal sense, and if I had, if this passed and then I had somebody that wasn't, an, a arrest warrant was made just by the officer and not through a magistrate, I 100% would attack this. So I'm trying to prevent that, is the, the major kinda goal.

374. 1:39:57

     And I don't know if I answered your question or not.

375. 1:39:58

     You, you did to an extent. You, uh, spurred an, an additional very quick question. If for some re- and go, go about your motions, but if for some reason a different way to do it is keep it consistent at the time of booking. But would we be able to do some kind of amendment down the road of if a, if a, um, DNA sample is taken without a probable cause determination from a judge or grand jury, a, uh, motion shall, to suppress shall be, must be granted, that we're directing that that is evidence that- must be suppressed to give some protections there, and you don't think that would suffice your goal?

376. 1:40:38

     Uh, I think that's a different issue.

377. 1:40:40

     Okay.

378. 1:40:40

     Um, and I think the defense bar would know to do that, and we wouldn't have to, you know, put that in.

379. 1:40:48

     All right. I, I'll hold off, but thank you.

380. 1:40:51

     Yeah. Thank you.

381. 1:40:53

     All right. Thank you. Um, Representative, uh, Will.

382. 1:41:02

     Hang on. I was coming to you, but I guess we've got this motion on the amendment. Yeah, let's go ahead and do that before, 'cause we've got two other people who want to make amendments, and we got a whole nother bill to get to that's probably gonna be worse than this, and we're gonna run out of time because we have another committee coming in here at 3:00. So, um, you know, we've heard all of these. They've all passed out of here last year, so, um, anyway, here we are.

383. 1:41:29

     Mr. Chairman, I, I would move the two amendments that I proposed and articulated, um,

384. 1:41:35

     Okay

385. 1:41:35

     ... to the motion.

386. 1:41:35

     We have a motion to amend. Is there a second?

387. 1:41:39

     Second.

388. 1:41:40

     All right, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion to amend? All right, all those in favor of the motion to amend, say aye.

389. 1:41:52

     Aye. Aye.

390. 1:41:53

     All opposed to the motion to amend, say no.

391. 1:42:00

     No.

392. 1:42:00

     Okay. That, uh, sounded like the ayes had it to me.

393. 1:42:04

     Okay.

394. 1:42:05

     So-

395. 1:42:05

     Thank you

396. 1:42:05

     ... we have that amendment, which we are going to call the Holcomb Amendment. Uh, added Representative Neal, as swiftly as you can.

397. 1:42:16

     I'll be super swift. Um, so I'm gonna strike what I mentioned earlier, 'cause I'm, I'm completely solid with my, uh, colleague's, uh, amendment. All I'm gonna do now is add the wishes of the Sheriff's Association. Um, and Senator, I found the, the line, line 66.

398. 1:42:35

     After the word collected, add by the arresting officer. Pick it back up, at the time such individuals', et cetera, et cetera. So my amendment is line 66, after the word collected, insert by the arresting officer, and then pick back up with the same sentence.

399. 1:43:04

     Okay. So line 66, after collected, you'll insert by the arresting officer, uh, and then continue on with that sentence. Um, one question that I do have, though, um, and I'm glad you pushed your button, how is that gonna interact with the amendment we just did that says if the person is arrested without a warrant, then the DNA sample shall not be taken until a probable cause determination has been made by a judge or grand jury? Are you gonna have the arresting officer have to come back to the facility and gain access to the facility to do that sample?

400. 1:43:37

     So-

401. 1:43:37

     Representative Holcomb, would you like to opine?

402. 1:43:39

     Um, I think what, what I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, and it goes off your line of thought before, would be to have it be an or of by the arresting officer or the processing, which would give either circumstance. If they have a warrant that was issued, you know, through a magistrate, then the arresting officer could. And, uh, if you have it as an or, then it could also be done by the processing facility, and I think that that would capture both. So I'd, um-

403. 1:44:09

     I can fix it

404. 1:44:10

     ... I'll, I'll-

405. 1:44:10

     I got the fix.

406. 1:44:11

     Yeah.

407. 1:44:12

     Yeah?

408. 1:44:12

     Yep.

409. 1:44:12

     Line 66, same section, same line, collected, right after collected, insert by the arresting officer or the processing facility.

410. 1:44:25

     Much better.

411. 1:44:27

     So-

412. 1:44:27

     Second

413. 1:44:27

     ... the only ... Hang on. The only problem with that is that if the warrant, they've already been processed before the arraignment's done. And I swear I'm not trying to muddy this up. I really do want to move on. But, like, they've already been processed. There's not gonna be any more processing being done. They've already been processed, uh, at the detention facility. So if we do it after arraignment, that, that language is not going to work.

414. 1:44:57

     Well, look at this, though. So line 67 already says or otherwise processed by the detention facility. I wonder if that still satisfies it, 'cause that's already there in line 77.

415. 1:45:09

     Yeah, there won't be any more processing done, though. They'll just be-

416. 1:45:13

     Well, either way-

417. 1:45:14

     ... the warrant will be issued

418. 1:45:15

     ... well, I think right now the problem we're trying to solve is for the arrest on the street.

419. 1:45:20

     Mm-hmm. Okay.

420. 1:45:20

     That's the problem that's giving the sheriff's office trouble.

421. 1:45:24

     Yeah.

422. 1:45:24

     So all we're addressing, and if we just keep it the way I originally had it, we address- addressing the process of being arrested on the street.

423. 1:45:32

     Okay. All right. I think, uh, our legislative council, who is our attorney of record here, has something she would like to add, and I want to hear it. Go ahead.

424. 1:45:40

     Um, yes. I think adding, uh, the or actually does make sense in this statute because we're focused right now on arresting, but this statute doesn't only apply to individuals that are arrested, because it's only for the seven deadlies that it would be collected at that point. Under this statute, there could be people who are convicted of felonies that aren't the seven deadlies whose DNA is also collected, and so that collection happens at a detention facility once they're getting into GDC's custody, I believe. And so I think we need to be mindful of that as we're making these edits, that we're not ...

425. 1:46:13

     This statute doesn't only apply to the new ... We- we're maybe adding a new category where you would collect DNA, but there's other categories that exist in this statute, and we need to be careful not to get so narrow that we're interfering with that.

426. 1:46:28

     Yes, ma'am. Thank you, which this actually goes back to my point earlier. We were talking about the part about the sterile needles, um- That affects some of this being done at detention facilities and jails and prisons that where they're already in, where DNA is collected via needle, um, and that's why I didn't want to necessarily remove some of that. So, but your current amendment, state your amendment one more time, please.

