Comité Judiciary Non-Civil de la Cámara de Representantes, 25 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

1,078 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:11:09

   Hi, Pete. Mr. Chairman. How's everything? I can't seem to speak in. Real quiet. Is there another floor where I'll get to come in? I wish.

2. 0:11:21

   Might jump out the window.

3. 0:11:27

   Hey, Jason.

4. 0:13:55

   That's the other part of the question.

5. 0:14:04

   Hold on one minute.

6. 0:14:17

   No sleeping angels.

7. 0:14:21

   No sleeping escape.

8. 0:14:32

   Kevin's putting it out now.

9. 0:14:40

   Hi, good afternoon, everyone. We'll put out a sign-up sheet right over here on the table by the door if you are interested in signing up to speak. This is all right. Thank you.

10. 0:14:50

    ETA to beginning? Uh, you got fifteen minutes.

11. 0:16:21

    Hey, how are you?

12. 0:16:22

    Doing well. How are you?

13. 0:16:23

    You may not see me, but I'm here.

14. 0:16:25

    How are you?

15. 0:16:26

    I'm good. How are you doing?

16. 0:16:27

    Trying to stay out of trouble, and it's overrated.

17. 0:16:29

    Yeah, right.

18. 0:16:33

    All right. What's the agenda there, sir?

19. 0:16:37

    Uh, plenty of fun things.

20. 0:16:40

    I'm beyond excited.

21. 0:16:42

    I can tell, especially early this morning.

22. 0:16:47

    Yeah. I'm excited.

23. 0:16:54

    Karen, is that about it signing up or are we gonna-

24. 0:16:58

    Uh-

25. 0:16:58

    One, two.

26. 0:17:00

    I mean, if somebody wants to testify on the substitute, so yeah, you can sign up. I'd go ahead and sign.

27. 0:17:07

    I don't need, I don't need to. I just didn't know if I needed it for the right questions that I wanted to answer.

28. 0:17:11

    Yeah, if you want to sign up, that's fine.

29. 0:17:13

    You don't need to go through. There's nothing else going on. I don't need to.

30. 0:17:17

    All right. Thank you.

31. 0:17:34

    Yep.

32. 0:17:38

    Hey, how's it going?

33. 0:19:28

    Good. How are you?

34. 0:19:28

    Good to see you. Nice to see you. Thanks for being

35. 0:19:56

    here. How are you?

36. 0:19:57

    I'm making it. Yeah.

37. 0:20:12

    Which one were you

38. 0:20:20

    thinking about?

39. 0:20:50

    That's a good one.

40. 0:20:53

    Yeah.

41. 0:21:03

    We, um... I mean... Sure. Where's platform sixteen? Do I have platform sixteen?

42. 0:21:33

    Gotta go make before Esther gets in here. Where's it at? Where's it at?

43. 0:21:51

    Hey,

44. 0:21:57

    what's happening? Last time.

45. 0:22:45

    You're looking great, man. Thank you.

46. 0:23:03

    I was all excited that we were in this building.

47. 0:23:19

    John, how are you?

48. 0:23:21

    I was all excited we were in this building 'cause Governmental Affairs is usually in this building.

49. 0:23:25

    Yeah.

50. 0:23:26

    They're in one thirty-two.

51. 0:23:28

    Oh, yeah. I know.

52. 0:23:31

    I wanna

53. 0:23:37

    know why Republicans don't want to vote for Democratic bills.

54. 0:23:46

    I'm sure there's a good reason.

55. 0:23:47

    Reason?

56. 0:23:49

    I mean, like, um, the smell of marijuana. I mean, can he's searched?

57. 0:23:58

    Yeah.

58. 0:23:59

    For marijuana.

59. 0:23:59

    Go for the moon. They were right there.

60. 0:24:09

    Yeah, we've lost our way all right.

61. 0:24:21

    Um, we're

62. 0:25:01

    looking at like a three-week implementation plan update to call in and have like all the stuff we already have on deck for next iteration.

63. 0:25:06

    Yeah.

64. 0:25:08

    We're gonna get together on Friday.

65. 0:26:09

    Friday.

66. 0:26:10

    I'm here.

67. 0:26:11

    What?

68. 0:26:11

    How far am I down the line?

69. 0:26:13

    Uh.

70. 0:26:14

    Please don't tell me I'm last.

71. 0:26:15

    No, you're not last.

72. 0:26:16

    Thank you.

73. 0:26:20

    Am I anywhere near the... We got-- You got bad ones?

74. 0:26:27

    I guess not.

75. 0:26:29

    All right. Thank you. Whatever you can do.

76. 0:26:31

    Sure.

77. 0:26:34

    I can't get rid of this freaking cold. Is your-- Are you managing to keep it away from your baby?

78. 0:26:41

    Well, him being a baker-

79. 0:26:43

    Oh

80. 0:26:43

    ... it's, it's kinda cool.

81. 0:26:45

    Already bringing everything home.

82. 0:26:48

    Yeah, that's why.

83. 0:26:50

    Well, there's, uh, there seems to be, uh,

84. 0:26:54

    flu B or something, and flu B apparently is one that's like the flu, but it just stays forever.

85. 0:27:03

    Oh, yeah.

86. 0:27:04

    And, um-

87. 0:27:04

    I had, I had-- I did have to take some DayQuil this morning. Seems like I've been okay for the rest of the day.

88. 0:27:12

    Well, I had a cold, and it hung me up and I was sick in bed.

89. 0:27:16

    Oh.

90. 0:27:16

    At least I went on expensive one.

91. 0:27:18

    Right.

92. 0:27:18

    It was one o'clock in the morning, and I was listening to a book on tape, Henry Roosevelt, and I had barely read any yet.

93. 0:27:27

    Uh-huh.

94. 0:27:27

    And I had medicine for my nose, but, um-

95. 0:27:32

    Oh, boy

96. 0:27:32

    ... scared. Oh, I hit it hard. It's-- I don't understand how I don't have-

97. 0:27:35

    You know, struggled a little bit.

98. 0:27:37

    Yeah. You know, I always say I don't have a Mercedes because you can't kill it.

99. 0:27:41

    Right. Right. Uh-huh.

100. 0:27:51

     We passed this bill last year, didn't we?

101. 0:27:54

     Yeah, I think so.

102. 0:27:56

     I, I think it came down my committee.

103. 0:27:58

     Mm-hmm.

104. 0:27:58

     And it got all the way over to the-

105. 0:28:00

     That's what gets on my committee

106. 0:28:02

     ... I know it got all the way over to the Senate, and they reported in Senate Judiciary until the last minute. We didn't have the probation part in there. Nobody ever come and talked to me.

107. 0:28:13

     Right.

108. 0:28:14

     And so now this has got a probation part in there.

109. 0:28:16

     Ah, okay.

110. 0:28:51

     We don't have to have one to have bills presented. We just have to have the vote. The vote, we're voting. Yeah, we'll, we'll vote once we get a quorum.

111. 0:29:01

     You mean vote on them? 'Cause I wouldn't. No, I mean-

112. 0:29:07

     I know

113. 0:29:07

     ... they can leave?

114. 0:29:09

     Who, the-

115. 0:29:10

     Huh?

116. 0:29:10

     Members?

117. 0:29:11

     Yeah. I mean, don't you have to have a vote?

118. 0:29:14

     Well-

119. 0:29:15

     I'm asking because I had trouble getting money this winter.

120. 0:29:17

     We'll get, we'll get nine. Actually, we already have nine. But what we'll do is we'll have nine to vote.

121. 0:29:24

     Okay.

122. 0:29:25

     Nine will start it and have it.

123. 0:29:27

     I mean, 'cause I was, it took me forever to get papers yesterday.

124. 0:29:32

     Right. Oh, yeah.

125. 0:29:33

     And I finally did.

126. 0:29:35

     Yeah, I can't leave just yet. No, I've got a 8:00 slot in the morning if we have to come back.

127. 0:29:41

     Okay.

128. 0:29:41

     I've got some general, um, I gotta get some of this done. Right.

129. 0:30:00

     No, this start, start when you-

130. 0:30:02

     Okay.

131. 0:30:07

     But okay.

132. 0:30:08

     I'm not, I'm not going to do it, not with Chuck out working.

133. 0:30:13

     Okay.

134. 0:30:13

     You know?

135. 0:30:15

     No, fine.

136. 0:30:16

     Like, sorry. No, you're good. All right, we'll get on this at 1... 4:15 we're rolling, brother.

137. 0:31:53

     Okay, welcome to House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee Full Committee. If you want to continue your conversations, you can go out in the hallway.

138. 0:32:04

     Well, thank you for letting me ask. I might have been asking.

139. 0:32:08

     All right, we're going to open up in a word of prayer, bow your heads. We... And Lord Jesus, thank you for this day. Thank you for all your blessings. Thank you most of all for salvation. Help us, Lord, in our endeavors here this afternoon, that what we would be doing here and passing on, Lord, would be w- very pleasing unto you and unto your will. In your name we pray, amen.

140. 0:32:25

     Amen.

141. 0:32:26

     Okay, first up, we're going to have House Bill 1226, Representative David Clark.

142. 0:32:44

     Thank you, uh, Chairman. I bring before you se- Substitute to House Bill 1226, LC394976S, and we had passed it out last week, this bill, um, but we pulled it back from rules to clean up some language, 'cause we had had some, um, some lines that, um, had been struck out, um, and that was not n- we never meant for that to happen. It happened in ledge council, and that's what, what the confusion was, so we cleaned that up.

143. 0:33:14

     Um, so no li- no language, um, from stand your def- uh, stand your ground law. Um, nothing's changed, and all it's doing, as we talked about in the last committee, is it gives you the, uh, immunity hearing upfront instead of waiting. You know, you could be in jail sitting there before. The justification of why you're being accused could be 12 to 24 months. So now it's just, you can ask for the immunity hearing upfront, and the, you know, the DA needs to be able to show, um, the evidence of why he's, you know, charging the, uh, person who acted in self-defense.

144. 0:33:49

     But with that, I'll answer any questions, but it was just, we cleaned up those lines. That was asked about last time.

145. 0:33:53

     Okay, so the change was that we moved the timeline for requesting this up to after arraignment?

146. 0:34:05

     Say again?

147. 0:34:06

     The timeline as far as the case progressing, would you request this after arraignment, before arraignment?

148. 0:34:16

     Uh, during.

149. 0:34:17

     Okay. All right.

150. 0:34:18

     Because it used to be it was multiple processes later, then, then you'd ask for the immunity hearing. So now you can af- ask for it upfront, go before a judge, and the judge can decide based on the evidence from the DA that this case does ne- need to go before a grand jury.

151. 0:34:31

     Okay. Representative Roberts.

152. 0:34:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a question about, um, subsection B4. Can you give me... Is this coming from some specific situation, or... I'm trying to understand the purpose of that one.

153. 0:34:55

     Okay.

154. 0:34:55

     Like, why you're changing that portion. You're not talking about that portion in your comments, so.

155. 0:35:00

     Whi- which line?

156. 0:35:02

     Um, I'm sorry. Uh, on page two, subsection four, B4, the one where if the officer identifies himself-

157. 0:35:11

     Yeah

158. 0:35:11

     ... then you don't have a defense-

159. 0:35:12

     Yeah

160. 0:35:13

     ... of self-defense.

161. 0:35:13

     So I mean, I mean, I, I mean, I could send you a bunch of articles. I mean, one happened in, in, uh, in Cobb, I think it was. I just saw on the news. Two people showed up dressed all up as, like, sheriff deputies and all that, said, "Hey, you know, we're here to issue a whatever." And they actually busted in, uh, robbed them and all that. Um, so I mean, what it does i- i- is just... I mean, you can't open fire on law enforcement and all that. But what it does is, you know, if somebody busts in your house, or, or, or say it did happen, I guess. You know, if law enforcement did bust in, you know, um, and you woke up, you know, n- not knowing the situation, did open fire, right?

