Comité Public Safety del Senado, 28 de enero de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:15:00

   Senate Public Safety Committee. Welcome. We're gonna begin as we always do with a blessing and a prayer, and I'm gonna call on with absolutely notice to our favorite reverend, our very own Senator Kim Jackson, if you would, please.

2. 0:15:15

   Let us pray.

3. 0:15:18

   Holy God, we thank you for the opportunity to gather with one another to do the work that you've called each and every one of us to do. We ask your blessings upon all public safety officials, our law enforcement, our EMTs, our firefighters, our heroes, so many who work to keep us safe. We play your blessings upon them and their families, and we give thanks for the men and women who fight on behalf of us in foreign countries as well. Be with them and bless them. Amen.

4. 0:15:48

   Amen.

5. 0:15:48

   Amen.

6. 0:15:49

   Thank you so much. Before we begin today, we have a brand-new member of our committee, Senator Dickerson. Would you like to take a moment to just do a quick introduction for all those who are in the crowd and the millions listening on Livestream?

7. 0:16:02

   Yeah. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate that. Uh, it's my absolute honor, honor, and pleasure to be here today and be part of the, uh, Public Safety, uh, Committee. Uh, I'm a lifelong resident of Cherokee County. I represent District 21, which is Cherokee County and the north part of Fulton County, which, uh, is, uh, Alpharetta, Milton, and Avalon. Uh, spent my time in, uh, in, um, as far as, um... Went to Hickory Flat Elementary and Dean Russ Middle School and Sequoyah High School. I started my first company when I was 15 years old. When I graduated, I had five employees. Over the years, I've had 22 different companies ranging from 5 employees to 550 employees.

8. 0:16:35

   So one of the big things that we, we've always continued to support, uh, through our family and through our family foundation, is our public safety and our veterans, our firefighters, our police officers. And it's absolute pleasure to be here and be on this committee. Uh, and my, um, uh, my sincere appreciation to Chairman Albers and, uh, in accepting me to be on this committee as well. So again, thank you so much for, for being here.

9. 0:16:55

   Thank you, Senator. Thrilled to have my Cherokee delegation mate here on the committee. Uh, we also have some of our same familiar and new faces here representing us from our Senate Press Office, uh, from our, uh, Office of Policy and Legislative Analysis, from our Legislative Council, uh, as well as very excited that we have Ms. Kiki here, who's our intern, uh, for our committee from Georgia Tech, another, uh, very smart, uh, college student to keep us all straight. And of course, we have Mr. Will Spencer next to me, uh, who, uh, helps to run all things in our office and our committee.

10. 0:17:27

    Uh, today, we're going to be hearing one bill. We have a sign-up sheet. Where is that located? Right up front. All right. It's located right up front there. So anybody that wants to speak for or against the bill that we have in front of us today, please make sure you fill in all of the different boxes, otherwise we'll not be able to hear from you today. And also remind the committee members and other folks of an event we're having tonight at, uh, 5:30. Get there. Uh, so I hope to see all of you later today.

11. 0:17:52

    You said 5:30?

12. 0:17:52

    Uh, 5:30, yes.

13. 0:17:54

    I said 6:30.

14. 0:17:55

    Uh, you will be a little late.

15. 0:17:57

    Yeah.

16. 0:17:57

    Um, but we will wa- we'll hold everything for you.

17. 0:17:59

    Okay.

18. 0:18:00

    All right. Uh, before we begin on our first bill, uh, we have obviously not met, and since, uh, last legislative session, uh, we, uh, during that time, just wanna let you know, uh, as we have, uh, uh, directly get to deal with all of our state law enforcement, uh, all of our fire service, our Department of Driver Services, uh, and all the other folks the Public Safety Committee tends to work with, uh, I do spend a lot of time meeting with those folks off session, uh, including the Department of Corrections, whether that be, um, visiting some of our prisons, going to our State Patrol posts, meeting with the leaders of those organizations, et cetera.

19. 0:18:36

    Uh, a couple of things that I'd like to offer the committee members during this session as well as after. Uh, if you have not before or not in some time, I would like to request that you take a ride with the Georgia State Patrol, uh, and spend a few hours with them. Uh, the best time to do that, uh, is when we have our joint task force working with our local PDs here in the Greater Atlanta area. But it is a great experience to see what our fine men and women are doing every day, as well as we will set up a time to go visit, uh, at least one of our prisons, sometimes two, like we have done in the past, uh, and likely go over to the GBI, where we have some new, uh, and exciting technology used to help, uh, beat back the bad guys.

20. 0:19:21

    So, uh, just wanna make that available to everybody, and you can contact, uh, either Will or myself, and we're happy to schedule a separate tour or a time for you to ride along. Uh, of course, we'll get the other dates out as soon as we can. All right. Today, we're gonna hear Senate Bill 116 by our very own Senator Tim Bearden. Uh, Senator, would you like to stay here, or would you like to go to the podium? The choice is yours.

21. 0:19:44

    No, I'll stay here if that's good.