427. 1:46:55

     Well, just for clarity with the attorney, so you, you recommend me keeping by the arresting officer and adding or, oh, and adding or processing facility, that's the recommendation?

428. 1:47:06

     Yes, when you said by the arresting officer.

429. 1:47:08

     Officer or-

430. 1:47:08

     Or, yes.

431. 1:47:10

     I think it should say or because-

432. 1:47:11

     Gotcha

433. 1:47:12

     ... you won't have an arresting officer collecting DNA if it's someone who's convicted of a non-seven deadly felony.

434. 1:47:19

     Gotcha. So Chair, for the purpose of the amendment, after collected, insert by the arresting officer or the processing facility.

435. 1:47:30

     Okay. All right, uh, Representative Panitch, do you have a conversation on this amendment? Okay, go ahead.

436. 1:47:36

     My concern is for warrants that are not, the, for people who are arrested without a warrant, um, the, the officer, um... I'm having a problem articulating this, but it's... Can the sheriff come up? Because h- it's, it's affecting him or Mike.

437. 1:48:01

     Yeah. And Terry showed up now.

438. 1:48:04

     'Cause I s-

439. 1:48:04

     We'll let Terry take a turn this time.

440. 1:48:06

     I th- I think they wanted the arresting officer to do all of it, and if it's an arrest without a warrant, then it needs a probable cause determination, either in a grand jury room where the lead officer, most of the time the arresting officer, will be testifying in order to get probable cause and a grand jury indictment, or, um, or at a probable cause hearing, the lead officer will be there. So they can take the defendant or go back with the defendant to the, to the detention facility and do the swab there.

441. 1:48:36

     Is that more of what you were talking about?

442. 1:48:39

     Ye- yes, ma'am, in all of these cases there will be a warrant. Some of these offenders are, will be charged, uh, and arrested on, with a warrantless arrest because they've observed the-

443. 1:48:51

     Mm-hmm

444. 1:48:51

     ... uh, the incident, the officer has. They'll be taken to the jail. At some point there is a warrant for that based on probable cause.

445. 1:49:02

     Well, that's a warrant for the underlying crime. I'm talking about the, uh, an arrest of somebody who is not tied to the underlying crime, but for purposes of being put into the, into the system to match against any possible crimes somewhere else. Does that make sense?

446. 1:49:21

     Uh, I, I'm not sure I understand what the underlying crime is. I, I thought we were arresting someone on one of the seven deadlies.

447. 1:49:27

     Right.

448. 1:49:28

     And we, we, we arrest sometimes to, uh, Representative Holcomb's, uh, thought, w- we arrest sometimes, uh, most of the time there's a warrant like you said. However, all times there's a warrant at some point. You, you observe, the officer observes someone committing one of these offenses, that person, that, he or she arrests that person, but then there is a warrant, uh, obtained for that person, so that is the offense. I don't, I don't know what underlying offense you're speaking of.

449. 1:49:56

     Okay. I, the issue is the... And maybe Scott can w- uh, Representative Holcomb can weigh in. The issue is, um, you have one of the seven deadlies. You have an arresting officer at the scene who says it's probable cause. We're asking for some judicial oversight, so before a magistrate or a grand jury, so maybe that's the distinction we need to make. It's not warrant, it's probable cause determination by a judicial officer or a grand jury.

450. 1:50:27

     So I should at those hearings, they can take the swab.

451. 1:50:32

     So let me clarify, so just confirming, and please, um,

452. 1:50:39

     so I think the question is the concern of arresting officer. To my knowledge, and I haven't arrested anybody actually in the, in the jail in a long time, uh, so confirming if you are in the jail, if there's a, and you are, and the officer's arresting somebody in real time in the jail, not the officer, staying with her theory, the new arresting officer is the sheriff's deputy that's about to put the handcuffs on 'cause they are doing the paperwork.

453. 1:51:10

     And in turn they also will be doing the DNA sample because the other arresting officer is not working. Arresting officer, that language switches depending on where you are 'cause you, 'cause the officer that is on trial is not the one that's gonna put the handcuffs on inside of the courtroom or the, the jail. Does that make sense?

454. 1:51:33

     The arresting officer on the scene that observes something is making a warrantless arrest. That is the arresting officer.

455. 1:51:43

     Right.

456. 1:51:43

     If that officer is bringing that person to jail-

457. 1:51:46

     Right

458. 1:51:47

     ... so, uh, on that scenario, that officer is bringing that person to jail.

459. 1:51:52

     Mm-hmm.

460. 1:51:53

     At that point, that swab would be taken at the jail.

461. 1:51:56

     Right.

462. 1:51:57

     Where it is not, would not be taken at the jail would be in the c- the case of, say, Fulton County-

463. 1:52:03

     Mm-hmm

464. 1:52:04

     ... or a larger county.

465. 1:52:05

     Mm-hmm.

466. 1:52:05

     Where these cases are being made by APD detectives and others.

467. 1:52:11

     Yes.

468. 1:52:12

     They're making the case based upon their investigation.

469. 1:52:15

     Yeah.

470. 1:52:16

     They're getting a warrant.

471. 1:52:18

     Yes.

472. 1:52:18

     They're going to arrest the person.

473. 1:52:20

     Mm-hmm.

474. 1:52:21

     Generally when they're doing that, they're in a, their closed environment. They're in their headquarters in the interview room. Once they make the arrest, then they would make that swab there.

475. 1:52:33

     Mm-hmm.

476. 1:52:33

     So most of the cases, particularly in the, the metro areas, would be in that scenario.

477. 1:52:39

     Right.

478. 1:52:40

     Um- Where we were concerned was that every case that comes in, a jail staff person would have to take that swab and send it off.

479. 1:52:51

     Right.

480. 1:52:51

     Now, I think the chairman has h- fixed the cost part of it.

481. 1:52:56

     Yeah.

482. 1:52:57

     But it is patently, uh, unfair to require the sheriff's personnel to, to collect this evidence when you've got a detective, in this scenario, collecting all the other evidence.

483. 1:53:11

     Right.

484. 1:53:11

     Um, there's also, and it's less, and Chairman, uh, Crowe explained that to me, and I kinda agree with him on this, there's less chance that that jail officer who collects that sample might later be called to Portland, Oregon, and I think we talked about that, Chairman, earlier. So I, I agree with that, that, but that s- scenario could happen. You could have a jailer do the swab, it hits somewhere else, there's an investigation in Portland, Oregon. This is my example 'cause it's a long way away, and they could subpoena our jail officer to go testify as to how the swab was done and what we did on, uh, the chain of custody.