162. 0:35:51

     It's the middle of the night and you did not know who was coming in, and you opened fire, then, you know, unless you knew, right, then you can be found guilty. But if you just woke up and opened fire, like say I got three kids, a wife and all that, and all of a sudden door gets kicked in, I jump up, grab my gun, right, open fire, um, you know, that would be self-defense.

163. 0:36:12

     S- so I'm confused, 'cause it says, "In a location readily accessible to the public or a place of public accommodation." So that's not your residence.

164. 0:36:27

     I'm just honestly trying to understand.

165. 0:36:28

     Wh- which line is that?

166. 0:36:30

     Lines 41 to 42.

167. 0:36:38

     Are you looking at, uh, 394976S?

168. 0:36:43

     Seven s- yeah. Page two at the bottom. "Should've known the person was a law enforcement officer and the force used or threatened occurred in a location readily accessible to the public or a place of public accommodation." So I'm just trying to understand the purpose behind this.

169. 0:37:13

     Could I have, uh, Alex Dorr with Georgia, Georgia Gun Owners answer that question?

170. 0:37:17

     Sure.

171. 0:37:24

     Hi.

172. 0:37:31

     Yes. This section B, one, two, three, and four are all the cases in law where you may not use self-defense and say it's justified. You may not use it in the commission of a felony. You may not commit, use it, uh, in the, in, uh, as the aggressor. And this says that you cannot use self-defense as an argument for firing on police officers who have identified themselves, they are conducting their normal duties, and they are in a public place.

173. 0:38:02

     This is a repetitive question. We did talk about this at the last hearing. The connection, "and" in line 40, the fifth word from the end of the sentence, says that if the officer's performing their duties and it is in a public place, you may not use stand-your-ground as a defense. If this happens not in a public place, your home, and we talked about this, this analogy last time, it is not uncommon in America unfortunately, but if the police are in the wrong residence and you open fire to defend your family, you cannot be charged as, for murder or for attacking a police officer if it is an accident, if they're not supposed to be there and it's not in a public place.

174. 0:38:50

     So that's why that is in there like it is.

175. 0:38:53

     I, I wasn't trying to be repetitive. I understood that it didn't apply to the residence-

176. 0:38:56

     Mm-hmm

177. 0:38:56

     ... which is the reverse of, I think, what, um, Rep. Clark just said. But I'm trying to understand, 'cause usually these things come from a story or a, a reason. I'm, of course I'm not advocating shooting at police officers-

178. 0:39:08

     Mm-hmm

179. 0:39:08

     ... if they're legally doing their job. Is there some instance that prompted this section?

180. 0:39:15

     I do not have an instance to point to in the State of Georgia. Other states that have passed this same legislation, there are now 18 other states that have done this, have made sure to include this at the behest of police officers who want to have that protection codified that you cannot use self-defense as an affirmative defense, as well as other use cases where homeowners have been in this situation. Thank God that has not happened in Georgia, but this is a great legislature, and they love to be proactive.

181. 0:39:48

     Thank you.

182. 0:39:51

     Okay, I see no other questions. Thank you, gentlemen.

183. 0:39:55

     Thank you.

184. 0:39:56

     All right, I have, uh, couple signed up on this. I see,

185. 0:40:16

     uh, I see Madam DA from DeKalb County, Ms. Sherry.

186. 0:40:33

     And just for timekeeping purposes, you've got a minute and a half.

187. 0:40:37

     Okay, and I have, um, the next sign-up on this, my colleague, Bill Dupay, the district attorney for the Tomb Circuit. So together, I'm Sherry Boston, the DA for DeKalb County. Um, so you all know I represent an urban area, and we've got Bill Dupay that represents a more rural area, and we stand, um, against this bill. I have a lot of concerns, um, a- about it. What I'm gonna say, and, and limit my quick remarks to, I don't think that this bill accomplishes the, the sponsor's primary stated goal of reducing delay in immunity hearings or findings.

188. 0:41:15

     First, let me just say respectfully to what Representative Clark said, we don't have arraignments before grand jury, um, and immunity hearings are not set at arraignment

189. 0:41:26

     you cannot have a hearing until a defense attorney files a motion asserting, um, a claim of any kind. So when, once at arraignment, defense attorneys will file motions, but this particular motion is not something that has to be filed, um, at arraignment. It can be filed in advance of trial, and then a judge would be required to have an immunity hearing on self-defense. Um, so because delay in immunity ha- motions really come from, has the defense filed a motion, I think the only thing that this committee could do if they were interested in this issue, um, and addressing that, is putting a time limit on judges that once a motion is filed, that they, say, have, um, 60 days on how quickly the court should hold an immunity hearing.

190. 0:42:17

     Because I agree, if someone files a motion for immunity, we need to do that. This bill also flips the burden, um, after the defendant makes a prima facie case for self-defense, and it does not set any type of evidentiary standard for that showing by the defendant. Um, the prima facie pri-

191. 0:42:34

     Madam DA, your time's up, but I'll give you a sentence in conclusion.

192. 0:42:39

     Okay. Well, I will just finish with saying that lines 81 through 85 prohibit law enforcement from arresting a person who claims self-defense until that claim can be investigated. It would be virtually impossible to arrest anyone at the scene of a shooting, and this would have a huge negative impact on public safety. I'm happy to answer any questions that any of the committee members might have for me.

193. 0:43:00

     Did you talk with Representative Clark before today?

194. 0:43:03

     I have not.

195. 0:43:08

     Okay.

196. 0:43:08

     I'm happy to do so.

197. 0:43:12

     Appreciate that. All right. DA from Toombs County.

198. 0:43:17

     Yeah, it's actually the Toombs Circuit, which is, uh, off of I-20 heading towards Augusta. It's a rural area, total population about 50,000 people among six counties. We have a problem with gangs in our area. Um, I'm a, a... One of the things I love about my job is I'm still in the courtroom trying these cases, and oftentimes it is hard to tell who was the aggressor and who was the victim in gang cases. And the reason for that is most of the time they're engaged in combat by agreement. They wanna do this. They wanna shoot at each other, and then the community has to pick up the pieces afterwards.

199. 0:43:50

     Under this law, one shooter could claim immunity, um, and he would be, there'd be a presumption, once he says self-defense, there'd be a presumption that that person is acting in self-defense, and we'd have to overcome it. The second shooter on the other side from an opposing gang could claim, uh, claim the same thing, and they're also entitled to a presumption. So I'm left with a situation of nobody being held responsible when the stray bullet inevitably hits the, uh, the young child in the car, or as we recently had, a mother who was buckling her child into a car seat and was shot and killed when gangs were shooting at each other.

200. 0:44:24

     So the, the framework that we have now I think adequately provides, and I'm a big self-defense proponent. I'm a, um, a Second Amendment person, but the framework that we have now provides an adequate basis for resolving these cases, uh, in terms of, uh, the timeliness of it. And, and not only does this bill shift the burden that now makes the, the victim the one in the wrongdoing, but it makes our burden to overcome that even higher than it is now. Um, just for those reasons, I, I think this is well-intentioned, but it's got some flaws, and I would be glad to work with the, uh, with the drafter to see if it can be made better.

201. 0:44:58

     Okay. Did you talk with Representative Clark before you got up here?

202. 0:45:01

     I did not.

203. 0:45:03

     I'd appreciate it if you would.

204. 0:45:05

     Will do.

205. 0:45:08

     Thank you.

206. 0:45:14

     All right. I think that leaves, uh, Gacdol, M- or Mazelin. We've often not published the plan, but this must be done by the end of the

207. 0:45:26

     meeting. Discretion being the better part of valor. Thank you.

208. 0:45:32

     Okay. Anybody...

209. 0:45:36

     I think I'm on next. Come on up.

210. 0:45:43

     I actually have talked with Representative Clark about this.

211. 0:45:47

     Oh, well.

212. 0:45:47

     So ... So, um, but I, uh, I'm Heather Hallett with Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, and um, I do want to point out that in the last hearing, um, Representative Panitch, who's not here, had offered an amendment to create that 90-day window for the immunity hearing, and I also believe that that is, um, an adequate response to the stated intentions behind the bill. I have huge concerns, um, about creating the presumption that any claim of defensive use of force is reasonable, um, especially considering the possibilities for misuse, which I think the DA's talked about pretty well.

213. 0:46:30

     Um, and again, I just, uh, last hearing I did not get a chance to say this, but from 2013 to 2012, the GBI, um, r- recorded only 21 cases of justifiable use of force. So I feel like Representative Panitch's, um, amendment really solves the problem, and this is not a widespread issue that lots of Georgians are facing. So I would just encourage the committee to reconsider that amendment.

214. 0:47:02

     Thank you so much.

215. 0:47:04

     You got 22 seconds to spare. Hold on a second. Want any questions? Okay, thank you very much. All right. That's all I have on that one. Oh, Alex, did you wanna add anything?

216. 0:47:20

     Sure.

217. 0:47:20

     I know you had signed up, and then we had phone a friend, so we won't count that against you.

218. 0:47:25

     Always glad to help a friend.

219. 0:47:27

     Go ahead.

220. 0:47:29

     The case that this is going to somehow be- this bill is about pre-trial immunity hearings, uh, misses one glaring fact. We are shifting the burden of proof back to the government. If the government wants to put someone in jail for a crime, the burden should be on them to prove that the crime had been committed. In this country, we are founded on the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. But in a self-defense situation, that doesn't apply. The DA can simply say, "What you did wasn't reasonable.

221. 0:47:59

     Prove your innocence." We all know what this is about. This is about putting the law-abiding gun owner through their own living hell. This would be mugshots, arrests. This would be six-figure legal bills, and it would destroy them, and this is happening in Georgia currently. So this bill requiring district attorneys to do their job and bring the burden of proof, as in any other case, would limit how many of these law-abiding gun owners could possibly be brought up on bogus charges.

222. 0:48:29

     That's all I have. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

223. 0:48:34

     See no questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Clark, if you wanna come back up, what, uh, what we'll do is, uh, we'll hear House Bill 1154. Go ahead, Representative Clark.

224. 0:49:03

     All right, so I have H- House Bill 1154. It's LC481667.

225. 0:49:12

     And what this bill would simply do is if you're caught sex trafficking, then it would add the death penalty as an option for the jury in that case if they wanted to, uh, put that on the, uh, table. And I'll say, Atla- the Atlanta area has been identified by the FBI as one of the states with the highest levels of, uh, sex trafficking, and is ranked, even at times, number one, um, it's been said. Uh, I'll say the average victim of, is a 14-year-old girl. Um, 7,200 men purchase sex f- from a minor every month in the state of Georgia.

226. 0:49:45

     Um, and that was mind-blowing. 65% of the men who purchase the sex from minors in the state do it in, in the Atlanta Metro area. Um, and from what these victims go through, it's multi-generational trauma, depression, suicide. 90%, 98% of sex trafficking survivors report at least one severe psychological condition. Um, just in the mental health part, 88% of sex trafficking survivors reported having depression, 76 experiencing anxiety. It- 55% meet the criteria for PTSD. Um, and on the suicide, 41% of survivors have attempted suicide at least once, and 75% of sexually exploited a- adolescents report, um, suicidal, um, you know, thinking about doing that, with 57% actually attempting suicide, um, with that adolescence.

227. 0:50:31

     And I'll just say, you know, I know also with the Supreme Court, you might get this question of weighing in saying they've already weighed in on this. The Supreme Court has reversed the over 300 rulings, um, on what they had already ruled on and reversed it, and I would say, you know, they talk about it needs to meet, the punishment needs to meet the crime. And I say, I mean, with this, it is death to the soul, um, especially if, if you really dig into the sex trafficking and what these victims go through. And, um, I mean, it is horrendous.

228. 0:51:01

     And so I mean, I believe it should be on the table, um, for the jury if they want to give the, uh, death penalty. Okay, thank you. Representative Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, let me start by saying I agree with you, sex trafficking is horrendous and heinous, and by no means am I advocating that, um, for that or that anybody should get away with that. But, um, are you aware that death penalty cases can take sometimes decades to get through the cases, and that those victims that you're worried about their mental health and what they're gonna go through, um, defendants may refuse to plead, and it's gonna force the victims to endure prolonged litigation and repeated testimony, um, which is what sometimes makes it so difficult for them.