22. 0:19:45

    Uh, it will be just fine. All right. Everybody, I just wanna let you know, you have a substitute in your, uh, folder, and it is big changes from last year. Changes 2025 to 2026. Aside from that, this is the same bill, so I will turn it back over to the senator.

23. 0:20:02

    Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate. Make sure we're working off Substitute Senate Bill 116, LC 63-0067S. As Chairman said, the same bill that we passed out of this committee last year. Bill basically just states, if you look on line 28, it marks out, "Who has been convicted of," and changes it to, "charged with a misdemeanor or felony." Um, so if illegal al- illegal alien in this country, you're arrested for a misdemeanor or a felony, we would take the DNA sample to put in the database, just make sure that we have that, check back, make sure there's no crimes maybe outstanding that was not solved, and DNA could be a big process of solving that crime.

24. 0:20:49

    Or if someone comes back into this country, commits a, a crime, we can find out who that individual is. It's very short, to-the-point bill, and, um, I ask for this committee's, uh, recommendation of passage, just like we did last year.

25. 0:21:04

    Thank you, Senator. Questions of committee members? I see one from Senator Jackson.

26. 0:21:09

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, um, we may have answered this and I just don't remember but, um, just a question about the language here is charged and not arrested on line 28. So would this mean that all law enforcement officers would be required to detain and bring in, would, to actually to arrest and take them into custody if someone were... I- I'm not su- just, can you just tell me about the functionality, right? Because a, a, a vehicle stop, right, like a vehicle violation is a misdean- misdemeanor.

27. 0:21:38

    Mm-hmm.

28. 0:21:39

    So would people be able to get a ticket and report later for their DNA swab? H- just tell me how this would work if you don't mind.

29. 0:21:46

    Well, basically, if it's a vehicle stop and they are brought into the station 'cause we have no proof who they are, we find out that they're illegal at that time, then they would be, could be held at the detention center and/or the department, whatever it may be. And at that time, because of the charge, they would have to do the, uh, DNA sampling. If they are, what's the word we're exactly looking for, they're subject to a immigration detainer, so.

30. 0:22:10

    Right. Just point of clarity if I may, Mr. Chair. Uh, so would this require every person who is given a misdemeanor ticket for a vehicle stop to be taken into custody? Or could a law enforcement officer just issue a ticket? That's, I'm just trying to make sure.

31. 0:22:24

    Okay. Let's distinguish between every person, no. Uh,

32. 0:22:28

    I'm sorry.

33. 0:22:28

    Okay.

34. 0:22:28

    Every, I'm sorry, every person who falls under your statute, yes.

35. 0:22:31

    Yeah.

36. 0:22:31

    Thank you for that clarification.

37. 0:22:31

    If they fall to be illegal in this country and they're brought to the station and ICE is contacted, like they should be under, believe it was House Bill 1105, um, and it's found that they are here illegally and they're subject to the detainer being placed on them, then a DNA swab would be taken at that time to be put into the database.

38. 0:22:50

    But they could be issued a ticket at their window and go home without being taken in. That's possible.

39. 0:22:56

    That would be a good question. Um, but the way I understand it, once they're brought in and given that, so I guess that would be up to the, uh, discretion on that one for a misdemeanor. But they would be, um, hopefully they wouldn't. No, they wouldn't because they would be, uh, if the detainer's put on them, then they shouldn't be going anywhere until they're turned over to ICE.

40. 0:23:17

    Okay.

41. 0:23:17

    So.

42. 0:23:17

    And one follow-up question.

43. 0:23:18

    Sure.

44. 0:23:19

    Who pays for the DNA swabs? Where is the burden of the cost for that?

45. 0:23:23

    Uh, on this, it doesn't say anything about subject to appropriation, so that would fall onto the, uh, jurisdiction that has the, uh, individual.

46. 0:23:30

    So that would be the county jail would-

47. 0:23:32

    Yes

48. 0:23:32

    ... sir. And do you have any sense of how much that might cost the county jail to have to do these DNA swabs?

49. 0:23:38

    Oh, we checked that last year and I can't remember the cost of last year 'cause we had that.

50. 0:23:42

    I don't have it either.

51. 0:23:42

    And I don't have my notes from last year on, uh, on that one. So, but we did look at the cost. I don't think it's a large cost. There are many type of tests that you can use. I believe it was about a dollar.

52. 0:23:52

    It was cheap.

53. 0:23:53

    It was cheap.

54. 0:23:53

    Yeah.

55. 0:23:54

    Okay. Thank you.

56. 0:23:56

    All right. Other questions from the committee members? Uh, Senator Wicks.

57. 0:24:01

    Uh, I have a question. How are you doing today?

58. 0:24:03

    I'm good. How are you doing today?

59. 0:24:04

    I'm doing well. Um, I have a question in reference to does this violate the Fourth Amendment of individuals?

60. 0:24:12

    Mm, not one word.

61. 0:24:15

    Unreasonable search and seizures.

62. 0:24:15

    Un- unreasonable search and seizures.

63. 0:24:18

    No.