485. 1:53:50

     So the, the biggest issue is not the street example.

486. 1:53:54

     Right.

487. 1:53:55

     Because you're gonna get a warrant there. You're gonna get that oversight there. And if you wanted that, uh, judicial overview or authority to collect the sample, it could be done at that, that juncture.

488. 1:54:09

     Mm-hmm.

489. 1:54:09

     So we had just simply hoped that the, simply the arresting officer, except for that one s- scenario where he's bringing him to the jail, where he is, he or she has observed that offense, that the arresting officer for the detective here or the GBI. I mean, the GBI makes a lot of, uh, conducts a lot of homicide investigations statewide because sheriffs and chiefs in smaller areas need them, and they provide a valuable service. In that instance, I, I'm not speaking for Director Hosey, but I think his folks would wanna take the swab because they were the one familiar with the case.

490. 1:54:44

     Mm-hmm.

491. 1:54:44

     But, I mean, again, we'll let, let them speak for them. So this was just an attempt, and, uh, Chairman Williams had, we had talked to him about that, and then he's, I think he said he'd not opposed to it. So I think... Sir? I, I don't know if you were here, but no, I'm not opposed. That's what I said. You're not opposed to it. Okay. Yes, sir. I came in late. Um, but anyway, that's the long and short of it for us.

492. 1:55:05

     Okay.

493. 1:55:06

     Um, we're certainly not opposed to collecting DNA to help solve crimes.

494. 1:55:10

     Yep.

495. 1:55:11

     Uh, there's a similar bill in the Senate for immigration purposes, and we supported that with certain, uh, provisions too.

496. 1:55:17

     All right. Thank you. Chairman Powell, you had something to this, uh, amendment.

497. 1:55:23

     Yeah, and I don't mean to belabor what I'm fixing to say, but, uh, it seems like we're going around in circles on this. Um, uh, Prana understood what the Sheriff's Association said, and, and I agree that the person that takes the sample needs to be a certified officer.

498. 1:55:41

     Okay.

499. 1:55:42

     Whether that officer is the arresting officer, that seems irrelevant. They go through the process, they're arrested, they're at a detention center. If you don't have a detention officer that's a certified police officer, then you just simply say a Georgia certified officer by the statute that certifies that officer instead of the arresting officer. It's quite simply let them say that, you know? It's just you don't need to be worried about the arresting officer or anything else. When they go through the process, whether in detention or otherwise, that, that whoever takes that sample, that they have to be a Georgia, a certified Georgia law enforcement officer, and that should meet the qualifications for the chain of custody and everything else.

500. 1:56:30

     Response.

501. 1:56:31

     Okay. Go ahead.

502. 1:56:31

     Uh, yeah. So we are saying the same thing. You're saying the exact same thing I'm saying. But for the purposes of how we have, um, definitions in our code section, we have to say it a certain way, 'cause if you say it your way, it still leaves the door open for people to make the arrest, and the sheriff's office is not sure, 'cause it says just any officer, and the police department's like, "Well, I'm not gonna do it." Sheriff's office, "I'm not gonna do it." And so we have to say certain words just for the purposes of our code. So we're saying the same thing. Arresting officer is, it's still the same thing.

503. 1:57:05

     But for the purpose of our code, we have to say it that way. So-

504. 1:57:08

     Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and finish your amendment. Um, uh, you know, I've, I've gone on record with him and everybody. I don't necessarily care who does it, I just care that it gets done-

505. 1:57:18

     Yeah

506. 1:57:18

     ... uh, to be quite honest with you. Um, so you go ahead and do your amendment. Let's see what the will of the committee is regarding-

507. 1:57:23

     Okay

508. 1:57:23

     ... your amendment, and then we'll move on to other things.

509. 1:57:26

     Okay. Um, line 66, after collected, insert, "By the arresting officer

510. 1:57:36

     or at the processing facility. By the arresting officer

511. 1:57:49

     or at the processing facility."

512. 1:57:53

     So are you taking out all of that other language that's in there now, where it says, "At the time such individuals are received,"-

513. 1:57:58

     Oh, I'm just inserting

514. 1:57:58

     ... "book, or otherwise processed"?

515. 1:57:59

     I'm just inserting.

516. 1:58:00

     Okay.

517. 1:58:01

     Yeah.

518. 1:58:01

     So it'll be, "By the arresting officer or at the time such individuals are received, book, or pro- otherwise processed by the detention facility." That is the motion you're making?

519. 1:58:09

     Yes.

520. 1:58:10

     On line 66 and 67?

521. 1:58:12

     Yes.

522. 1:58:13

     Perfect. Okay. Is there a second on that amendment?

523. 1:58:16

     Second.

524. 1:58:17

     All right, we have a second. Any more discussion? Thank the Lord. Um- All right. All in favor of the amendment, say aye.

525. 1:58:29

     Aye.

526. 1:58:29

     All those opposed, say no. All right, that amendment passes.

527. 1:58:36

     Okay. I don't see any other amendments. Um, so we have the original bill, uh, with the Holcomb amendment and with the Neal amendment I don't see any other discussion. All those in favor of the bill as amended with those two amendments, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.

528. 1:58:57

     No. Okay. I think the ayes carry. Thank you. Thank y'all.

529. 1:59:08

     All right, and now we are going to jump into 295, and I will say you all can probably tell time just like I can, and I told you we have until 3:00 to get in here. It is now 2:45. We are gonna go as rapidly as we can and get done with this. There are a lot of people who signed up to speak to this bill. I believe most of you were here last year when we did this, and I think a lot of y'all are going to, um, have some of the same concerns and say virtually the same thing. So just understand we're going to, uh, be swift in our public testimony, um, for this bill.

530. 1:59:46

     So Representative Gaines, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a bill that's passed out of this committee last year, and it passed out of committee the year before that. Uh, so I'll be very brief and basically explain the changes. But in overall, uh, what we're trying to do is a common sense measure to protect homeowners and property owners in our state from local governments that are failing to uphold, uh, their own laws and state law related to, uh, loitering, homelessness, uh, and also illegal immigration, um, and trying to make sure that, uh, that our local governments are doing the job they were, uh, that they're supposed to do.