229. 0:51:58

     So I'm just trying to understand, uh, if you've thought about that. I have a couple more questions if you'll... Yeah, I mean, we, we know so- some, I mean, we're just in the court a lot, we have some, I mean, different cases that, that go forever. Um, I mean, I think we also need to, and this is what it's about, I mean, helping to shorten some of these cases which can be dragged on, and you have total evidence on them actually doing this, whatever the crime is, but with sex trafficking. Um, and I know some of these cases go, go long, but I mean, I think, here's the point, is like there's nothing more evil, and we'd all agree with, than sex trafficking, slavery.

230. 0:52:36

     We talk about it from the past, you know, from America globally. I mean, it's the most evil sin out there, I believe. You're taking a human being and saying, "You're worth nothing." And I think this needs to be an option on the table to let these people know who are doing this, this is an option that could be waiting your fate if you're gonna go grab these, especially young kids, but period, I mean, humans, and then using them for sex trafficking. Again, I agree it's, um, heinous. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple more questions if that's okay.

231. 0:53:06

     Go ahead. Since I don't have any of my colleagues here, hope you'll indulge me a minute. Um, so I don't disagree, but this bill doesn't shorten any time, and the Supreme Court has found multiple times that the Eighth Amendment applies, and that the crime has to involve a death, which I think is probably the worst evil, is murdering, taking another life. Um, so I guess-

232. 0:53:35

     Um, my question is when we have, as a body, have awarded wrongful com- compensation for people that we've wrongfully accused of crimes, it would seem like extending this, um, could be, could risk people losing their lives unnecessarily, and it still doesn't answer my original question of when these cases drag out, it's hard on the victims too, versus if they plead and then they get sentenced.

233. 0:54:05

     Um, so it just feels like some of these things are kind of inconsistent with what you're trying to accomplish, is all I'm saying. Um, and if the Supreme Court has never ruled that it goes beyond a c- crime that ends in death, this could be expensive litigation that we, we know the probable outcome, and so it just, um... I don't know if you have an answer to that. Um, and then my last question is, if this were to pass, um, and you clearly believe sex trafficking is, is one of the most heinous crimes, and I agree, um, are you going to be in favor of it being applied to wealthy or nationally known figures that participate in trafficking enterprise?

234. 0:54:58

     Um, just curious.

235. 0:55:00

     Anybody. I mean, you know me. I mean, if it's wrong, it's wrong. I mean, if you've done the crime and the jury weighs in on that, I mean, I've shown that every single day I've been down at the Capitol 12 years I've been here. So, um, nobody's above the law. I don't care if you're elected, not elected, you're a billionaire, you own one penny to your name, or nothing to your name.

236. 0:55:18

     Or president. Okay.

237. 0:55:21

     Well, let's-

238. 0:55:21

     Um-

239. 0:55:21

     ... do a dig there.

240. 0:55:23

     Um-

241. 0:55:23

     All right.

242. 0:55:24

     All right.

243. 0:55:24

     Okay. This committee, since I've been chair, is focused on policy. Keep the hot shots at each other to a minimum.

244. 0:55:41

     You can continue if you had another question.

245. 0:55:43

     Um,

246. 0:55:47

     I think I covered most of my questions. Thank you.

247. 0:55:52

     Oh.

248. 0:55:56

     Do you... I- I- I'm a little, um, confused about who this would apply to too. Like, sex trafficking is kind of a broad term. Is this just the person selling them? Is it the hotel owner that's aware that this is going on in their hotel? Is it the truck driver who's driving them to a location? Like, it seems kind of expansive and could apply to a lot of different folks.

249. 0:56:21

     I mean, to trafficking a persons for labor or sexual servitude, so I mean, that-

250. 0:56:26

     All of those people could be-

251. 0:56:26

     I mean, I think it's pretty simple. I mean, you're the one trafficking these human beings, and you get caught, then the option could be on the table if the, um, if they want to charge them with-

252. 0:56:39

     Okay. Thank you

253. 0:56:39

     ... the death penalty.

254. 0:56:42

     Okay. Seeing no other questions, Representative.

255. 0:56:46

     Thank you. And also to, to that, the other bill, I mean, it, it's in law on the probable cause. I mean, y- like, how that is defined and, and it's pretty low bar. So you have to have that probable cause, and you can go arrest them. So it's not like you can't arrest them, you know, if they have acted in self-defense and you think they have not. If you have probable cause, you can arrest. So I know it was said before, you know, like, "Then they could just get off." No, if that officer thinks they have probable cause, we have it in law also what that means. Um, a- and I don't have that piece of the law in front of me, um, but it, it is defined.

256. 0:57:17

     Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, we're gonna move on to testimony. We've got several people signed up. Remember, a minute and a half, trying to accommodate everyone who has traveled near and far. First, I'm gonna go with, uh, Ms. Christi Puckett.

257. 0:57:39

     Okay. Got you. Different bill.

258. 0:57:42

     Yes. 1154.

259. 0:57:44

     Okay. Laura Smith.

260. 0:57:57

     Yes, this is on 1154.

261. 0:58:08

     Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. Before I worked at GFADP, I spent time working at a shelter serving survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. That experience continues to shape how I think about policies that affect survivors of violent crime. I want to focus on how this proposal could affect trafficking survivors here in Georgia, especially from a timeline and reporting perspective. Representative Roberts already covered many of the timeline issues that I'm concerned about.

262. 0:58:38

     Many trafficking survivors in Georgia already face enormous barriers to stability, housing safety, and financial recovery. Swift accountability supports healing more effectively than a process that stretches on for decades. Second, reporting. Data from the 2021 National Human Trafficking Hotline analyzed by Polaris shows trafficking victims are often exploited by people they know, around 33% by family members, 28% by intimate partners, and 22% by employers.

263. 0:59:09

     Broader research consistently finds most trafficking victims know their trafficker in some capacity. That matters because when the perpetrator is someone a victim depends on, financially, emotionally, or for housing, the stakes of reporting are incredibly high. Increasing penalties to the most severe level can sometimes unintentionally raise those barriers, particularly when victims fear retaliation, family disruption, or economic fallout. We know trafficking remains significantly underreported. S- experts estimate only a small fraction of victims are ever formally identified.

264. 0:59:41

     So policies that encourage reporting and cooperation are critical. Georgia has worked really hard in recent years to strengthen anti-trafficking enforcement and victim services. My encouragement today is simply this: keep prioritizing what we know keeps vic- keeps victims, helps victims come forward, stay safe, and rebuild their lives. Thank you.

265. 1:00:03

     Thank you for conclud- Hold on for questions, potentially. I see no quest- Uh, Chairman Crowe.

266. 1:00:11

     Just so you're against the bill?

267. 1:00:13

     I am against the bill.

268. 1:00:14

     Okay. You, but you are supporting victims of the folks that we're talking about here, so-

269. 1:00:22

     I, I, I'm with Georgians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty.

270. 1:00:25

     Okay.

271. 1:00:25

     And I previously worked with victims of human traf- uh, yeah, victims of human trafficking.

272. 1:00:30

     Okay. In that experience with victims of human trafficking, how would this negatively affect... It sounded like you were saying that this would negatively affect victims of human trafficking, and I-

273. 1:00:39

     That's correct

274. 1:00:39

     ... and because of the shortness of time, I don't know that I actually got to hear how that, what the causation was between the two.

275. 1:00:45

     Yeah. I'm not sure if you were here when, um, Representative Roberts was talking about the-

276. 1:00:49

     I wasn't, and if I would've been, I usually don't listen to what you say. I'm teasing.

277. 1:00:54

     Basically, the, um, trials go on for decades. There's actually someone who's been on death row in Georgia for longer than I've been alive, and I turned 40 last year. Um, and so it's a, it's a timeline that really, really stretches out, um, for victims and really can impact their mental health when they're having to continue showing up, continuing to relive the event.

278. 1:01:14

     Yeah.

279. 1:01:14

     And then also, um, it raises the barrier for people to report because, as I indicated, many, many victims of human trafficking know their perpetrators, and if they know their perpetrators and they know that those people are gonna be eligible for the death penalty, they are less likely to report them because they're not interested in the family disruption or in, um, losing the economic stability or losing their housing.

280. 1:01:38

     Okay. Thank you.

281. 1:01:40

     Of course.

282. 1:01:42

     See no other questions. Thank you very much for coming out today.

283. 1:01:45

     Thank you.

284. 1:01:46

     All right. Next up, I have Mike with the Southern Center for Human Rights.

285. 1:01:55

     A frequent flyer here in Judy Non-Civil.

286. 1:02:04

     Good afternoon. Michael Adman from the Southern Center for Human Rights. Um, we strongly oppose this bill. Um, I have three points I'd like to make in my brief time. First, and I say this with all due respect to the representative, um, this bill is unconstitutional. It's not speculation. It contradicts decades of precedent from the United States Supreme Court, that the death penalty can only be imposed on someone who kills or intends to kill. And here I'm referring specifically to Kennedy versus Louisiana from 2008, Edmond versus Florida from 1982, Coker versus Georgia from 1977, and many others.

287. 1:02:41

     In those cases, the court has recognized the, quote, "serious constitutional issues that would arise if the death penalty were imposed for a non-homicide crime." Georgia's death penalty has not been perfect, but it has avoided some of those issues by implementing a more cautious, narrow approach. No one has ever been executed for a non-homicide crime in Georgia, and there's no reason to start now. I have two other brief points. Um, first, uh, this committee is, has several bl- bills before it, um, that demonstrate that you're trying to tackle the issue of human trafficking in a more deliberate way.

288. 1:03:16

     We applaud those efforts. I've been here for the last couple of weeks listening to some of the testimony about it, and it's, it's clear that human trafficking is a serious issue and that those who commit it deserve to be held accountable. This bill's an ineffective means of doing it, and it harms victims. As Ms. Smith just said, and Chairman Crowe, actually, in Kennedy and, and versus Louisiana, the Supreme Court spe- specifically cited the harm to the victims, uh, when the death penalty is imposed for a non-homicide crime as a reason to find it unconstitutional. If, if I may, uh, just one final point, and I'll keep it very brief, Chairman.

289. 1:03:49

     Um, uh, there are... I, I... If before we expand the death penalty in this unprecedented way, I think it's important to ask questions about how it would work. How many cases a year would this, would this impact? Where would they be? How would it align with the current landscape? Um, how would it impact the state financially, uh, from courts to public defenders? Has there been an assessment of whether it's even constitutional or how it compares to other states' bills? And have we accounted for the historical trajectory of the death penalty in Georgia towards a more cautious and narrow approach?

290. 1:04:21

     Thank you for your time and for the extra few seconds. I welcome your questions.

291. 1:04:25

     See no questions. Thank you.

292. 1:04:27

     Thank you.

293. 1:04:37

     Uh, Jana Hoffacker

294. 1:04:46

     with the Georgia Catholic Conference.

295. 1:04:49

     Congratulations

296. 1:04:56

     on

297. 1:04:56

     Good afternoon. I am Jana Hoffacker, Executive Director of the Georgia Catholic Conference. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill today. Um, I come here today with moral concern on behalf of the Catholic Bishops of Georgia. We agree with Representative Clark that the crime of human trafficking is a serious one, and one that we need to address. Those engaging in it, those, whether they are purchasing these services, enabling these services, or profiting off of these services, should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

298. 1:05:29

     That being said, the Catholic Church rejects the death penalty in every case, so we must oppose this bill and its expansion of the use of capital punishment in our state. We believe that the funds spent on the death penalty trials, which are substantial-

299. 1:05:46

     could be better spent on prevention and direct as- assistance to the victims and all those impacted by these crimes. Thank you, and I'll take any questions you might have.

300. 1:05:57

     All right, you've got the record so far, 45 seconds left. All right. Uh, hold on one second. Indulge the chair for a second. Maybe I'm just a little too much of a Reformed Protestant- ... but I've always wondered how it was rationalized with the Noahic Covenant of blood for blood.

301. 1:06:19

     Well, if you I could get into that if you want me to.