64. 0:24:20

    Of, uh, DNA evidence without probable cause, this bill?

65. 0:24:25

    Um, they've been taken in, they've been charged with a misdemeanor or felony, and it's been shown through ICE that there's gonna be a, they're subject to the detainer, so. And we're also talking about, uh, illegal here in this country.

66. 0:24:39

    Mm-hmm. And then one follow-on question-

67. 0:24:42

    Please

68. 0:24:42

    ... Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry.

69. 0:24:43

    No, you're fine.

70. 0:24:43

    Um, who has access to this data, um, that requires it to store, like in banks, what agency has the capability to receive this data once it's, um, collected?

71. 0:24:55

    Right now, I believe it would go into the FBI database.

72. 0:24:59

    And then once it's, um, once they're cleared of the charges and the charges are dropped, how is it disposed?

73. 0:25:06

    It wouldn't be disposed of. You talking about are we taking the DNA out of the database?

74. 0:25:10

    Mm-hmm.

75. 0:25:10

    No.

76. 0:25:15

    Follow-up question from Senator Jackson.

77. 0:25:18

    Yeah. Um, thank you. Just from that similar line of questioning from my colleague here, um, so it's my understanding if a, a person is taken into custody on the federal level, so at, um, if a person has a detainer, that means that ICE is gonna come and get them. The feds are already doing those DNA swabs.

78. 0:25:35

    Correct.

79. 0:25:35

    So just as a matter from, like an administrative level, why would we not just let the feds do that as opposed to duplicating the, the process?

80. 0:25:44

    We have had and seen instances throughout the country where people just do not abide by the, by the detainer and let them go back to the streets. Now, have I seen that here in Georgia? Not to my knowledge.

81. 0:26:01

    Right. But-

82. 0:26:01

    But if someone, but if someone does, uh,

83. 0:26:05

    not recognize the detainer and decides to let someone go, they could. And this is also going from a convicted to being charged with. So as, uh, Senator Wicks said, you know, they might be found not guilty on, on a charge, but they would still be here illegally and we would have the DNA to check to see if there's any other type of offenses or future offenses.

84. 0:26:29

    Right. Just but for point of clarification, the only people who are being swabbed are people who've been charged and who already have a detainer on them. So that means based on bills that we've passed out of this committee already, in Georgia, you have to comply with that detainer. We've passed that bill. You don't get to snub your nose to it and say, "Oh, I'm not gonna comply." So every jailer in Georgia already has to turn these folks over to the federal government where they will be swabbed.

85. 0:26:55

    Correct.

86. 0:26:55

    So just help me understand why we would be doing this twice, and why can't we just let the federal government take it since it's going into the federal FBI da- database in the first place?

87. 0:27:05

    I, I believe I could provide just a little bit of context that might help. This goes back to when, uh, we passed House Bill 1105. I actually sponsored and carried that legislation in the Senate. The challenge that we have had, if you look back the last 15 years, we'll say, to cover a broad different amount of administrations both in the federal and state level, is sometimes ICE was doing their job and sometimes they were not doing their job So we can only hold someone for so long before they would just simply not pick them up. Uh, and, and they were directed not to pick them up. So I'm not faulting the agents in any which way, shape, or form, but I'm faulting the leadership that told them not to.

88. 0:27:40

    So without that happening, that means that DNA is never taken. If the DNA is taken and we have them in Georgia and we can connect that to other crimes and find people that have a systematic problem who have broke, uh, many laws, then it's a chance for us to really go after and take those hardened criminals off the street.

89. 0:27:57

    Thank you. May, may I ask-

90. 0:27:58

    Yeah

91. 0:27:58

    ... a follow-up question?

92. 0:27:59

    Sure.

93. 0:27:59

    Um, actually this may be for, um, the, the vice chairman, uh, my fellow whip- ... in the room. Uh.

94. 0:28:06

    Just in time.

95. 0:28:06

    I, I apologize for being late. I was meeting with DFCS, so.

96. 0:28:10

    I appreciate your service, uh-

97. 0:28:12

    They released me from custody. Which service is that?

98. 0:28:15

    Your service to care for DFCS and for our-

99. 0:28:18

    Yeah

100. 0:28:18

     ... our, our state's great children, and we share that in common, so I appreciate that, sir. Um, I, just a question about due process. This is back to my colleagues around the Fourth Amendment. So, um, due process requires there have to be, or probable cause requires that there has to be a reason for us to suspect that a person has done something in order for us to do a search and seizure, right? So in order to search my house, you can't just say, "Hey, you look like you might have done something." You, there has to be probable cause, correct?

101. 0:28:47

     There's, there's multiple ways, and I've, I've got my partner here with me. There's multiple ways to conduct a search. You can conduct a search, uh, by asking somebody, "May I search your property?" And they can say yes. And they'll normally sign something and you go in and search. Um, if there's something open that is easily seen, uh, you can do a search. There's something called exigent circumstances that can lead to a search, or there's a search warrant that requires a sworn to affidavit that you can search.