531. 2:00:17

     Arizona passed a very similar initiative with almost 60% of the vote, and it's been effective there in making sure local governments enforce their own laws. The, the main substantive change is on line, uh- And I apologize. Just w- we have all three versions of this in here. Oh. So, um- Uh, three- We are on LC473883S. That's right. The other two were included for you just for reference if you wanted to go back and see what was in before. Perfect. So, um, that's why those are included.

532. 2:00:49

     I don't want anybody to be confused, but the current version we're looking at is LC473883S. And m- the, the, there's a few minor cleanup items. The only substantive change is, uh, on line 73 and 74 that ensures that a claim under this code section, if a taxpayer files a claim, it has to be in the same tax year. The previous legislation allowed 24 months. Uh, this is something that we heard from, uh, local governments that it needed to be in the same tax year.

533. 2:01:20

     And so, uh, we have talked to the ACCG and GMA. I, uh, you know, they may, uh, still outline some concerns they have, but we tried to incorporate, uh, different issues as we're able. And so that's really the only substantive change from the bill that passed out of committee last year. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Uh, any fur- questions for the bill sponsor from the committee? All right, I don't see any there, so we will go on. We're gonna start with, um, Laurie Ramsey, or no, I'm sorry, Larry Ramsey and Todd Edwards.

534. 2:01:52

     Is that Larry? Do I see Larry? All right. Todd Edwards. I know what that says. ACCG. That is, that is Larry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Larry, sorry. Uh, Todd can't write my name very clearly, and then, and Todd had to step out, so, um, I'll muddle through quickly. As you said, Mr. Chairman, I did speak to the committee last year, so I'll, I'll try to be brief. Thank you to the author for con- considering our concerns and addressing some of those. A couple of big points and a couple of minor ones I, I wa- I wanna make. One, uh, as you know, the, the General Assembly passed, uh, two years ago a couple of bills on some of the same subject matter area about sanctuary jurisdictions, about immigration detainer enforcement, about ordinances relating to public camping and sidewalk.

535. 2:02:37

     Uh, those have only been on the books for about 18 months. Those who have penalties such as misdemeanor for not complying with, uh, immigration detainer notice, misdemeanor penalties. Uh, local governments also are at risk of losing all state funds if they're not complying when, in these areas. So from our perspective, from ACCG's perspective, uh, it's, it's a little early to see whether we need to add more penalties to something that's on the books. So that's, that's one piece. The second big piece I wanted to mention, and I, and I mentioned this last time, longtime county attorney, many years ago, the General Assembly changed the law about tax appeals, allowing for, uh, recovery of attorney's fees by the, uh, attorneys that bring those tax appeals cases.

536. 2:03:18

     And in my experience, sometimes the property owner would save a few hundred dollars in taxes, but the lawyer would be paid tens of thousands of dollars potentially, uh, in bringing that case for limited relief for, for their client. I can see this, this coming here as well. There's, there is a cap, as, as the author has stated, on what you can recover in, in this situation under this, uh, for, uh, you know, prior years' taxes, but attorney's fees are also in play. The attorney's fees are gonna be much higher than what the property owner is likely to recover here, and all of that's coming out of the same pot, right?

537. 2:03:56

     These are all taxpayer dollars from a county's perspective that would be paying not only the refunded property taxes to the property owner but also the attorney's, uh, fees for those bringing the case. So that's a concern from a taxpayer perspective, who's paying the bill. Just a couple of minor points on the bill. It's, I would point out that it does also apply to public nuisance claims. This is written, the way it's written, it's more broad than at line, uh, 49 about bringing claims for public nuisance.

538. 2:04:27

     That's not tied to the immigration public camping areas. It's already the case, a property owner if, uh, can sue the government for maintaining a nuisance and recover damages to their property, so this is, seems to be, uh, a surplusage potentially to have public nuisance in here as well. And then the, the last thing, and I think this maybe is just a drafting point, and that is on-

539. 2:04:52

     Line 102 and 103 in the substitute, this has changed a little bit about the cap on the measure of damages in this type of claim, and the bill now says, "It shall not exceed the amount of ad valorem property taxes levied by such local government in the prior tax year." I would assume that what's intended is the property taxes paid by the owner on the parcel in question, but that's not the way it's written right now. I think the way it's, you know, the way it's written, um, a court would look at that and say that the cap is the total amount of taxes levied by that jurisdiction in the prior year, which is obviously a big number.

540. 2:05:32

     Um, I just wanted to point that out because I'm just assuming that that might not be what was intended by the author. But again, um, thank you for the time. I, I don't wanna belabor it and wanna be respectful of the other folks' time. Happy to answer any questions and appreciates the, uh, the committee's consideration.

541. 2:05:50

     Yeah, real quickly.

542. 2:05:51

     Chairman, uh-

543. 2:05:51

     Yeah

544. 2:05:51

     ... if, if there does need to be a change in that last item, r- and I... What was the line you said on that? I'm certainly open to-

545. 2:05:58

     102, 103, I think

546. 2:05:59

     ... to a friendly amendment. The goal is to, to ensure the property owner could recover up to what they paid in taxes, um, a- as the individual or as the business.

547. 2:06:07

     Okay. It's 102 and 103. Um, and I think what he's saying is the way it reads, it could be the entire amount levied by the county or city or that governing authority there, so.

548. 2:06:18

     And so an easy, I, I think an easy tweak would be not to exceed the amount of ad valorem property taxes paid by, uh, paid on that parcel or paid on that parcel and levied by such local government. I think something like that would- Okay ... clarify, yes.

549. 2:06:31

     Okay.

550. 2:06:32

     So I'd be open to that amendment-

551. 2:06:33

     Perfect

552. 2:06:33

     ... if the committee would like.

553. 2:06:35

     Yeah, thank you. All right.

554. 2:06:36

     Mr. Chair.

555. 2:06:36

     Thank you. All right. Um, uh, Representative Cummings, you have a question?

556. 2:06:44

     Um, yes, um, thank you. Um, I s- had a problem with this bill last year. I still have a, a problem with it. And one of my concerns is what happens to people that are mentally ill, that are now going to be... 'Cause the quickest way to get somebody off the street is to arrest them, and so it amounts to a bunch of homeless people, especially people with mental health problems now going into the system when they otherwise should have been helped. You also have a lot of cities that are actually doing something about homelessness, but that doesn't mean that they're catching everything.

557. 2:07:18

     And at the, at the very least, are you willing to consider an amendment to exempt them? Because if a city is already welcoming it, the last thing they need is to pay extra tax dollars because somebody's complaining.