302. 1:06:23

     Please do.

303. 1:06:24

     Well, if we are looking at the idea of, you know, kind of eye for an eye sort of-

304. 1:06:29

     No, that, that, that's more on the tort law, uh, plan. Uh-

305. 1:06:35

     There's another verse in there that escapes me separate from that one.

306. 1:06:38

     It, it puts it a bunch of different ways, but it's kind of the same idea. Life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It's the lex talionis. Um, in... If we're talking about Mosaic law, in that, in, you know, whether it's in Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, it shows up in all of there. That was more of a proportional response. It was meant to limit the way that we respond to harm and not to go too far. It was actually about moderation more than anything else.

307. 1:07:11

     Um, so if we take that from the Old Testament, but then we also look at the New Testament, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says specifically that that p- moderation is not even going far enough, and that forgiveness and mercy are s- are to be how we respond to violence, not as a way to avoid accountability, but as a way to try to restore our human family. And I know that's a very idealistic way of looking at it, but I am c- speaking on behalf of the Catholic Church from a moral perspective, and that is how we view, um, why we oppose the death penalty.

308. 1:07:48

     In our teachings, it says that it violates human dignity, and you don't lose that no matter what you've done, and so that's why we take this position.

309. 1:07:58

     Okay, thanks for indulging the chair on that.

310. 1:08:00

     You're welcome.

311. 1:08:00

     One last question.

312. 1:08:01

     Yep.

313. 1:08:01

     Uh, that doesn't mean you're also pulling for the White Sox now, does it?

314. 1:08:06

     Oh, yeah. I mean, I, I'm, I'm a Cubs fan, so it makes it really difficult.

315. 1:08:11

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Have a good evening. Okay, let's see.

316. 1:08:23

     Next I have Chris Bruce with ACLU of Georgia.

317. 1:08:28

     Mr. Chairman.

318. 1:08:28

     Come on down.

319. 1:08:35

     Put on record that I'd love to do this as well. Just wanna make that known.

320. 1:08:44

     Uh, members of the committee, I do have handouts for you, uh, as well, if you would like to take a look and read along with my testimony. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Christopher Bruce. I'm the deputy executive director of the ACLU of Georgia, uh, an organization here to uphold your constitutional rights. So first and foremost, we all know that sex trafficking is wrong, and again, applauding the, uh, sponsor of the bill, let's make sure that we are going into the ways that we should go, specifically talking about this bill being unconstitutional.

321. 1:09:18

     The Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment forbids the death penalty for crimes in which the victim did not die. In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court made clear that capital punishment for non-lethal offenses is categorically disproportionate and therefore unconstitutional. Expanding the death c- penalty to trafficking offenses that does not result in death directly conflicts with binding precedent. In practice, this bill would invite costly, protracted litigation while doing nothing to meaningfully protect survivors.

322. 1:09:50

     We also have a case here in Georgia, Coker v. Georgia. The Supreme Court held that aggravating circumstances do not justify capital punishment when committed for non-lethal offenses. So looking at Section B2, where HB1154 proposes capital punishment for trafficking committed in conjunction with battery, burglary, or arson, the Court has been clear that this is unconstitutional. Generally, expanding the death penalty in Georgia would be largely ineffective and gravely dangerous. Decades of research have found no credible evidence that the death penalty uniquely deters crime.

323. 1:10:25

     Instead, it creates a irreversible risk of wrongful death or erroneous convic- convictions. For roughly eight people executed on the death row in the United States, eight, one person on death row has been found innocent. Human trafficking causes profound harm that demands serious action, but expanding the death penalty is unconstitutional, ineffective, and in every case, just wrong. So to put it this way, you will never hear someone in testimony saying that the death penalty will deter crime.

324. 1:10:57

     It's another reason why we say we oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield for any questions.

325. 1:11:02

     Thank you. Number nine, Representative Roberts.

326. 1:11:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious. You may not know the answer, but do you know approximately how much a death penalty case costs over the decades versus if we charge them with life without parole?

327. 1:11:18

     Right, and I'm glad you raised that question. We have done some research. So it varies, of course, state, state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but we found some that actually goes into the millions and some, uh, into the thousands, tens of thousands.

328. 1:11:31

     Okay.

329. 1:11:31

     So very expensive.

330. 1:11:33

     Thank you.

331. 1:11:34

     Least ex- least expensive is life without parole.

332. 1:11:38

     Thank you.

333. 1:11:42

     Mr. Bruce, I don't know if you know the answer to this question.

334. 1:11:45

     I don't know the answer to a lot of questions, Mr. Chair, so-

335. 1:11:48

     There, there's a-

336. 1:11:48

     ... certainly not this one

337. 1:11:49

     ... there's an annuity or, you know, um, there's a table that we use at least on the civil side-

338. 1:11:55

     Mm-hmm

339. 1:11:55

     ... life expectancy. And depending on the age of the victim that was killed or that was the victim of the crime, let, let's just use homicide for instance. Has there ever been a study done to try to put the valuation on those lives? Obviously, we all agree that those are-

340. 1:12:16

     Mm

341. 1:12:16

     ... priceless lives that were cut short, but has anybody ever looked at doing a study in that vein as well of what the life expectancy would've been, how many years and how many thousands or millions of dollars that that fam- that individual could have earned for not only themselves, but their family as well?

342. 1:12:36

     Mr. Chairman, I have never heard of that question, but I'm uniquely interested in it. I'll do some research and report it back to the committee.

343. 1:12:43

     Okay. Thank you.

344. 1:12:44

     Thank you.

345. 1:12:45

     No more questions. Thank you, Mr. Burns.

346. 1:12:47

     Thank you, sir.

347. 1:12:50

     Okay, I think the last one I have is, uh, Maisey Lamogakel.

348. 1:12:56

     You would need to put it in, sir. We don't do

349. 1:13:00

     Okay. Thank you.

350. 1:13:01

     Great job.

351. 1:13:04

     You were too today.

352. 1:13:05

     All right.

353. 1:13:05

     Best money I've ever heard.

354. 1:13:08

     Okay. Did I miss anyone? All right. Next up I'm gonna hear House Bill 821, a gentleman from Cartersville, Mr. Gambill, governor's floor leader.

355. 1:13:25

     Ooh, ooh. Ooh. Oh, Lord.

356. 1:13:32

     And I believe there was a change in the language substitute.

357. 1:13:36

     Yes, Chairman.

358. 1:13:36

     I wanna thank the leader for that. There was some confusion about what we really intended, and so anyways, if you wanna just go over that real quick for us.

359. 1:13:45

     Sure, yeah. And, uh, first of all, Chairman C- Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be back on, on House Bill 821. Uh, I didn't know he was gonna be here today and, uh, but we talk pretty regular, but my, my DA, Earl, Earl Newton's here, and Earl, I appreciate you. We, we, uh, we work together on a lot of good things there in our, in our community. Um, but House Bill 821 simply, um, moves bond determination if someone, uh, shoots at a law enforcement officer and doesn't hit them from magistrate court to superior court.

360. 1:14:20

     We had an incident in our community. My police chief came to me and a gentleman, uh, had fired at one of our police officers, unloaded a, a clip of a Glock pistol. Uh, very fortunately did not hit the officer, but, um, the gentleman was able to bond out a magistrate. And so again, that was kinda where the idea came from. When I presented it to you the last time there on, uh, line 14, uh, and I tried to write as quickly as I could, and, um, Vice Chair Hong, I know y'all kind of threw some words out there.

361. 1:14:52

     Y'all may have a copy of what we did, but, um, after aggravated assault, it would be with the discharge of a firearm upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in or on account of the performance of his or her official duties, and then it struck, struck by the discharge of a firearm. So I don't know if I got it exactly right, but that's what I remembered from our conversation the other day.

362. 1:15:20

     Which bill?

363. 1:15:21

     Um, well, um, the original LC 48-1581.

364. 1:15:26

     Okay.

365. 1:15:28

     So then it's the sub. Okay. Um...

366. 1:15:37

     Yes. Yes. This, this is, this is correct with what I, uh, we worked on. Yes, sir. And I'm, I apologize, I did not manage to get a copy of this in advance.

367. 1:15:47

     He

368. 1:15:57

     doesn't have a problem.

369. 1:16:00

     All right. Uh, see no questions. Floor Leader, I too am a fan of y'all's DA up there. He just happens to employ, uh- ... my first cousin, so. You might be shocked to know we've got a Smith that's a prosecutor in the family, so we try to cover both sides of the law.

370. 1:16:19

     All right.

371. 1:16:20

     So thank you. All right. I see no questions for you, Floor Leader. Uh, please, uh, give the gentleman and the governor's office our regards.

372. 1:16:28

     I will do that. Thank you, Chairman.

373. 1:16:29

     Okay. All right, I have a few signed up to speak on this. Uh, Lance, come on down.

374. 1:16:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have spoken to the sponsor of the bill. I'm Lance Larusso. I'm the general counsel for the Georgia Fraternal Order of Police and have been sworn as a law enforcement officer for more than 30 years. Uh, my concern with this bill really has to do with the language that was added by the discharge of a firearm. Uh, the... A- and I, I too am also perplexed about the different LC numbers. I'm not sure when this was added or subtracted. Um, but if the statute of aggravated assault on a public safety officer is referenced, then that should end it there.

375. 1:17:14

     The difference in real world accounts and examinations of shootings where officers have been shot in the line of duty or killed in the line of duty, the difference of a person pointing a gun and pulling a trigger is .25 seconds. So making some sort of a culpability distinction between a person pointing a gun at a uniformed law enforcement officer and pulling the trigger and happening to miss so the officer gets a chance to testify in court seems pretty meaningless to me. In 2025, 347 officers were shot in the line of duty.

376. 1:17:49

     Typically, we've tracked officers shot and killed. 347 were shot in the line of duty. Georgia was the third highest in the United States. In 2025, 90 officers were shot in 67 separate ambush attacks. So if a person takes the initiative as a criminal to point a firearm at a law enforcement officer, that should be enough to raise the red flag that they should stand in front of a superior court judge and have their bond determined. And I'm very concerned that somebody is making a distinction in culpability between the discharge and pointing.

377. 1:18:22

     Thank you.

378. 1:18:23

     Okay.

379. 1:18:30

     You, you wanna ask a question there, Prosecutor Meredith?

380. 1:18:35

     What, what are you, you're, what you're saying is the aggravated assault, even, uh, if they ha- in possession of a weapon should also be considered. Is that what you're saying?

381. 1:18:43

     Yeah. 16-521 addresses the aggravated assault. It's the use of a weapon, take a firearm, it could be a knife or whatever ob- object, uh, that places a person in reasonable fear of receiving a life-threatening injury, or the use of that weapon that causes an injury or a death. So the aggravated assault, that's why it's a lesser included crime than murder. So if you point a gun at someone, that is a manifested intent, and there's a muscle twitch between pulling the trigger and not.

382. 1:19:12

     And so what you're saying is you think you would like to see it amended to, uh, say if they just point the gun at an officer, it should be taken for bail before a superior court judge-

383. 1:19:24

     Yes, sir

384. 1:19:24

     ... or a state court judge. That, that's what you'd like to see.

385. 1:19:26

     Yes, sir. It would be a superior court judge, though.

386. 1:19:28

     Superior, thank

387. 1:19:32

     you.

388. 1:19:33

     Chairman Crowe.

389. 1:19:37

     Following up on, on that. So it's the word, it's the discharge portion of it that, that is giving you ... And here, let me ...

390. 1:19:46

     No, I, and I, yeah, I've got what ... By the discharge of a firearm is the language-

391. 1:19:51

     Mm-hmm

392. 1:19:51

     ... that's causing the consternation.

393. 1:19:52

     Yeah. Okay. So the current language, that's the current version. But that's the part, it's the discharge of the firearm. You're just saying aggravated assault upon a public safety officer all together.

394. 1:20:04

     While in the performance of his or her duties, the period or the semicolon should be there.

395. 1:20:08

     Yeah. And take out discharge of a firearm.

396. 1:20:10

     Yes, sir.