102. 0:29:18

     And your vehicle is an extension of your home, and so those, um, are applicable to your vehicle as well a- as your, as your abode. And-

103. 0:29:27

     So can you speak to your person? And what, what is required in order to give consent to-

104. 0:29:32

     Search your person?

105. 0:29:33

     Search your, your cer- person, which would include, I assume, the collection of DNA data.

106. 0:29:36

     You don't, well, you don't, and you, and you don't always... Now, the, you're talking about the collection of DNA?

107. 0:29:40

     Mm-hmm.

108. 0:29:41

     Um, well, in some cases you would, you would have to have a search warrant to do that. But, um, if you're searching for a specific reason, then somebody cannot self-incriminate. And again, I've got, uh, Senator Bearden here beside me. If, if I'm, if this is a murder case and I want to gather somebody's, a DNA sample, in, in many cases, uh, they would be required to get a search warrant. That person would have to submit to a DNA test. But if it is used to identify, like fingerprints and things like that, no search warrant is required.

109. 0:30:15

     So in this case, this is a person who has a ICE detainer.

110. 0:30:18

     And I just walked in.

111. 0:30:19

     I know. I know.

112. 0:30:19

     So I'm, I'm not familiar-

113. 0:30:20

     It's okay

114. 0:30:20

     ... with what we're reading.

115. 0:30:21

     Uh, it's okay, 'cause you're just giving us some legal background here from your law-

116. 0:30:24

     Well, I'm giving you law enforcement background.

117. 0:30:25

     Your law enforcement background.

118. 0:30:26

     I wanna be clear.

119. 0:30:26

     I apologize.

120. 0:30:26

     Yeah.

121. 0:30:27

     Law, law enforcement background.

122. 0:30:27

     Please don't confuse me with an attorney, ma'am.

123. 0:30:29

     Yes.

124. 0:30:29

     My father will come down from heaven and smite me.

125. 0:30:32

     So in this case, a person has a ICE detainer, um, but they're being charged with a misdemeanor. Not a felony, but charged with a misdemeanor. What is the probable cause that allows us to collect their DNA?

126. 0:30:46

     I don't think it would be probable cause. Uh, we, anybody charged with a misdemeanor that goes into a county jail in Georgia, uh, are fingerprinted, uh, mugshotted, and it would fall within that category. It's an identifier, is all it is.

127. 0:31:00

     Right. So in your opinion, the collection of DNA would not be appropriate for a misdemeanor?

128. 0:31:05

     No. I just said we collect, it's an identifier. Yes, it would be. No, that's what I'm saying. If somebody goes in for, for a... You have to understand, a DUI, first DUI-

129. 0:31:14

     Is a misdemeanor

130. 0:31:15

     ... is a misdemeanor. When people go into jail, they are processed the exact same way of somebody charged with a felony is processed. They are mugshot, they, uh, fingerprints are collected and used, used for identification purposes. And those fingerprints that are collected are sent into a, a local, I mean, excuse me, a state and federal system and held in there, um, so forever. They have mine, and I'm sure they have most everybody in the room's fingerprints on file.

131. 0:31:46

     And that's exactly the same. Th- this DNA would be an identifier, if I'm understanding where this legislation is going to.

132. 0:31:56

     Yeah. I, I appreciate that. I think, again, my concerns are Fourth Amendment concerns here as to whether or not this is a violation.

133. 0:32:01

     Mm-hmm.

134. 0:32:02

     Even if someone is here illegally, they still have rights by virtue of being in this country, um, on this land. Your, you do not get rights because you become a citizen. You get rights to due cause, to probable cause, to due process as a result of us deciding that that should be the standard for all humans who live here. And so I'm deeply concerned that this is a violation of a human's rights. And, uh, and I really, I don't think that this body would be doing this for an American citizen. We would not say if you're charged with a traffic violation, we want to collect your DNA, because we, we, we care about our DNA.

135. 0:32:33

     We understand that to be important information that's not just about identi- about identity. So I'm just naming that. I'm very concerned about this being a violation of, of rights.

136. 0:32:43

     A- and Senator, I appreciate that. Uh, one of our committee members, uh, Senator Rick Williams, is not here right now because he is with his bill that we passed last year at the House Public Safety Committee, which is to take DNA for people who have committed crimes here in Georgia. And to me, DNA is just a modern-day form of the fingerprint. We didn't have DNA back then. Uh, we didn't have facial recognition. Those things have come to pass. And I think what we've learned with collecting DNA is it does two things. First and foremost, it's exonerating those who are innocent.

137. 0:33:13

     I mean, and we've seen that many times, which I think is a positive. But at the same time, it is a modern-day form where we've also connected the dots to many, many bad actors, whether it be rape, murder, assault, et cetera. So, uh, that's where we probably have a bit of a disagreement, but I appreciate that. Final word on that, uh, Senator Robertson.