558. 2:07:32

     I mean, I'd have to see, I guess, kinda what you're talking about. But I will say I think the general assembly in recent years with the landmark mental health legislation we passed, and, you know, in the governor's budget proposal there's $50 million, you know, particularly on, on the homelessness issue. And so I, I believe they're separate, uh, issues. I think what we're trying to do here is ask local governments to enforce laws that are already on the books. And, um, and so, but I'm, you know, be happy to look at what you've got written up.

559. 2:07:58

     Um, I don't necessarily have anything w- written up, but I think it's obvious even with that money, it's not gonna be solved overnight.

560. 2:08:05

     That is true.

561. 2:08:05

     Homelessness cannot be solved overnight.

562. 2:08:06

     No. No, you're, you... It is, it is a very complicated and going to take time. Uh, but I also think that what we've gotta do is compassionately address homelessness but also ensure, uh, that property owners, like if a, a business, you know, in Athens, for example, in downtown where they're going to their business every day and there's someone who's defecated on their front porch, um, you know, in the downtown business, it impacts their ability to operate. Or in Atlanta a few years ago, APD decided that they weren't gonna even enforce or, or go after certain shoplifting. Um, and that was b- before COVID, but, you know, those are some of the sort of things that we've seen that I think, uh, we're trying to address with this measure.

563. 2:08:41

     And, and I think that it will do it because when you get local governments, uh, uh, in Arizona and some of the, these other places that have looked at this, it does seem to be an effective, uh, way to tackle the issue and make sure that they're actually enforcing the law. So-

564. 2:08:55

     So with, so with Arizona, was that just a law that was passed, or did the taxpayers actually get to vote?

565. 2:09:02

     Taxpayers got to vote. It was a constitutional amendment that passed with almost 60% of the vote in a state that, you know, is frankly a swing state.

566. 2:09:08

     Right. But here we're not doing a constitutional amendment to give-

567. 2:09:12

     That's right. They, they had to with the way that their constitution was, uh, the way that their, uh, laws in Arizona are. Here it's not, uh, required to have a constitutional amendment.

568. 2:09:23

     Okay. All right. Chairman Petrie.

569. 2:09:26

     Thank you, Chairman, and, uh, um, thank you for your comments, my good friend. And, and everyone here, we all want to do the same thing. We are absolutely focused on mental health. Um, we need to make sure people get the care they need. But moreover, we need to make sure that people aren't living in inhumane, uh-

570. 2:09:43

     No

571. 2:09:44

     ... w- we've dealt with this in Savannah in a big way, and they finally dealt with it. It took them five or six years. Uh, letting people sleep in the cold, uh, in filth with no dumpsters, no running water, no toilets, um, that's not humane. There's a better way.

572. 2:09:58

     That's right.

573. 2:09:59

     And we have to encourage local governments to do it better than they're doing it.

574. 2:10:04

     I know.

575. 2:10:04

     And to be quite frank, um, uh, most of the, most of the people that are homeless can be helped. It's usually a small subset that are more chronically, uh, homeless that we have the most difficult time, uh, taking care of, right? But I will tell you, this is what I hear in my community. Aggressive panhandling. The things you're trying to stop are things that you've, you've, you've itemized here. Um, I hear all the time from my constituents that w- women that won't go shopping at night because of aggressive panhandling in parking lots, and they're afraid.

576. 2:10:39

     Yeah.

577. 2:10:39

     Um, and we've had... I mean, I could go on all, all day. So I mean, you're talking about panhandling and, and, and public safety issues. Standing on a 55 mile an hour speed limit in a median this wide-

578. 2:10:55

     panhandling. That is dangerous to everyone in the community. These are the things I think you're trying to get at- It is, yes sir ... that are important to the entire community. And yes, we don't want anybody with mental illness just jailed because they're mentally ill. We don't want that. No one wants that. Okay. But we do want people to seek care and to get the care they need, and allowing this is not the answer, and even states like California have recognized that their way ain't the way. It don't work, and they've realized it finally after decades of failure. Thank you, Mr.

579. 2:11:25

     Chairman. I support your measure. All right. Thank you very much. Um, all right, we have got a plethora of people here signed up, um, and I do believe that the majority of the remaining folks wanting to speak are going to be, um, having similar things to say. So if we could do that a d- In fact, there is, are two people from the same,

580. 2:11:50

     uh, organization, Intown Care. So I don't know that we need to... Maybe y'all can come together. Uh, but we are gonna speed this up very rapidly. We have about two to three minutes left. Um, Representative Gaines is, is going to have to run here to another meeting, like, right now. So, um, unless you have something else you wanna add, if you want to step away, you can, and we can continue on. Thank you. But Chairman Werkheiser is standing back there glaring at me, ready to come throw me out of his seat so he can go on to his meeting.

581. 2:12:23

     So, um, Caitlyn Ward, we'll start with you, and we're going to limit this, uh, to, you know, yeah, not long. Yeah. No problem. Um, good afternoon, uh, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Um, my name is Caitlyn Ward, and I'm here today in opposition of HB 295, representing the Carter Center's, um, Policy Awareness and Investment for Alternative Response and Deinc- Deincarceration Initiative, also referred to as PAIRD. PAIRD is a joint effort of the Carter Center's Rosalynn Carter Mental Health and Caregiver Program and Rule of Law Program.

582. 2:12:57

     Together, we work to advance policy reforms, build public awareness, and promote investment in alternative so- social services, um, that ensure people experiencing challenges related to mental health, substance use disorder, homelessness, and poverty can get the care and support that they need instead of arrest or incarceration. Um, I have a more lengthy, but I'm gonna just summarize for you all. One in six, um, people that are incarcerated today are for public nuisance issues, and about 40% of incarcerated individuals have been diagnosed with a mental health condition, almost double that of the general population.

583. 2:13:34

     Our jails are, are the number one place in which people are receiving mental health care, which is not helpful. Um, this bill today would, um, encourage local governments to just use policing and to jail individuals instead of investing in, um, alternative solutions and community response measures, um, and doing, um, other, uh, alternatives, uh, such as, uh, diversion programs, which many of these, um, offenses today would, um, qualify under.

584. 2:14:08

     Um, this I encourage. Um, Georgia, uh, has the opportunity to advance human and effective, um, fiscally responsible solutions that strengthen communities rather than punish people for circumstances roo- rooted in the lack of care. Um, the Carter Center would be more than happy to work with the committee on long-term evidence-based solutions that improve public safety while treating community members with diginity- dignity, and I will let others talk to that. Thank you so much. Yeah, I, I understand, uh, your concerns, and we got into this discussion last year, uh, about, uh, homelessness, and this is not, um...