397. 1:20:10

     Just aggravated assault on officer should be a superior court only bond.

398. 1:20:13

     Which is more consistent with the severity of the crime being a, a felony, a forcible felony under Georgia law.

399. 1:20:19

     Okay. Would it be any aggravated assault, or would it be the discharge or pointing of a firearm? Aggravated assault with a firearm or a weapon, is that, that's-

400. 1:20:28

     I, I believe it should just stop as aggravated assault.

401. 1:20:31

     Okay.

402. 1:20:32

     So the way it's written, if somebody stabs a police officer but they didn't use a gun in any way, then they wouldn't go before a superior court judge.

403. 1:20:39

     Mm-hmm.

404. 1:20:39

     That, that seems pretty inconsistent to me. I, I, I applaud the fact that somebody's going to a superior court judge for bond.

405. 1:20:46

     Mm-hmm.

406. 1:20:46

     And it just should be left at aggravated assault against a law enforcement officer in performance of their duties. That seems more consistent with the law.

407. 1:20:53

     Yeah. Up until now, I didn't realize that they could get a magistrate court bond for that to begin with, so I'm learning something new myself, so. Okay, thank you.

408. 1:21:02

     Thank you.

409. 1:21:06

     I see no other questions.

410. 1:21:07

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

411. 1:21:17

     I don't think I have anybody else signed up. Pack or Gakno want to comment?

412. 1:21:35

     He was, so sorry.

413. 1:21:50

     Hi everyone. My name is Brian Hines. I'm with the criminal- Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I actually think this is my first time testifying before you all, if I recall, so it's kind of a blast from the past. Uh, just want to clear up what was just said, and obviously it's a policy choice to whatever you all want to do. But the exact language that's used in 16-5-21 C(1)is, "When, when such assault occurs by the discha- discharge of a firearm by a person who's at least 17 years of age." So discharge of a firearm's in the code in agg assault, and this was amended in subcommittee, and I believe that was the intent.

414. 1:22:22

     So just wanted to clear that up.

415. 1:22:26

     So what you're saying, Mr. Hines, is that the language that floor leader Gambill has in his bill is consistent with the rest of the official Code of Georgia Annotated?

416. 1:22:38

     Yes, sir.

417. 1:22:39

     Thank you.

418. 1:22:40

     Thank you.

419. 1:22:40

     Pat, do y'all want to add anything to that?

420. 1:22:43

     Mr. Chairman, I think, um, DA Cranford's already testified. And that was the language that he recommended

421. 1:22:48

     ...

422. 1:22:48

     aggravated assault upon a police officer. If that's what y'all want to be bondable.

423. 1:22:54

     Yep. Sorry.

424. 1:22:56

     That was the part I was watching at home.

425. 1:22:57

     Yeah.

426. 1:22:58

     I am.

427. 1:23:01

     Uh, M- Mr. Chairman, um, DA Cranford's already testified. We believe aggravated assault upon a peace officer during the performance of his duty, if that's the one that y'all want for a policy purpose to be bondable in front of a superior court judge, that's what it should be.

428. 1:23:16

     Okay. Thank you. No questions. All righty. Anybody else signed up on this that I may have missed? All right. Thank you. Okay. Next, uh, House Bill 1398. Uh, I'll just recognize you from your current, uh, position there, Chairwoman Cooper, and I just want to give you a recognition. I know we've done this, uh, before, but you are the longest serving member of this committee, and, uh, it's always a pleasure to have you with us.

429. 1:23:49

     So without further ado, go ahead.

430. 1:23:50

     Okay. I-

431. 1:23:54

     Uh, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, this bill we passed last year out of the House. It got to judiciary in the Senate and was about to pass, and there was a question about probation officers, and we were at the last minute with really not enough time to change things and so, um, it did not move forward. The conditions, uh, that pregnant women must face if they are incarcerated, um, into, uh, our state prisons, uh, are abominable.

432. 1:24:32

     Uh, there is one prison hospital, it's very near here, and I cannot tell you how bad the conditions are. I mean, I know that, you know, a lot of people think our, uh, prisons are underfunded. There's many things we can do. But even to where a woman, uh, that's incarcerated, whether the healthcare, the prenatal care, um, it- even after they deliver, where there's not, um, enough, uh, things for them, like, uh, pads when they're still bleeding and all.

433. 1:25:08

     I mean, it's that basic and that many problems with it. So in trying to solve that and trying to allow women who are gonna have to go to prison for other offenses to still be allowed to bond with their child, which is so important, uh, in any, uh, in the future of that child's life, uh, and to be where they can get better healthcare services and hopefully some reeducation along the way, reeducation, um, opportunities as, uh, they go forward, depending on the length of the bu- period.

434. 1:25:49

     This would allow for pregnant women, for judges to allow pregnant women to defer their incarceration for a period up to 12 months, um, after when they are pregnant and then or after they deliver. Um, women, it would, um, as soon as they, a woman is arrested, if they are not released within 72 hours, the rest, they would have a pregnancy test, uh, unless declined by the woman.

435. 1:26:22

     And the results of those tests would be for determining the need for healthcare and for the purposes set forth in this subsection. Um, the urinary test still would come under HIPAA and couldn't be used to, um, be used against them in any way other than deciding, uh, like if they found, uh, drugs or so forth, it could not be used against them. It would be to determine, um, if they're eligible for probation. Uh, the difference in the bill this year was that, um, we did not have a bail in the last one, amount of bail, and it's in this one to not exceed $100.

436. 1:27:03

     Now, you might think that's ridiculous. Why did we even put it in? And I would prefer not to even had it in because so many of these women are destitute, and they don't have $100, and they don't have somebody that will give them $100. And it really is an, an impediment for them, but, uh, it is something that people wanted, so we set it at $100. Um, postpartum is defined as any woman who is within 12 months after giving birth to a child, uh, regardless of the outcome of the birth.

437. 1:27:37

     Um, it talks about that the supervising officer will be the same thing and work the same way as a probation officer. Um- And that at the time of sentencing, that the judge could look at all the d- the, the situation of the woman and the judge would be able to determine if they will allow them to defer, uh, the sentencing, I mean, the imprisonment, and as long as they're not a danger to themselves or other.

438. 1:28:10

     And during that period defer- of deferral, the woman would, you know, certainly have to report monthly, um, and would have to meet conditions of the probation, and that would occur to maintaining, uh, perinatal health treatment and assessments and trying to take part in education resources if available. Um, if she loses her pregnancy and the, and she's having a deferment, uh, she would need to no- let, uh, her supervisor know within seven days, and so therefore, you know, her, she could end up being, needing to start her time of imprisonment at that time.

439. 1:28:51

     Uh, that basically is, but we would also like some information about the number of women who are incarcerated, the number of pregnant women who were incarcerated, and the total number of women if they decline to take the urinary pres- testing, um, that go, and going forth. And the way it is now, mothers are separated from their children usually w- within hours if they're going to be incarcerated.

440. 1:29:24

     And like I said before, there's no chance for bonding. Um, when children do not bond with their mother, and during this period of time, uh, they have a real problem with detachment, and that kind of detachment often leads to antisocial behavior later in life. So not only am- We are passing lots of bills that allow women to take leave from work, uh, to make sure that they get good healthcare.

441. 1:29:55

     I managed to get $20 million to extend the healthcare for pregnant women from about 46 days after delivery to a year, because there are so many complications that occur, uh, in women, heart, heart problems, hemorrhaging and so forth, that our state hospital is not prepared to keep. And this would, um, help these women get better care within their communities. That's the bill. I'll be glad to answer questions, and there may be somebody that would want to help me.

442. 1:30:28

     Let's see. Representative Byrd.

443. 1:30:31

     Um, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Madam Chair, so let me get this, make sure I understand what your bill is. So if I have committed a crime and I am pregnant, you're asking me for the court system to give me, uh, some special treatment because I happen to be pregnant and about to have a child. Is that correct?

444. 1:30:54

     I'm asking them, yes, to defer your incarceration, because what we offer and where we put pregnant women is far beyond any kind of normal standard in that care. So I feel like the state fails them, and for that reason I'm asking or giving the court, if they think they're not going to harm themselves or others, the judge would have that ability.

445. 1:31:22

     Uh, may I have a follow-up question?

446. 1:31:25

     Sure.

447. 1:31:25

     So does this mean that, um, women that before they go and do a crime, they should go and get pregnant so that they have special treatment?

448. 1:31:32

     I mean, Representative, I think that-

449. 1:31:34

     Thank you.

450. 1:31:37

     Okay, let her answer. You can answer.

451. 1:31:40

     Uh-

452. 1:31:41

     Go ahead and answer, Chairwoman.

453. 1:31:42

     N- I'll pass on that, 'cause I'll be snarky.

454. 1:31:48

     Chairman Crowe.

455. 1:31:50

     Thank you. Um, I'm gonna attempt to not be snarky. Um-

456. 1:31:54

     Like, what'd you say?

457. 1:31:55

     On-

458. 1:31:57

     Okay

459. 1:31:57

     ... line 41.

460. 1:31:59

     Okay.

461. 1:31:59

     So the, the bail ... I'm sorry, I guess starting on line 40, uh, where it says that the bail shall not exceed the amount of $100 unless a woman poses a significant threat or danger-

462. 1:32:09

     Yeah, right

463. 1:32:09

     ... to any person or to the public. So the only standard for that is gonna be up to the judge. There's no, there's no specific crimes that would be excluded from this or anything like that.

464. 1:32:20

     Right.

465. 1:32:20

     Um, i- it would be solely up to the judge.

466. 1:32:24

     Yes, sir. I trust our judiciary system, despite what some people feel about it, and I would trust a judge to be able to make that determination.

467. 1:32:31

     Okay. Thank you.

468. 1:32:34

     Okay, no more questions for Chairwoman Cooper.

469. 1:32:43

     Okay, we have a few signed up on this one. Okay, uh, now Ms. Pa- uh, Chairman Crowe?

470. 1:32:53

     Yeah. Sorry. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, I had another thought pop into my head on that s- on that same line, though, of questioning. Um, so if there is a,

471. 1:33:08

     if it's an offense that would normally require a superior court judge bond, since we were talking about those earlier, would this still have to be a superior court judge to make this determination? Is this changing that? And, and I'm asking for somewhat of a legal perspective-

472. 1:33:22

     Right

473. 1:33:22

     ... if anybody wants to-

474. 1:33:23

     'Cause I, and I'm not a lawyer, and I need some help with that

475. 1:33:24

     ... so I'm just curious if, if, if this is changing that, who would have to determine the, whether or not they're eligible for this $100 bond-

476. 1:33:34

     I'm a-

477. 1:33:34

     ... based on ... 'Cause certain crimes, as we've just seen, are superior court only bonds, and so I'm just curious if this would change who would be the determining in that. Because if it's a, and-

478. 1:33:46

     I-

479. 1:33:46

     I want to clarify before I make this statement.

480. 1:33:50

     You would? Would it?

481. 1:33:50

     I, I love all of our judges, including magistrate court judges, but some of them are more- versed in the law than others. In certain counties, in my county, our magistrate court judges are not lawyers.

482. 1:34:01

     Yeah, no.

483. 1:34:02

     I think it's going to depend on what the charge is, Chairman Crowe.

484. 1:34:09

     All right. Thank you.

485. 1:34:11

     That's it.

486. 1:34:13

     Uh, so now, Ms. Puckett.

487. 1:34:31

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Christie Puckett. I'm a mother, an advocate, and a survivor. I was incarcerated while pregnant, struggling with addiction, receiving no prenatal care and no substance use treatment during a high-risk pregnancy. I found out I was having twins on the delivery table, not at an appointment, on the table, because no one had ever looked closely enough to know my second daughter was there. I know that this audience values life. So do I. But valuing life has to mean something inside the walls, too. When a woman is incarcerated, she cannot call a doctor, make an appointment, or advocate for her unborn child without someone else's permission and intervention.