138. 0:33:29

     I, I think one thing we, we have to consider when we talk about this, and I understand some of your concerns about rights and, and being a free American, it's, it's someone, as reading it, who's been charged. So they are different from the average Joe American. So if y- if this bill were to allow, uh, law enforcement to stop people walking down the sidewalk and collect DNA from them, then I would be gravely concerned. I think once you're charged, then I think it, it's very much, um, within the rights to collect an identifier, whether it be fingerprints, uh, DNA, retina scan, whatever's coming forth, uh, to identify the individuals for the system.

139. 0:34:11

     All right. Any final comments from the bill's author before we take public feedback? All right.

140. 0:34:17

     Position.

141. 0:34:18

     We've got three people signed up, uh, for this, uh, for this bill. Uh, we'll begin with, uh, Ms. Maisie Lynn. Why don't you come up to the podium please? And always begin by, uh, telling us your name and who you're representing.

142. 0:34:31

     Of course. It's good to see you, Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Maisie Lynn Girton. I represent the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and I'm also a Tech grad, so go Jackets, Kiki. Welcome. There are not that many of us around. We have to stand together around here. Um, so a, a lot of what I ha- wanna bring to you you have been discussing already. Of course, um, as you've mentioned, there's another bill happening in another hearing room right now on this similar issue, and one of the troubles that they've run into is where this conversation started, and that's cost.

143. 0:35:05

     Um, the most recent substitute version of that bill actually added, um, some language that will require the State of Georgia to incur all of the costs associated with the DNA collection contemplated under SB29. Um, so whether that becomes appropriated or not, I guess, will be another conversation down the road if that bill passes. But, um, there has been a lot of discussion over the course of that bill about cost, um, to your point, Senator Jackson. One of the distinctions between...

144. 0:35:35

     And I, I will, with all due respect, uh, Vice Chairman Robertson, um, when a person is simply charged with a crime, they are just like every average Joe citizen, because they are still presumed innocent-

145. 0:35:49

     Absolutely

146. 0:35:50

     ... until they're proven guilty.

147. 0:35:51

     Absolutely.

148. 0:35:51

     And in this bill, just as in the other, we are talking about those people that are simply charged. And, um, as Senator Jackson alluded to, every misdemeanor in Georgia is a crime. Every speeding ticket, every broken taillight ticket, every, every moving violation that we have is a misdemeanor in Georgia. The only crime I can, crime I can think of that we have decided to make civil at this point is a seatbelt violation. That is one you cannot go to jail for.

149. 0:36:22

     But you could technically go to jail for up to 12 months for any of your moving vehicle violations in Georgia. Um, and so that's, that's the scope of this bill, that it goes well beyond, um, the worst of the worst. It goes well beyond serious violent felonies, which is what Senate Bill 29 is after, um, and the other that you all have already contemplated, is very expansive. What's also expansive in Georgia is our constitutional protection of privacy.

150. 0:36:54

     In fact, the Georgia Constitution's privacy protections go beyond those of the Federal Constitution. So while in our country it has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that DNA collection can happen at arrest in certain cases, the case is Maryland versus King, it's a 2013 case, um, Georgia does not function under a reasonable expectation of privacy, um, scheme. We actually have a fundamental a re- um, expectation of privacy in Georgia.

151. 0:37:25

     It's much more protective, as you can imagine, we all want. Um, so we have not contemplated this scenario yet under, um, our Georgia Constitution, but when we have contemplated things like breathalyzers, anything where you have to overtly provide a sample, breath, urine, those have been deemed to be protected. The, they cannot be compelled without a warrant, as Senator Robertson was saying. Um, and we believe that this is gonna fall under that same concern because, you know, unlike a fingerprint that I'm leaving behind right now and someone can come behind me, Mr.

152. 0:38:05

     Norris, with his kit and collect, the only way you're gonna get my DNA is if you come... I know. You're the only person in the room that I know would know how to do that besides Senator Robertson, and we've already gotten a little bit of conversation going. You can come behind me and collect it. I've left it behind. I have no right to protect that at this point. To get my DNA, you actually have to invade my body. You know, there are conversations that happen in and around this courthouse about civil asset forfeiture-

153. 0:38:34

     I, I, I'm sorry. Maisie Lynn, before you go on-

154. 0:38:36

     Yeah

155. 0:38:36

     ... when you say invade your body-

156. 0:38:37

     Yeah

157. 0:38:37

     ... you're talking a cheek swab is invading-

158. 0:38:40

     Yeah

159. 0:38:40

     ... your body different than rolling fingerprints?

160. 0:38:41

     You have to put a device into a, a crevice of my body. You would have to put a swab inside my mouth.

161. 0:38:47

     And you think that is that much worse than, than rolling everybody's fingerprints 10 times?

162. 0:38:52

     You're going inside my body. I'm not s- I'm, I, I'm, I'm not sure I could say it's a scalable worse, better, but you're definitely having to go inside of a person's body, inside their mouth.

163. 0:39:03

     I, I would think a cheek swab versus 10 fingerprints with ink is a lot less invasive.

164. 0:39:09

     Well, we'll disagree about that. I can-

165. 0:39:11

     Okay.