585. 2:14:45

     Not trying to speak for Chairman Gaines, just knowing what he's said in the past. I don't think this is targeted at that. Simply trying to make sure that laws that are on the books are enforced by local governments and that people's private property is protected, uh, as well. All right. Um, now Michael Nolan and Tracy Woodard, both from Intown Cares. So if y'all can come together, since you... Or just nominate one of you, even better, would be better, but, you know, that would be great. I'll be super short. Um, hi- All right. Cut that in half.

586. 2:15:15

     Thank you. Thank you. Um, we are with Intown Cares, a street outreach agency. Uh, we get calls from developers and property owners all the time how, asking how we can remove people from their land, and generally, you have three options. You can, one, alert the city and hope that they clear the homeless encampment, which puts the onus on law enforcement and Department of Public Works with a high likelihood that the camp will just refill in time. Second, you can hire your own private security and install a high fence, which is not cheap. Or third, you copy the Atlanta blueprint, where city council members pay for social workers to work in the homeless encampments where people are, and work with the developers to invest in affordable housing, the lack of which has greatly exacerbated the homeless situation all over Georgia.

587. 2:16:01

     Housing solves homelessness, not lawsuits. Thank you. Michael Nolan with Intown Cares. I only have one point that I wanna add to that. Uh, I run the East Atlanta Housing Program that started in October of 2023. To date, we have housed 30 people. To date, as of last week, four people did not get housing specifically because they were incarcerated for crimes of homelessness, panhandling. All four of them were panhandling. One of them was last week.

588. 2:16:32

     So out of those 30 people that I housed, all 30 of them remained housed for the, for the two years after that. But four people were denied the ability to have housing to remove themselves from the rolls of the homeless, you know, for permanent supportive housing, because of an arrest for the exact specific things that are mentioned in HB 295. Were they arrested on private property? Were they panhandling on someone's private property? No. Is that why they were arrested?

589. 2:17:03

     None of- Okay. So this bill would have- None of them- So this bill would have no effect on what you just talked about? Okay. Thank you. Um-

590. 2:17:12

     Natalie Kaiser.

591. 2:17:15

     Thank you, Chairman Crowe, members of the committee. Natalie Kaiser, I'm here representing House ATL. We're a coalition with 500 members, uh, working across metro Atlanta to advance housing policy solutions and housing affordability. Our 500 members are opposed to this bill. They come from the private, nonprofit, public, philanthropic community, business sectors, developers, et cetera. So, uh, it, to, to, to the points, uh, referenced earlier, especially when locations are investing in services, it's important to respect that they're trying to do s- local governments are trying to do something and give them time to do it.

592. 2:17:54

     Uh, arresting and incarcerating people who are suffering is not only very costly, it amplifies the problem. People who are arrested lose contact, as Michael was saying, with their street outreach workers who are trying to get them to stability. They may, may lose their belongings, such as their ID and their documentation. Mental and physical health issues may escalate due to the stress of being behind bars and losing medications. We need for the state to support local governments and organizations who are investing in solutions that work rather than, uh, pressuring them to incarcerate people who are homeless.

593. 2:18:27

     The state already has a nationally respected initiative called the Georgia Housing Voucher Program, supported by your Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, that has been trying hard to help people who are mentally ill and chronically homeless with limited resources, um, and they are seeking additional support and funding. We need to fund the State Housing Trust Fund at a very significant level. We're grateful for the $50 million qu- request by Governor Kemp. It can certainly use a lot more considering the depth of the increase in the affordable housing crisis. We need to fund housing rather than expecting that overstretched jails will solve the problem of people being able to afford their monthly rent.

594. 2:19:04

     Thank you. All right. Um...

595. 2:19:11

     Lela. Lela. Yes. Thank you, Lela. You betcha. All right. Rapidly, Lela. Yes. My name is Lela Prlican. I had the whole speech, but I'm gonna be really quick just to address some of the things that had been mentioned. I'm with the Gwinnett Housing Corporation, and, um, we're a nonprofit that develops and manages affordable housing for homeless families. I want to let you know that on any given night in Georgia, there are over 12,000 people who experience homelessness. 59,000 children experience homelessness in Georgia. We also had a study done by Georgia State University that was published this month that shows that even those official numbers are grossly misrepresented at undercounting the actual homeless.

596. 2:19:50

     Uh, the panhandling and, you know, the nuisances, um, this, in the bill, the category is very broad. And, you know, respectfully, I want to disagree that a lot of people, a lot of families, a lot of children would actually be affected by this bill because of the lack of affordable housing and investment. They do. I've certainly, myself, when I've done the homeless point in time counts, I have interviewed families living in a car on private property, um, in parking lots of Walmart and Target. So these families would absolutely be affected by this.

597. 2:20:22

     They would be criminalized, and my experience also shows, like they've mentioned, um, with, when there's a criminal record, it is much harder to get them housing privately or through a nonprofit. So I really beg you to invest in solutions that actually get these families off the streets. Okay. Thank you. Beth Stephens.

598. 2:20:44

     Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. I'll be very quick. I'm the state and local policy director in the Southeast for Enterprise Community Partners. We're a national nonpro- partisan affordable housing intermediary. We provide capital, policy, and programs that support the production and preservation of affordable housing. Um, we have a long track record of developing housing solutions in collaboration with state and local leaders. Um, we know that too many people are facing skyrocketing housing costs. Wages have not kept up with rent, and our housing supply has not kept up with demand. Uh, root causes of homelessness, um, are the lack of affordable housing, as we've heard from other speakers.

599. 2:21:20

     Um, House Bill 295 would result in increased incarceration of people experiencing homelessness. Um, this may get people off the street temporarily, but it doesn't provide a sustainable solution, um, that addresses those root causes. Um, and we've heard from some other speakers about what those sustainable solutions are. Uh, we've, we support those proven solutions, um, like investments in affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency shelter. For all those reasons, um, we urge you to vote against House Bill 295. Thank you.

600. 2:21:50

     Thank you very much. Uh, Katherine Vassell. She had to leave. She had to go. All right. Uh... Mokihma Cies. Mokihma Cies. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Um, hello. Uh, my name is Mokihma Cies, and I'm the executive director of the Policing Alternatives and Diversion Initiative, or PAD, which provides alternate response and diversion services in Atlanta and Fulton County. We work closely with local governments, law enforcement, and service providers to reduce the burden on law enforcement and our local jails by connecting individuals to healthcare, shelter, and housing.