488. 1:35:07

     Incarcerating mothers does not protect children. It endangers them. But treatment does protect. And the Care Act is also the fiscally responsible choice because a healthy delivery costs far less than a NICU stay. As Paul reminds us in Hebrews 13:3, "Remember those in prison as if you were with them and those who are mistreated as if you are, you, you yourselves were suffering." If we believe every life has value, that belief cannot stop at the prison door. I'm asking you to vote yes on the Women's Care Act for the mothers and for the babies. Thank you.

489. 1:35:42

     Good thing you had no questions.

490. 1:35:45

     I walked out great.

491. 1:35:47

     Bring it out.

492. 1:35:50

     All right. Ms. Pouncey.

493. 1:35:55

     Did I get it right?

494. 1:35:57

     Yes, that's perfect.

495. 1:36:04

     Good afternoon, distinguished chairman and members of the committee. My name is Kayla Pouncey, and I am the deputy director of Restore Her US America. And I am here to speak today in strong support of the Women's Care Act, as you know, as House Bill 1398. This is legislation that is critically needed to address a maternal health crisis within our state's correctional facilities. Georgia's incarcerate- Georgia's incarceration of pregnant women has reached crisis levels, the scale of which cannot be overstated. During what should have be- what should be one of a woman's happiest and most supported moments, pregnant women who are in carceral custody are separated from their partners and loved ones, lacking adequate information, pregnancy support, and resources to prepare for their babies' arrivals.

496. 1:36:44

     During this vulnerable time, many receive no prenatal or postpartum education, resources, or timely medical care. The vast majority are denied pregnancy-specific food accommodations or supplements and have no access to fresh produce, which is vital for physiological and neurological development of a fetus. The Women's Care Act offers a sensible solution offering appropriate sentencing alternatives that allow women to receive comprehensive prenatal and postpartum care in community settings rather than carceral fa- facilities. Um, this approach is one that is backed with evidence, um, that is coming from highly respected medical institutions across our state as well as institutions of higher learning.

497. 1:37:22

     Um, currently, county jails and taxpayer payers are shouldering the full cost of this prenatal care at premium rates, facing significant expenses for staff training and perinatal care, medical transportation, and potential liability from emergencies or inadequate care. As we are working to improve maternal and infant health outcomes in Georgia, we cannot ignore that our state ranks among the highest in the nation for infant mortality. Um, I would also love j- just in finishing, to share this worksheet with you all that has more informations both about, um, pregnancy benefits for both mother and baby, as well as the fiscal impact, um, which includes rates, um, from low-term stays to high-term stays, and estimate that Georgia is spending between $2.5 to $3.6 million every year on this care in both housing and medical, um-

498. 1:38:07

     Okay

499. 1:38:07

     ... and yes, I would like to yield to the committee for any questions as well.

500. 1:38:11

     I see no questions. Thank you.

501. 1:38:13

     Thank you.

502. 1:38:22

     Oh, Chairman Crowe.

503. 1:38:24

     Yeah, I think this is probably for the author, Mr. Chairman, um, if you don't mind.

504. 1:38:28

     Okay, hold on just a second.

505. 1:38:30

     Okay.

506. 1:38:30

     Is there anybody else signed up on this that I missed?

507. 1:38:34

     I think

508. 1:38:35

     Oh, yes. Come on down.

509. 1:38:50

     Thank you, Chairman and committees, committee board members. I'm Pamela Wynn. I am the founder of Restore Her U.S. America. I am also directly impacted. I was incarcerated pregnant, um, down at the private facility, Robert Dayton Detention Facility, where I received no prenatal care. I ended up being shackled, miscarrying my child, and being placed in solitary confinement. Um, I worked with Chairwoman Cooper on HB 345 in 2019, which was passed that bans shackling and solitary confinement of incarcerated pregnant women.

510. 1:39:27

     However, implementation has been very poor, which is why we're here today, um, with this new legislation that will protect the health and safety of newborn babies as well as these mothers. Um, as you've heard, um, the institutions are not adequately equipped to handle pregnancy. Um- As you also heard, no nutritional value, um, no perinatal care, and also it's a great liability to the state. We have a number of women that have lawsuits against the states where they have delivered their babies in solitary, and it has resulted in the death of these babies.

511. 1:40:07

     One of the largest being a $25 million lawsuit, um, by one young woman that was in Clayton County Jail. Um, we ask for support of this bill for several reasons. Um, as we say, it would be a great, um, fiscal, um, a fiscal, um... contribute greatly to the fiscal, um, budget of the State of Georgia as well as protecting newborn babies who are innocent and have not, um, been proven guilty of in doing anything wrong and deserve a chance.

512. 1:40:42

     We also know that the benefits of bonding with the mother f- and having breastfeeding and care also in, it gives us, uh, more sound, quality young children that grow into adults, um, as we look at the high population of our juvenile crime rate now.

513. 1:41:02

     Okay. Thank you. You have a question from Chairman Crowe.

514. 1:41:05

     Sure.

515. 1:41:06

     Thank you.

516. 1:41:06

     Okay.

517. 1:41:07

     Um, thank you for being here. And since you worked with Chair Lady Cooper on this, um, maybe I'm hoping you can answer this-

518. 1:41:14

     Sure

519. 1:41:14

     ... question that I came up with. Um, if the mother is bonded out, um, and awaiting trial or sentencing or whatever status she may be while she's pregnant, um, would the cost of care and all that then be incurred by her rather than the state if she's incarcerated?

520. 1:41:37

     It would be incurred by that woman.

521. 1:41:38

     Okay.

522. 1:41:38

     Not the state.

523. 1:41:39

     So that would be a cost savings to the state actually-

524. 1:41:41

     Yes

525. 1:41:41

     ... not having them in carce- in custody, too, so. And, uh, you said you were at the Robert A. Deaton facility?

526. 1:41:46

     Yes, sir.

527. 1:41:47

     The Lovejoy Jail?

528. 1:41:48

     Yes, sir.

529. 1:41:49

     I started my career there with the Clayton County Sheriff's Office in '96 in that facility, and I hope they've done some improvements since, uh-

530. 1:41:55

     So do I

531. 1:41:55

     ... since then, 'cause it, it's- It was rough. Thank you.

532. 1:41:59

     Thank you.

533. 1:42:01

     No other questions. Thank you. All right.

534. 1:42:03

     Thank you.

535. 1:42:04

     Anybody else signed up that I missed?

536. 1:42:08

     Okay. We're gonna move along.

537. 1:42:14

     Let's see. Uh, Representative Hagan.

538. 1:42:19

     This'll be on 1142. For the rest of you sports fans, House Bill 1282 is off the agenda for today. It will be back on for Monday.

539. 1:42:30

     I'm sorry, what was that?

540. 1:42:31

     House Bill 1282 is off, or excuse me, 1255. I apologize. 1255 is off. 1282 is still on. Go ahead, Representative Hagan.

541. 1:42:41

     Mr. Chairman, would it be okay if I close this laptop without-

542. 1:42:44

     That's fine

543. 1:42:44

     ... m- mess anything up?

544. 1:42:46

     No matter me.

545. 1:42:46

     Okay.

546. 1:42:47

     Go ahead.

547. 1:42:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee. I didn't know what would happen if I closed it. Oh, yeah. Um, committee, I have another substitute. I lost count of how many substitutes we have for this bill, HB1142, but the one I'm working from right now is LC620443S.

548. 1:43:13

     Everybody have a copy of that?

549. 1:43:14

     0443S. Is that... You have that one? Okay. Well, after the last hearing, um, there were some concerns that were brought up, so, um, been working on it since then. We worked with GACTL, um, Domestic Violence Shelter, Directors, PAC, the GBI, Clerks of Court, Georgia Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and a survivor of domestic violence has been a great help with me on some of the changes here.

550. 1:43:45

     So, um, if it pleases the committee, I'll just go through the, the changes that we made since last meeting. We took out the definition of victim. That seemed to be problematic, because we wanna make sure that we are not going to unintentionally include anyone on this registry that we don't want to be on it. So we replaced, um, that term with domestic violence offense.

551. 1:44:17

     That's on line 32. And we listed the specific charges and specific relationships that would need to be involved for someone who is convicted of these charges in order for this person to be included on the registry. And, uh, we, we just specify that inclusion on that registry would only apply to those charges and people that are involved in those relationships.

552. 1:44:55

     The next thing that we did was address some due process concerns and concerns for those who pled first offender or received pretrial diversion. On lines 53 and 56, we, um, included that pretrial diversion or first offender counts would, would apply towards inclusion on the registry, but that the information regarding, um, those charges would not appear on the registry because those, in fact, are not convictions if they are successfully completed.

553. 1:45:37

     So they would count towards inclusion on the registry but not appear on the registry. We felt like that would cover concerns about first offender and pretrial diversion. And then on lines 88 through 90- We made it very clear that this registry would only apply to those convicted of a domestic violence offense commened- committed on or after January 1st of '27.

554. 1:46:11

     So nothing prior to the inaction of the, the law and the publication of the registry online. The next thing we did was, um... Let's see, line 77 through 81.

555. 1:46:35

     We addressed, uh, what would happen if a charge or a conviction was appealed and that charge, uh, was dismissed or vacated, th- there would be automatic removal of that person from the registry.

556. 1:46:57

     Then we had, um, a clerk of court, couple of clerks of court, contact some other, some of our fellow representatives concerned about timing. Uh, they are concerned, I'm l- referring to li- line 70. They were concerned because some of the convictions are reported to the clerk via mail, and the previous, uh, requirement was that they report it to GBI within seven days of the conviction.

557. 1:47:29

     We felt like that, that, they had made a very good point that that was not enough time with the mail to receive it by then, so we upped that to 30 days.

558. 1:47:40

     The clerks also had a concern about the fees that were in the previous version. We, uh, we removed the fees because I didn't actually ask for the fees to be in there to begin with, and we just took those out.

559. 1:47:57

     Then I w- also worked with GBI. They requested language similar to that pertaining to the sex offenders, uh, sex offender registry that would help them with implementation, just the mechanics of...

560. 1:48:12

     And, uh, that is referred to on line 61 through 66, and it's al- it's also throughout line 71 through 87. That was the language that they requested so that they, um, would be able to get the information when they needed it from the court.

561. 1:48:33

     And then finally,

562. 1:48:38

     been talking to PAC r- regarding what charges should be included. And if you will look at page two, item three, we define domestic violence offense. Aggravated assault was left off of that list unintentionally, and if it pleases the committee, I would love for us to see that added. But PAC also, uh, agreed that false imprisonment would be appropriate to add there.

563. 1:49:14

     In the definition. Mm-hmm. Which is l- uh, line 32 through 35. That's where the definition is. Mm-hmm.

564. 1:49:24

     Aggravated assault and false imprisonment.

565. 1:49:39

     And those are the changes that we made since last week.

566. 1:49:49

     Okay. Any questions from members of the committee?

567. 1:49:55

     I don't think the idea was to add aggravated assault and then also add false imprisonment to, uh, the definition of domestic violence offense. That would cause confusion.

568. 1:50:04

     But it's not in this-

569. 1:50:06

     That's right

570. 1:50:06

     ... okay.

571. 1:50:07

     I didn't see it then, but-

572. 1:50:09

     It's not. That, those are, that's the, the one thing that we would r- request that the committee consider adding to, to this sub.

573. 1:50:20

     Representative Roberts.

574. 1:50:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, the one, uh, question I have is requiring the date of birth, um, on the registry and whether or not that could result in, um, identity theft, especially if you're showing a picture of them. Could we put year of birth or something that's not quite so-

575. 1:50:42

     Well, I, I, I mean, I think the reason why that's there is we wanna give someone who's using the registry an idea of how old this person would be. So-

576. 1:50:53

     I think in another bill, I can't remember what committee, we changed it to the year of birth. That might be less risk. I don't know. I just always try to protect PII.

577. 1:51:00

     I would be up for that change. I think, I think that keeps the intent intact.

578. 1:51:04

     Okay. Thank you.

579. 1:51:04

     I'd be up for that change.

580. 1:51:13

     Chairman Crowe.

581. 1:51:18

     Light went out. There we go. Um, so on the part line 77, subparagraph F, where you started talking about removal from that, uh, the GBI shall remove it, um, there's no request made by the person on there. That would just be, that would be incumbent upon the GBI to do that, and that's... Is that something... I know Sarah's hiding back here somewhere.