166. 0:39:11

     Like I said, we can tap our fingers, we can roll 'em, but, um-

167. 0:39:15

     Continue.

168. 0:39:16

     When we talk about civil asset forfeiture under this dome, a lot of the times the conversation revolves around whether or not you would feel comfortable with someone taking your property subject to merely being arrested. And a lot of the conversation I've heard over time from a more libertarian conservative, um, voice in this space is, "No, we don't want people's property being taken from them until they're convicted of a crime." But in this case, you're acti- you're asking for their bodily, parts of their body to be taken from them for merely being arrested for p- potentially a broken taillight.

169. 0:39:49

     The scope of the bill is, is extreme, and especially when you compare it to the re-

170. 0:39:59

     1904 is when we passed Paragraph 13, but I would have to get back to you on that one to be sure. Um.

171. 0:40:13

     And Maisie, we're gonna have to wrap this up.

172. 0:40:14

     Yes.

173. 0:40:14

     Do a couple questions. We have other folks.

174. 0:40:16

     Happy to do that. Yes.

175. 0:40:16

     Uh, I'm, I'm gonna-

176. 0:40:16

     I'd love to

177. 0:40:17

     ... recognize Senator Beard for a quick question.

178. 0:40:19

     Uh, you brought up Maryland v. King, correct?

179. 0:40:21

     Yes, I did.

180. 0:40:22

     Did that go to the Supreme Court?

181. 0:40:24

     It did.

182. 0:40:24

     What happened?

183. 0:40:25

     Yeah, so in that, like I said before, the federal Constitution is not as protective as the Georgia Constitution. And so in the f- in a federal scheme, we have the, the Supreme Court of Georgia has agreed that it is constitutional to take DNA at arrest. I did say that earlier today, and it, it's just, I stand by that. They, they have said that.

184. 0:40:45

     And, uh, believe the majority mentioned that methods that serve legitimate government interests and accurately identify suspects of violent crimes and ensuring public safety, they viewed it as a minimal intrusion compared to the benefits. Is that correct?

185. 0:40:58

     That is what they said.

186. 0:40:59

     Okay.

187. 0:40:59

     And at the beginning of the argument in that case, it's kind of interesting, Justice Scalia was on the bench at that time and still alive. And at the start of the oral arguments, here's what he said, "If you conduct a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures, crime prevention would be more effective." That proves nothing. That's why we have constitutional protections.

188. 0:41:21

     All right.

189. 0:41:21

     If you have no other questions, I...

190. 0:41:23

     One quick question-

191. 0:41:23

     Yeah

192. 0:41:23

     ... from Senator, uh, Robertson.

193. 0:41:25

     Yeah.

194. 0:41:25

     We gotta move on.

195. 0:41:25

     Maisie, I, I appreciate the fact you said the judge was on the bench and still alive. That helps a lot. Um, but I do wanna point-

196. 0:41:33

     They are all, huh?

197. 0:41:34

     That's true.

198. 0:41:34

     Or at least they're sleeping sometimes.

199. 0:41:35

     I, I do wanna point out on, on line 28.

200. 0:41:39

     Mm-hmm.

201. 0:41:39

     Uh, it says, "Who has been charged with a misdemeanor or felony and is subject to an immigration detainer notice."

202. 0:41:50

     Right.

203. 0:41:50

     So the broken taillight, while that's a very minimal thing to go through, is it not true under this legislation that if somebody stops somebody with a broken tail... If they stop me with a broken taillight, I wouldn't be subject to this, right?

204. 0:42:03

     You wouldn't be.

205. 0:42:04

     Okay. So it would be somebody who is subject to an immigration detainer, correct?

206. 0:42:08

     Right.

207. 0:42:08

     Thank you. Appreciate that.

208. 0:42:10

     All right. Thank you very much. Next, Mr. Kyle Gomez.

209. 0:42:28

     Thank you, everyone, uh, for the opportunity to speak. Uh, my name is Kyle Gomez-Linneweber, and I'm here on behalf of Common Cause Georgia, a nonpartisan organization with over 15,000 members working to strengthen democracy and ensure government systems are fair, transparent, and accountable to all people. Uh, SB 116 would require DNA collection from individuals who have been merely charged, not convicted, if they are subject to an immigration detainer, even when the underlying charge is a misdemeanor.

210. 0:42:58

     That represents a significant expansion of state biometric surveillance and raises core issues of fairness, privacy, and equal protection under the law. Georgia's existing DNA system was built around serious criminal convictions, and SB 116 shifts that framework by tying permanent genetic collection not to guilt or even the severity of an alleged offense, but to an immigration enforcement flag. That means two people accused of the same minor offense could be treated differently based on immigration status.

211. 0:43:29

     DNA is not like a fingerprint. It contains deeply personal biological information. Uh, expanding the data bank to include people who have not been and may never be convicted increases the risk of misuse, errors, and long-term privacy harms without clear guardrails in the bill. There are also broader public safety im- implications when immigrant communities believe that any interaction with the justice system can lead to expanded surveillance or immigration consequences, trust in local institutions erodes.