601. 2:22:29

     Um, due to the collaborative efforts of local stakeholders, together, we've instituted the first alternate response program in the State of Georgia. We've launched a 24/7 center for diversion and sobering, and just tomorrow, we'll celebrate the launch of Fulton County's Co-Responder Program. These combined efforts are designed to more effectively address public disorder brought on by unsheltered homelessness, insufficient mental health resources, and the lack of public amenities like toilets. We know that arresting and jailing people for quality of life violations is a drain on resources and does nothing to address the underlying cause of the violation.

602. 2:23:02

     Programs like ours and those we are a part of are designed to do so. I'm here today because I'm concerned that an unintended consequence of HB 295 may be to dissuade local governments from enacting these evidence-based interventions that reduce the burden on law enforcement. Ms. Appley has shared on our behalf a suggested amendment to ensure that initiatives like these are exempted. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

603. 2:23:24

     All right, and right on cue. Elizabeth Appley, since you just got mentioned. And Elizabeth- Very briefly ... you know the time crunch we're under. Yes, sir. So please hurry, 'cause you know most of these things are, are... I understand the, that what we're talking about in there, they're somewhat adjacent, but not necessarily directly affected by this. That's not the intent of this bill, but go ahead. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you. I'm here on behalf of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, the Georgia Supportive Housing Association, Nine to Five Georgia, Presbyterians for a Better Georgia, and St.

604. 2:23:56

     Vincent de Paul Georgia. These are groups, along with others who you've heard from, who are working every day to advocate and to provide housing, to provide supportive services, to feed, to clothe our, our homeless neighbors, and to prevent and end homelessness. Yesterday, Commissioner Nunn, responsible for housing for the State of Georgia, testified to the House Appropriations, a subcommittee, uh, about the rising homelessness in this state, and he said that every $100 increase in the cost of rent results in an increase of 9% in homelessness.

605. 2:24:34

     That is the reason why you see people homeless on the streets, not because law enforcement is failing to enforce the law. The governor is leading on this issue. The $50 mil- million he propo- proposes to the housing trust fund for the homeless is important, and what he said is that this is to invest in housing, in support services, in, in street outreach. He is leading in what we should be investing in in order to address street homelessness.

606. 2:25:07

     This bill not only criminalizes people, it's more expensive to incarcerate than to house, and it doesn't solve homelessness. And then the- Right, and then that's not... And, and, and again, that's not the, I don't think that's the goal and intent of this legislation. It's about- And- ... making sure that current laws are, are enforced on private property. So, but the, the timer has gone. There's one more gentleman who wants to speak behind you, so- I just wanted to- ... your last point ... urge the committee to follow the governor's lead in addressing street homelessness in this state by housing rather than arresting people.

607. 2:25:44

     Thank you. Thank you. All right. Roland, last one. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Roland Behme. I am one of the co-founders of the Georgia Mental Health Policy Partnership. Uh, it's an organization that represents over 100, uh, other organizations here in Georgia in terms of mental health, behavioral health, substance use disorder care. Uh, let me just cut to the chase. Uh, I think the law creates a perverse incentive.

608. 2:26:15

     Um, we have heard talk about supportive housing and the like. You cannot build supportive housing in 30 days. You cannot treat severe mental illness in 30 days. But you can arrest someone in 30 days, and arresting is what is going to happen. So the predictable result of this bill is enforcement first displacement. Cities will use police sweeps to avoid lawsuits, but displacement doesn't solve the problem. It just moves it. It shuffles people from this block to that block, this city to that, and cycles them through emergency rooms and jails at taxpayer expense.

609. 2:26:48

     This is the exact opposite of Georgia's stated direction. The governor's budget emphasizes expanding homelessness response and mental health supports. Furthermore, Georgia and the US DOJ just jointly asked a federal court to release the state from federal oversight precisely because we're shifting towards community housing and not institutionalization. Passing, uh, HB 295 jeopardizes that progress and invites the very practices that attract federal scrutiny.

610. 2:27:20

     Thank you, sir. All right. Thank you very much. Okay, that is, uh, everyone we had signed up to speak. Uh, we are now 14 minutes past, so we're gonna get done really quick because Chairman Werkheiser is inching closer to me, and I see him down there. I got him cold. Uh, I don't know if that's... All right, uh, Representative Sainz. At the appropriate- I'm sorry. Chairman Sainz, I apologize. At the appropriate chi-, uh, time, I'd like to submit an a- amendment for consideration.

611. 2:27:51

     Okay. Well, the appropriate time will be after we have a motion to pass, so I want to entertain a motion. Is anybody willing to make a motion? Chair, I make a motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All right. Representative Sainz, you had an amendment. I do. And, uh, um, if, on lines 118, and again, in recognition that this is a huge modification to the liability standard that we're giving to local governments of small and large alike, I'd like to increase the protections for these local governments to ensure that these are not frivolous claims.

612. 2:28:36

     So on line 118, I would like for the committee's consideration to strike out the word to on line 118 on the J in the event that an owner has filed an unsuccessful claim instead of two unsuccessful claims, um, and then strike claims and modify it to claim in the singular. And then I'm just reading through to make sure, uh, section of that same parcel of property that claim did not result in the awarding of any compensation and such owner files subsequent.

613. 2:29:13

     So I think that would suffice in terms of there might be some gra- grammatical modifications. But the policy intent would be to strike out to and make it upon the initial claim so that local governments have some protection in recognition of this huge modification to their liability standards.

614. 2:29:35

     All right, we have that, uh, that amendment suggested. We, we don't know if that's a friendly amendment or not, 'cause our bill sponsor had to step away, but, um, is there a second to that motioned amendment?

615. 2:29:50

     I have a quick

616. 2:29:56

     question.

617. 2:29:56

     Okay. All right, we have a, a motion made to amend. We'd need a second, then we'd have discussion.

618. 2:30:00

     I'll second.

619. 2:30:01

     Okay. We have a second. Representative Cummings, go ahead while we're talking.

620. 2:30:05

     Um, Representative Sainz.

621. 2:30:10

     All right, go into the mic.

622. 2:30:11

     Thank you for your, um, amendment. My question is on line 122. It, it refers to attorney's fees incurred in defending any subsequent unsuccessful claim. Are you willing to amend that also so that they will be paying for the current claim?

623. 2:30:29

     I would amend it to strike out the word subsequent.

624. 2:30:31

     Thank you.

625. 2:30:36

     Okay. Would you like to restate your, your motion?