582. 1:51:42

     Mm-hmm.

583. 1:51:42

     Is that something they're capable of, uh, is that something that they're capable of doing without too much-

584. 1:51:49

     Well-

585. 1:51:49

     ... trouble?

586. 1:51:50

     That, it would require a certified copy of the convicting court order. So within 30 days of the receipt that, that those charges had been dismissed or vacated, then- they would be required to take it down. But they would, they would rely on the information that's sent to them from the, the court.

587. 1:52:09

     Right. But then the five years and 10 years, that, is that just something that y'all can trigger? This may be a better question for, for them. I just didn't know if you had had that discussion with them, if since it's not gonna take a, a, an affirmative request from the person on there and it's gonna be on them-

588. 1:52:23

     They might be better to discuss that if they want to. Like I said, this is, this is language they requested that that would help them to manage that registry in the way that would, would be best for them to do that in their experience with the sex offender registry.

589. 1:52:40

     Thank you, and I think Sarah has ... If she can answer that, would be great. Thank you.

590. 1:52:45

     Yes. Good afternoon. Sarah Lou with GBI. We are prepared with the language that was added after consultation with Representative Hagan. We do have ... There, there would be a fiscal impact. I do wanna make that clear. There is gonna be a fiscal impact. We still have vendors that have quotes that are coming back to us. Uh, we have an estimate, but we don't have solid numbers at this point.

591. 1:53:08

     Follow-up, Mr. Chairman?

592. 1:53:09

     Yes, sir.

593. 1:53:11

     Can you give us a ballpark on some of the estimates?

594. 1:53:15

     Um, our ballpark estimate is approximately $4.6 million right now. And the reason that is-

595. 1:53:21

     Total to get this implemented?

596. 1:53:23

     Correct. The reason-

597. 1:53:23

     What about ongoing cost?

598. 1:53:25

     Ongoing costs I have not identified yet. It depends on those quotes from vendors. We've talked to other states that have the domestic violence registry, uh, Texas and Tennessee, and we have to create the database similar to, not exactly alike, but similar to our other databases, the sex offender registry. So again, that's a ballpark estimate. I'm hesitant to give that, but I feel like I, the expectation is we do need to know what the fiscal impact will be.

599. 1:53:52

     And from a, from a, um, just a workload standpoint-

600. 1:53:56

     Mm-hmm

601. 1:53:57

     ... the coming off the registry, is this system, is that something that once the date's put in, it can automatically remove them from the registry without y'all having to go back and, and do that? Is that something that technology can take care of without, uh, creating too much hassle for y'all?

602. 1:54:12

     That's a mechanism that we're examining right now. It would include, our estimate does include additional staffing-

603. 1:54:17

     Okay

604. 1:54:17

     ... but that's a mechanism that we're looking at right now for automation.

605. 1:54:20

     Thank you.

606. 1:54:21

     You're welcome. Thank you.

607. 1:54:28

     Is that Chairman Leverett?

608. 1:54:29

     Yes.

609. 1:54:31

     Mr. Chairman, I just, um, to, to Representative Roberts' proposed amendment or her, the, in the discussion when she mentioned the amendment about doing year of birth and not date of birth, I just wondered if the GBI or someone could comment as to whether that's still, in their view, sufficient to identify the person, or do you have to have a date of birth? Um, I mean, and I'd be curious what they do with their other databases as well.

610. 1:54:58

     I would also be curious about that.

611. 1:55:02

     I sh- I just want ... I, I mean, I, that sounds like a reasonable amendment. I just wanna make sure we don't sort of i- impede or interfere with the utility of the-

612. 1:55:10

     Correct

613. 1:55:11

     ... registry.

614. 1:55:14

     I see no other questions. Thank you.

615. 1:55:16

     Thank you.

616. 1:55:25

     Okay.

617. 1:55:30

     Mr. uh, Reyes-Garcia, come on down.

618. 1:55:40

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Um, I do have a testimony today, but please bear with me. I am very, very nervous. Um, my name is Zoraida Reyes-Garcia, and I am currently interning with Representative Beckles here at, um, House of Representatives for Georgia. Today, though, I do not stand in front of you as an intern, but I stand here as a woman who survived dating violence. At the age of 15, I met someone who was about three years older than me, but I'll flash fo- forward this to when I was 17.

619. 1:56:15

     One Thursday night, we had gotten into an argument because I was late for a small date we had planned. I didn't know that night would be the first time he would put his hands on me, and it most definitely wouldn't be the last. He sl- he slapped me and pushed me into the car so hard that I had a bruise on my lower back for over a week. The abuse continued for the next four years, and it continued to get worse. Every time I confronted him about cheating, the violence and control escalated. Along with the, along came with the constant emotional abuse, I was belittled for my body, for my skin tone, and for not being good enough.

620. 1:56:51

     I was called ugly and useless, sometimes because dinner was too salty, sometimes because I had gained weight over the years. I never felt pretty or good enough throughout this relationship. And in the last few months of our four-year relationship, the abuse became so severe I was pushed down a fl- flight of stairs and dragged through a parking lot. When I finally decided to leave and walk out of our apartment with just my clothes and basic necessities, thinking that leaving would protect me, that was not the case.

621. 1:57:22

     Unfortunately, he had found out that I had made plans with a few friends right after work, and he waited for me. And as I walked back to my car, he attacked me and called me names no woman should ever be called. He recorded a video making intimate cla- claims about me and posted it online, tagging my workplace, my school, and close people to me. I went home so in shock, I honestly don't remember who took me home that day. The next morning, a protective order was placed, causing me to have to change my job, stop going to my favorite coffee shop, rearrange my class schedule, and even after that order was placed, he still parked outside places he knew I would be and wait there for hours.

622. 1:58:03

     To this day, I live in a panic about that violence. When I see a car that looks like him, my heart begins to race. I don't feel safe being alone, and I struggle with self-esteem and trusting my own sense of peace. These are not things that disappear once the abuse stop. They stay with you long after. And this is why this bill matters to me. This registry can save women. It could give women information they didn't have, information I wish I had. Too many women speak up only when it's already too late, and studies show that 11% of women who seek protective orders are killed within two days of filing.

623. 1:58:41

     I'm grateful every single day that I stand here, and I am not part of that number, but the truth is another woman can be. One out of three girls in the US are victims of physical, em- emotional, and verbal abuse from a dating partner by the age of 20. This is not rare, and this is not isolated. It's happening in our schools, in our neighborhoods, in our communities. I'm here because I want to protect the next woman, the woman who believes that that man will change, the one who hasn't been warned yet, and the one who would think that it would never happen to her.

624. 1:59:16

     As I say, I truly wish someone would have warned me. This bill could be that warning, and it could give a woman a chance to walk away become, before it becomes worse. Thank you so much to listening for me, and I respectfully ask you for your heartful consideration in House Bill 1142. Thank you.

625. 1:59:46

     Time's up. Time's up. Uh, want to thank you for the courage you've had to get up there and tell that.

626. 1:59:53

     That's all I'll be saying.

627. 1:59:54

     Um, I, I think I can speak on several, behalf of several members and probably the whole committee, so thank you for sharing with the committee today. Okay. Anybody else signed up on this that I have not already called on?

628. 2:00:16

     April Ross.

629. 2:00:17

     Yes, come on down.

630. 2:00:23

     Representative. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, Chair- Chairman and members of the committee. Oh, that's fun. All right, sorry about that.

631. 2:00:47

     How do you feel about coffee?

632. 2:00:56

     Okay. Am I, am I on the board still? Evening.

633. 2:00:58

     No, no, you're fine.

634. 2:00:59

     Okay, thanks.

635. 2:01:00

     We'll, we'll do it that way.

636. 2:01:01

     Okay. Um, good evening, Chairman and, uh, members of the committee. My name is April Ross. I'm the, the executive director of the Georgia Commission on Family Violence. I'm also a former assistant district attorney and a survivor of domestic violence. Um, but I come to you today to bring a few issues we, or concerns we have with the language in the bill that we believe are functional concerns that would prevent the, uh, the bill and the registry from, from functioning as it's intended. And, um, I'll start by saying our priority is always, you know, safety for victims and appropriate accountability for those who are committing these offenses.

637. 2:01:36

     Um, but I want to start by saying Georgia recognizes family violence today. That is the only thing that we actually convict on, charge on, uh, and, and, and recognize in our, in our, uh, criminal system, in our criminal code. We do not, we are not able to track what we do not recognize statutorily. So I don't think today, by creating the definition or the term domestic violence offender in this code section, we resolve the issue because you would need to open the criminal code.

638. 2:02:11

     Uh, Georgia is one of the only southern states that does not actually prosecute d- d- dating violence as an offense today, and you would need to be able to do that in order to recognize it as a crime. And to do that, you have to classify this in the, in the criminal code. Um,

639. 2:02:32

     today, if you are dating partners and you're arrested, your crime looks the same as this, the crime that's charged between strangers who are arrested. Uh, so a simple battery between two strangers and a simple battery between dating partners is indistinguishable in Georgia's law. Also, without a criminal class- um, without that criminal classification, you cannot build a registry that's going to capture dating partners. Uh, other states like Tennessee can do this because they track it.

640. 2:03:03

     They have already codified dating violence into their criminal code. Georgia has not done that. We have family violence. Family violence is our term, and we have the relationships that it recognizes. This, uh, bill creates a new section or a new, I guess, terminology, da- domestic violence offense, and I'll point out the term domestic violence doesn't appear anywhere in any of Georgia's code, whether it's civil or criminal. So the civil dating violence statute that we created in 2021, 1913A, gives the definition of dating violence for the purposes of the protective order.

641. 2:03:41

     It does not impute that to the criminal code section. The criminal code section would need to recognize and integrate dating violence into its, um, into the, into the statutes or the crimes that you want it to apply to, like, like family violence does. Um, and the other thing is, if you do not create the additional enhancements, then we're not also addressing the things that we can work with offenders on to bl- begin to rehabilitate. For instance, family violence intervention programs apply to people who are charged and convicted of family violence.

642. 2:04:17

     Because the system believes that it's a value system and a belief system that believe, leads you to believe you can exert power and control over your intimate partner. And so we require you, when you g- when you have that conviction, to go through family violence intervention programs. We add other sentencing enhancements, and these are the things that we believe make people aware, um, or create the, I guess, the, the remedies that we beli- we want h- to have happen when someone's charged with dating violence.

643. 2:04:48

     Um, so I believe that if we want to create a registry, the first thing you have to do is address the definition that we recognize in our criminal law, and right now we do not recognize domestic violence offenses or dating violence offenses as a terminology. I'm happy to entertain any questions, and I will just point out today that the commission, uh, is not taking a position on this at the moment, uh, but we just wanted to raise those as concerns we believe are technical issues that will keep this from functioning as it's intended.

644. 2:05:20

     Chairman Leverett.

645. 2:05:23

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you again. Thank you for your testimony today. A- as I read the bill, the court, um, would have to enter an order that somebody be registered under the chapter if there's one of the convictions of the artic- uh, of the offenses that are included with the statutory definition in this act of domestic violence offense.

646. 2:05:44

     That's correct, but the court can only do that if there is a conviction for that offense, and they can only be convicted of that offense if it is an element of the crimes that exist today.

647. 2:05:55

     I don't, I don't-

648. 2:05:55

     And dating violence is not an element of the crime.

649. 2:05:58

     Correct, but I don't believe that, th- th- that's what the court would have to do, at least as I read the bill. If they're convicted of simple assault, simple battery, battery, aggravated battery, et cetera, with someone within one of the required relationships, then the court would order the registry. I, I don't think you've got to define a new crime.

650. 2:06:18

     It's not a new crime. It's a classification, and that's how it will be recognized within the systems that we use today. That's why when you're charged today and you're in a relationship, you see the term family violence in front of the offense. That's how we can categorize and pull out from the DVI which offenses are family violence. There is nothing today that will recognize domestic violence as an offense, and just putting it in this code section would not resolve that.