212. 0:44:00

     That makes people less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate with law enforcement, outcomes that undermine rather than strengthen community safety. At a minimum, any expansion of DNA collection should be narrowly tailored, tied to serious offenses, and include strong protections for expungement, oversight, and transparency. SB 116 does not currently meet that standard. For these urges, uh, for, excuse me, for these reasons, we urge the committee to approach this bill with caution. Thank you for your time.

213. 0:44:29

     Thank you. All right, and last but not least, our very own Terry Norris. Come on down.

214. 0:44:37

     Am I a member of the committee now, sir?

215. 0:44:39

     Uh, you should be. Non-voting.

216. 0:44:41

     You're, uh, it was the very own part that got me.

217. 0:44:44

     Well.

218. 0:44:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, happy New Year to all, y- all of you. It's nice to see you. And, uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like for you to know, as you have, uh, alluded to, there are two meetings occurring at this very moment for the same purpose. As Executive Director of the Sheriff's Association, I had my choice of which committee I'd prefer-

219. 0:45:03

     Mm

220. 0:45:03

     ... to be in front of.

221. 0:45:04

     Strong move.

222. 0:45:04

     So I chose the upper chamber, and I'd like that m- made for the record.

223. 0:45:08

     Let the record show.

224. 0:45:09

     Yes, sir. Thank you. Please don't tell the other side. Um, the sheriffs are gonna support anything that controls crime. And in, in that sense, uh, we're gonna support this bill. We are concerned about cost. The, the other bill, uh, the Senate Bill 29 that, uh, Senator Williams has is being spoken of right now. Uh, that provision was added in that particular bill, and we appreciate, I think the Senate did that last year. I'm not, I'm not sure about that. So, um, again, uh, the cost is one thing.

225. 0:45:42

     The other bill we're concerned about who actually is responsible for taking the sample, and we believe there as well as here to some extent that the arresting agency/officers should be required to do that. Uh, there's some disagreement on this matter, uh, but we see a scenario if the arresting agent, uh, agency or officer doesn't do it, then our, um, our jail officers who might be doing it for, uh, on a case where another agency, uh, made, made the case and made the charge and made the arrest, that our jail officer could be subpoenaed to some other faraway state for some other case because he simply or she simply took the swab, took the, uh, the sample.

226. 0:46:27

     So there's some concerns there. It is my, uh, my guess that at some point these two bills may intersect at some point, and we'd like to have that conversation, uh, that we've had on the other bill on this one at that time. So we thank you for your consideration. And again, uh, we support the bill. We're gonna support... Sheriffs are gonna support what is, uh, lawful, and if this becomes law, it certainly is lawful. Those considerations are, uh, well observed by many. So there's no debate there on this end.

227. 0:46:58

     It's just we're gonna do what, you know, whatever y'all tell us to do for the most part. So.

228. 0:47:03

     Thank you, Terry. I appreciate it. Uh, I got a question from, uh, Senator Jackson.

229. 0:47:08

     Uh, thank you so much for your testimony and your expertise. Um, it was stated earlier that we think it costs maybe a dollar a swab. Um, can you give me any, like, a general sense of how many misdemeanors, uh, a year a county, an average county might, uh-

230. 0:47:23

     I, I'm sorry, I could not

231. 0:47:24

     ... you have no idea?

232. 0:47:24

     That'd be a GCIC question. I really, I really don't know that answer. A bunch. You know, there's a lot more traffic cases. Traffic offenses are misdemeanor offenses, so there's a lot. But I would, I would make one point of clarity. If you're not brought into the jail, we're not gonna know you're, you've been charged anyway. And if you're brought to the jail under 1105, we have to notify, sheriffs have to notify ICE if the proper documentation doesn't accompany the individual at the time of that arrest into custody. So we make that notification to ICE, and in 48 hours if they haven't responded, then they're released.

233. 0:47:59

     And another thing that I think we all lose in this conversation is simply because someone is reported to ICE as being undocumented in this case and, and there even is a detainer, they don't always come for them. Um, this bill does contemplate anybody that's, uh, eligible for a detainer, meaning, uh, meaning that if you're arrested and you don't have the documentation, no matter what you're arrested for, then my perception of this is the swab has to occur.

234. 0:48:33

     Is that my... I believe I'm right about that, Chairman. So we would do that. Now, it is true that ICE is doing this now. Um, so it could be a little, little bit of, uh, duplication there. Um, but as for the cost, uh, it is gonna be costly to our counties, the, the folks that elect y'all and pay the taxes-

235. 0:48:52

     Mm

236. 0:48:52

     ... for the county. So it will be a cost. But GCI... I'm sorry, uh, GBI and forensics have those numbers as well, uh, concerning the cost as well as, uh, how many cases we're talking about.

237. 0:49:05

     All right.

238. 0:49:05

     Point, point of a clarification for the author.

239. 0:49:08

     Go right ahead.

240. 0:49:09

     Yeah, so, um, Mr. Norris testified it's his understanding that anyone who d- is undocumented might be subject to this... He's not-

241. 0:49:23

     Yeah, no, I was gonna clarify.