626. 2:30:38

     Yes. Uh, strike on line 118 the word to and replace it with and. Strike S on claims on that same line, and it would be the singular claim.

627. 2:30:53

     Strike on line 122 subsequent to read defending any unsuccessful. Again, strike out the plural S and s- uh, modify for the singular claim filed by such owner.

628. 2:31:07

     Okay. All right. And Representative Holcomb, you had seconded his, uh, motioned amendment and it seems to have changed a bit now. Uh, he restated it. Do you still want to second that amendment?

629. 2:31:20

     For the purposes of discussion, yes.

630. 2:31:22

     All right, so we have a motion and a second. Do you have discussion? Would you like to discuss it at this time?

631. 2:31:31

     Can you repeat once more what we're trying to achieve? Sure. So we're trying to ... Currently the, the author, and I have not discussed the, this amendment with, with the author, but right now we are making a city be possibly subjugated to three fr- frivolous lawsuits prior to them having any ability on behalf of their taxpayers to have recourse. This simply would extend, continue to extend to a private party the, these protections, but put the onus on that private property to have a ironclad case against, um, the people of that municipality or locality, uh, by striking out the requirement of two adjudicated claims and having simply the original claim.

632. 2:32:15

     If it fails, they're responsible for the attorney fees of both parties. Um, I can ... Does that suffice in terms of the original question?

633. 2:32:30

     Okay. Is there any other discussion on this, uh ... Chairman Petrie?

634. 2:32:34

     Uh, to be clear, the ... So on the, after an initial claim and a failure, now it would be if, uh, you have a subsequent claim, then you're at risk.

635. 2:32:44

     It'd be-

636. 2:32:44

     Not after two

637. 2:32:45

     ... it'd be upon the initial claim.

638. 2:32:47

     Okay, that's not the way I'm reading it. Okay.

639. 2:32:49

     In the event that an owner has filed an unsuccessful claim. So if that original claim is, is, uh, has failed to be, um, determined to be of, uh, by a judge to be of their interest, then they would be responsible for those fees.

640. 2:33:04

     All right. Well, so what, what you have here is on line 120, "And such owner files subsequent claims." That suggests to me that it's the following.

641. 2:33:15

     You mention-

642. 2:33:16

     So as you mentioned earlier, it would be three now, 'cause you have to file ... You have two unsuccessful claims in the measure now.

643. 2:33:24

     Yeah.

644. 2:33:24

     And then you file a subsequent claim. That's the third time. That's, uh, uh, to your point, that I think you're getting at, that seems to be inappropriate for, for the municipality or the local government, and you're trying to pull that back. But I, I just wanna make sure I'm reading it correctly. Now, I think it gives a citizen who's been aggrieved, because they are on, on their public ... I mean, on their private property, which the whole measure's about, on their private property, if things that are against the law in that local jurisdiction are being violated and the city is ignoring them, they have an attempt to deal with it.

645. 2:34:06

     If they subsequently choose to do so, then they are at risk to pay these costs itemized here.

646. 2:34:13

     Uh, mm-

647. 2:34:14

     You're lowering that bar, which I think is, is, is bringing it back some reasonably. But that is ... Uh, uh, does everyone read it that way?

648. 2:34:21

     Yes.

649. 2:34:21

     Because as I see when it says-

650. 2:34:22

     Yes

651. 2:34:22

     ... "And such owner files subsequent claim-"

652. 2:34:25

     Well, I failed to put-

653. 2:34:25

     ... following the first

654. 2:34:26

     ... I, with that, I don't know, uh, assume legislative council I think was lo- nodding their, her head when, uh, Representative P- Chairman Petrie mentioned that. I don't think that was my original intent, but I do think that goes in line to the intent, and I would leave it as is to give that more modified in between the, the second claim versus a third at least.

655. 2:34:47

     Right. So they get one free, and then the second one, if it's unsuccessful, then they get to recoup their costs, right?

656. 2:34:53

     Mm-hmm.

657. 2:34:53

     That's it.

658. 2:34:54

     That's what your intent is, right?

659. 2:34:55

     Is, yeah. It, right now, the way I did it, without striking "And such owner files subsequent claims," it would mean the second claim would be where the-

660. 2:35:03

     Correct.

661. 2:35:03

     Okay.

662. 2:35:04

     Yep. Gotcha.

663. 2:35:04

     I'm good with leaving it as is, and I would amend to what your description of the amendment would be.

664. 2:35:12

     I'll, I'll support that.

665. 2:35:13

     All right. So you've made the amendment. We've had a second, right? All right. We are going to go ahead and vote on that one, and then, uh, Chairman McDonald has one as well. Uh, all in favor of the Sainz amendment, say aye.

666. 2:35:28

     Aye.

667. 2:35:28

     All opposed, say no.

668. 2:35:30

     No.

669. 2:35:31

     Okay. That passes. All right. Chairman McDonald.

670. 2:35:35

     Pretty long one. Um-

671. 2:35:37

     Of course.

672. 2:35:38

     No, this ... No.

673. 2:35:40

     I'm gonna send Chairman Werkheiser after you.

674. 2:35:43

     Yes, sir. Um, this is just some clarification. Uh, I think this is a friendly amendment because it was one that the author, um, gave to us that he was talking about before he exited stage right. Uh, look at line 102. Um, this ... I worked with lead counsel on this language. Um, after property taxes, add the words, "Paid on such owner's parcel and." I think it's just clarification there that was discussed by our author.

675. 2:36:12

     I second.

676. 2:36:14

     And I'll repeat again.

677. 2:36:15

     All right.

678. 2:36:15

     Between property taxes, add, "Paid on such, uh, owner's pro- parcel and," those words.

679. 2:36:25

     Okay. So line 102, it'll say, "Not to exceed the amount of ad valorem property taxes paid on such owner's parcel and levied by such local government in the prior tax year."

680. 2:36:37

     That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

681. 2:36:38

     All right, we have that motion. We have a second. Any discussion on that? All right, all in favor of the McDonald amendment say aye.

682. 2:36:46

     Aye.

683. 2:36:46

     Okay, any opposed? All right, we have the two amendments. Now back to the original bill as amended with the Sainz and the McDonald amendment. Uh, all of those in favor as the bill as amended say aye.

684. 2:37:00

     Aye.

685. 2:37:01

     All those opposed say no.

686. 2:37:07

     No.

687. 2:37:07

     All right. Um, I feel like, but we'll just check. All right, all those in favor, please raise your right hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Okay. All right, all those opposed? One, two, three, four... Okay, passes 8-5. Thank you. We are adjourned.