242. 0:49:25

     Okay. You know what? I wasn't sure if it was-

243. 0:49:25

     I, I listened. I was-

244. 0:49:27

     Senator Dixon

245. 0:49:27

     ... I was trying to make sure I had the right, uh, answer to the question.

246. 0:49:29

     Okay. Yeah, 'cause my, I, I... my understanding was that they had to have a detainer. But his, his-

247. 0:49:34

     Yeah, uh, 'cause he said eligible. Bill says subject to. Subject to to me is they're, to the det- to the detainer.

248. 0:49:41

     S- so it's your understanding that they have to have a detainer, not just be eligible-

249. 0:49:45

     Correct

250. 0:49:45

     ... to get one?

251. 0:49:45

     That's what, that's what I was like double checking what he said, but he said eligible. Bill says subject to. So I think there's a difference.

252. 0:49:55

     All right.

253. 0:49:55

     Clear difference in the two.

254. 0:49:56

     Okay.

255. 0:49:57

     If I may, though, anybody that doesn't have the papers, we're gonna report that, so they are subject to it. But to me it, the, it's the same terminology. They're eligible for... If they're eligible for a detainer because they did not have the proper documentation of being in the country legally, then they are, they're gonna be, uh, ICE is gonna be notified we have that person. They don't always file the detainer. We don't know when they do and when they don't. So I think we're talking semantics here maybe. I, I'm not sure.

256. 0:50:27

     Yeah. Thank you. Um, well, we have... Yeah. We're, we're gonna have to... If you guys wanna talk offline, but I think we had a lot of, uh, very-

257. 0:50:35

     Thank you

258. 0:50:35

     ... uh, back and forth questions here, so, uh, we're gonna have to bring that to, uh, to a head.

259. 0:50:39

     Good job, Terry.

260. 0:50:40

     All right. Thank you all, uh, for testimony. That's everybody who signed up on the bill. We're gonna bring it back to the breast of the committee. Uh, and before we have any further committee discussion, I will open it up to a floor for anybody for the will of the committee.

261. 0:50:59

     Mr. Chairman, uh, I make a motion do pass.

262. 0:51:03

     I've got a motion do pass from the vice chairman for LC63006S, which is a substitute to Senate Bill 116. Do I have a second?

263. 0:51:12

     Second.

264. 0:51:13

     And a second from Senator Payne. Now for the committee discussion. Senator Jackson.

265. 0:51:17

     Yes. I'd like to, um, offer an, uh, an amendment. I think it's a, a friendly amendment. Um, by, on line 28, instead of "Is subject," I'd like to strike that, and two, on line 29, and say, "Has an ICE detainer notice," as opposed to subject to, since that seems to be a place of, uh, confusion. So let me just make that clear. I would, I would move to amend, um, LCS30067S by striking on line 28, "Is subject to," moving down to 29, and replacing that with "Has".

266. 0:52:03

     And immigration knows

267. 0:52:04

     And, and just wanna make sure everybody knows this as we have this discussion. That is changing the existing law-

268. 0:52:10

     I'm aware, yes

269. 0:52:11

     ... as it is today, not the chain.

270. 0:52:13

     I'm aware.

271. 0:52:13

     Okay.

272. 0:52:13

     Yes.

273. 0:52:14

     Uh, let me, uh, turn it back to the bill's author, um, Senator Bearden. Um, do you have any discussion on this matter? Actually, I have a motion. Is there a second?

274. 0:52:26

     I second.

275. 0:52:27

     Okay. Discussion?

276. 0:52:29

     And I think the bill needs to stay subject to-

277. 0:52:32

     Okay

278. 0:52:32

     ... and so it has.

279. 0:52:34

     All right.

280. 0:52:34

     So I ask that the, the amendment be voted against.

281. 0:52:38

     All right. So the bill's author wants to keep it the same, but we have a motion and a second on the table. I am going to take a vote on the amendment, uh, offered by Senator Jackson. All those in favor of the Jackson amendment, please raise your hand. Three. All those opposed, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four. That amendment fails. We're back to the original bill. We have a motion, uh, from Senator Robertson, and a second from, uh, Senator Payne. Any further discussion or amendments?

282. 0:53:10

     Seeing none. All those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? One, two, three. This bill passes. Congratulations, Senator, and this will head to the Senate Rules Committee.

283. 0:53:25

     That's your first one.

284. 0:53:27

     Uh, a- and Before we adjourn, a couple of quick public, uh, announcements here. Again, we have an event tonight at 5:30 for those that are gonna be coming. And again, all those who are interested in doing ride-alongs or, or, uh, participating in other tours with our, uh, public safety and other agencies that we, uh, interact with on a daily basis, I encourage that. As well as your local, uh, sheriff's departments, and police departments, and fire departments that are in your community. Um, please, uh, do that, as well as your local 911 centers, uh, who are the tip of the spear for all public safety professionals.

285. 0:54:00

     Thank you all for coming, and this meeting is hereby adjourned.