651. 2:06:43

     H- why wouldn't it?

652. 2:06:45

     Because-

653. 2:06:45

     Because we're creating a new registry, right?

654. 2:06:47

     You're creating a registry, but you're not creating the criminal classification.

655. 2:06:50

     Y- well, but you're not creating a criminal classification, but we're not ... I mean, we're, we're defining the crimes that would trigger the requirement to be registered under this registry.

656. 2:07:02

     You ... Yes, but when you have a prosecutor who appears in trial for that crime, the defendant has to be able to respond to, uh, I guess the, the, what they're being charged with. And when you're responding to a charge of, say, for instance, aggravated assault, um, the dating, the whole whether you go on this registry hinges on if there is a specific relationship. If you don't prove that relationship at trial, then you don't get to the conviction for that-

657. 2:07:35

     Uh-

658. 2:07:35

     ... so that you get the classification that would put you into the registry. A judge can't make that determination post-conviction, uh, at sentencing without there being an, the established burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the relationship that exists.

659. 2:07:51

     Uh, well, I, I, I'll accept that, that assertion. Um, but it, m- my assumption would be th- th- that there would be some, th- th- th- the DAs and the judges would be educated on the statute, and they would then make sure that got addressed in the, in the proceeding. And if the judge, uh, if there wasn't a finding as to that or the judge didn't feel like that was established, then he would decline to order registration under this registry.

660. 2:08:18

     I, I, I, I, respectfully, I, I believe you still would need to have the element that the, the r- the, the relationship exists. Uh, and, and if you look at the way we've defined dating relationships in 1913A, it's a factor test, and, uh, it's not like family violence, where it's, have you lived together? Are you married or were you married? Yes, these are yes or no questions. Do you have a child in common? Uh, were you regarded among your social companions as being in a relationship?

661. 2:08:51

     Have you been intimately involved? You know, these are factors that you're weighing, and a jury would have to, to, to decide, to say, is this a dating relationship? Then you can go to, you know, the remaining ... I mean, I, I think you, I don't think you get away from that having to be an element that you discuss at trial. I've raised this with, uh, the Council of Criminal, um, Council of Superior Court Judges, uh, and a number of current DAs who are, uh, prosecuting domestic vio- domestic violence charges, uh, several of the judges on the Commission on Family Violence, uh, and a number of our other colleagues who, some of whom are here today.

662. 2:09:30

     Uh, and I have so far not had anyone disagree that, that you would still need to be able to prove those in the criminal code if you want to get the classification, and I think the classification would need to be in the term. Because if you look at Tennessee and every other state in the South that already criminalizes dating violence, they, I mean, well, they call it domestic violence, that already criminalizes domestic violence, you see in the term domestic violence battery, domestic violence assault. In Men- in Georgia, we have family violence battery, family violence assault.

663. 2:10:03

     And so whenever there's a relationship that exists in the scope of what has happened in that, in the, in the charges, the d- the prosecutor has to establish that relationship in the trial or in the plea.

664. 2:10:15

     Well, because that's an underlying, that, that itself is a defined crime. I, I guess, it, it, I don't, admittedly don't do a lot of criminal defense work, so it probably would be better for someone on the, on the committee who has a little more expertise than I do on this. But it would, it would just seem to me that if we're not establishing a new crime, it would not be essential at trial to prove all those elements, and the court could take notice as long as there was some evidence at trial introduced to show that the, um, the, the registration was required because the statutory definition was satisfied.

665. 2:10:49

     I guess the question would be how, how would the prosecutor be on notice that they need to present some evidence at trial on the re-

666. 2:10:55

     Well, because they're aware of the statute

667. 2:10:56

     ... of the registry, but it's not in the criminal code. The s- the prosecutor's respond to what's in Title 16 and 17 when it comes to what are the elements of a crime.

668. 2:11:05

     I, I, I have a feeling that we'll get the word to them a- about this registry.

669. 2:11:12

     Yes. Thank you. Thank... Uh, if, if there are any other questions, I'm happy to answer.

670. 2:11:19

     You gonna wave off?

671. 2:11:21

     Yeah. Oh, that's, that's fine. If you, if that's what you want.

672. 2:11:24

     Okay. I think we are entertaining this notion that's been brought up, so with the indulgence of my good friend from Bannon Lawns. Um, I got that right, correct?

673. 2:11:37

     Yeah.

674. 2:11:37

     Okay. Good deal. Uh, what we're gonna do is we're going to work on this and put it back on for the calendar Monday. So, um-

675. 2:11:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

676. 2:11:48

     And I will-

677. 2:11:49

     But I think there was a question.

678. 2:11:51

     Uh, we're... I'd ask the members to hold their question. I, I was gonna ask. We're gonna change this- I'm not sure, but I think it's ... we're gonna change this up. We're gonna change it up, and then I'll entertain that again.

679. 2:12:04

     Chris-

680. 2:12:06

     Since we're gonna be working on modifying this draft again, there may have been somebody else signed up,

681. 2:12:17

     but I guess you'll wave. All right. Thank you.

682. 2:12:21

     It's okay.

683. 2:12:22

     All right. I have got to give the ladies a little bit of a bathroom break, so we're gonna take 10 minutes and come back. We should leave.

684. 2:19:52

     Right. That means the audience, too.

685. 2:20:01

     You know.

686. 2:20:13

     All right.

687. 2:20:18

     I'm gonna come back to House Bill 1226.

688. 2:20:28

     Representative Clark, you back with us? All right. I'll open up a discussion for the committee, and this is on Representative David Clark's legislation, House Bill 1226.

689. 2:21:02

     All right. House Bill 1226. Any discussion from members of the committee? I'll entertain a motion.

690. 2:21:15

     Uh, Representative Byrd.

691. 2:21:16

     Yes. I'd like to move that we vote on 1226, please.

692. 2:21:21

     Is that a move to pass?

693. 2:21:23

     To pass, sorry.

694. 2:21:24

     Okay. I got a move to pass. Do I hear a second?

695. 2:21:33

     I'll second. Yeah, just give me a second. All right, I got a move and a second. Due pass on House Bill 1226. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, no? No. All right, show of hands. Those against? One, two, three- Sorry folks ... four, five. All right, five against. Okay. Those in favor, raise your hand.

696. 2:22:18

     Okay. Put your hands back down. All those opposed, raise your hand.

697. 2:22:28

     All right, all those in favor.

698. 2:22:40

     Okay, it passes. All right. Next, we will, uh, pull back up House Bill 1154. Any discussion from members of the committee? There we go. Vice Chairman Hong.

699. 2:22:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, based on my own research, and obviously testimony as well, I, I do believe that this, um, the language is unconstitutional. So based on that, um, I, I do appreciate Representative Clark's, um, intent, and I've worked on a lot of sex, sex trafficking, human trafficking, um, bills since I've been in the House, so I appreciate your effort in this. But because of the, um, unconstitutionality of it, I will be voting w- no.

700. 2:23:28

     Thank you.

701. 2:23:31

     Uh, Representative Fincher.

702. 2:23:34

     Um, I was, uh, going to ask someone from the s- pr- prosecuting attorney's council if they would, could, uh, offer some testimony, um, Mr. Chairman. Or-

703. 2:23:46

     We have Jason Smith to testify for you

704. 2:23:49

     ... or R- Robert. W- what, what... Yeah, Robert's, uh, likely familiar with it.

705. 2:23:57

     Good

706. 2:24:05

     evening.

707. 2:24:05

     Okay.

708. 2:24:05

     Good evening. Earl Newton, district attorney, Cherokee Judicial Circuit, Bartow and Gordon Counties. Thank you to the committee.

709. 2:24:15

     And the question I ask is, is based on what, uh, we've, has been revealed to us, that this is considered to be unconstitutional, do you have an opinion as to-

710. 2:24:24

     I concur with that opinion. And a district attorney, by the way, is supposed to support and defend the Constitution. I will not ask for something that's unconstitutional. I can't do it.

711. 2:24:34

     Thank you.

712. 2:24:37

     Any other questions? Thank you, sir.

713. 2:24:42

     Absolutely. Thank y'all.

714. 2:24:44

     Any other discussion from members of the committee? All right. Do I have a motion?

715. 2:24:59

     Measure fails for lack of a motion. Okay. We'll move on. I'll call back up House Bill 821 from Representative Gambill. I know he's not here.

716. 2:25:11

     Any discussion from members of the committee?

717. 2:25:19

     I'll give you a minute to pull that one back up.

718. 2:25:30

     All right. No discussion. Or Chairman Crowe.

719. 2:25:34

     Well, ac- actually, this is probably not the proper time. I was gonna see about an amendment, but I'd need to wait till after there's a motion to pass. So I'll make the motion do pass.

720. 2:25:45

     All right, got a move do pass. Yes?

721. 2:25:47

     What bill, which one are you calling on?

722. 2:25:49

     This is 821.

723. 2:25:52

     Okay.

724. 2:25:52

     All right, got a move do pass, second. Any amendments?

725. 2:25:59

     Chairman Crowe.

726. 2:26:01

     Yes, sir. On line 14, I would like to amend it by removing the words, "By discharge of a firearm," and leaving the remainder. And that would be my, my motion to amend.

727. 2:26:17

     Any discussion on amendment?

728. 2:26:25

     Second.

729. 2:26:32

     All right, I got a motion and second on the Crowe amendment. Uh, discussion, Vice Chairman Hong.

730. 2:26:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we've heard from Floor Leader Gambill about this, and, um, he was very clear on his intent when we h- we, we were talking about whether or not his intent was, uh, discharge versus possession. And that's why we worked that language around, um, to make sure that it inclu- it stated discharge of a firearm. Um, again, I'm, I know he's not here, but we want to make sure that the intent of the sponsor is, um, reflected on the bill that we pass.

731. 2:27:18

     In addition, um, as I, I believe GACDL had testified, the actual l- language in the code 16-5-21C also includes the w- the language discharge of a firearm when we're talking about the offensive ag assault upon a public safety o- officer. So it does, um, it, it mirrors the actual code section when it talks about ag assault on a police officer. So I believe that this language that we have in this bill is correct and, um, should be kept.

732. 2:27:57

     Thank you. Representative Fincher. Mr. Chairman, uh, respectful, being respectful for, to, um,

733. 2:28:06

     to madam, I just feel like, uh, aggravated assault upon a police, a public officer, uh, is if you're going to force it to be heard before a superior court judge, I don't see any reason why aggra- assault ... It was mentioned that, that someone could assault you with a knife, and, uh, that would certainly be something you'd want a, a superior court judge to review, um, about whether to re- release that person on a bond. So I, I r- I think we ought to take the amendment and, uh, bring it down to just aggravated assault.

734. 2:28:42

     Chairman Crowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and to that point, I did ask, uh, Floor Leader Gambill before he had stepped out. We admittedly did not get to have a long conversation. Uh, I told him what I was considering, and he, he did not seem to object. He just had concern about its ability to maybe make it through here, and I certainly wouldn't want to, to damage the bill moving forward. But if there was an ability to get the votes, I think that, um, as Representative Fincher said, that the discharge of a firearm portion, I, I don't think that an ag- assault simply by discharging a firearm at an officer should be something that would constitute a superior court only bond.

735. 2:29:23

     I think ag- assault in general against a public safety officer, uh, would be sufficient to at least warrant a review for bond by a superior court judge.

736. 2:29:36

     Okay. Any other discussion from members of the committee on the Crowe Amendment, which would strike the words in line 14, by discharge of a firearm?

737. 2:29:53

     Okay, we got a move and a second. No further discussion. We'll vote the amendment now. All those in favor of the Crowe Amendment, say I. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. No. All right. And it passes. Okay. All right. Staggered voting. Barring no further amendments.

738. 2:30:14

     Barring no further amendments, uh, all those in favor of the pass, pass Bill 821 LC481740S, as amended with the Crowe Amendment, say I. I. All those opposed, same sign. All right, it's on to rules. Okay, next I'm going to go to House Bill 1348, uh, Chairman Cooper's bill. Any discussion from members of the committee? This is House Bill 1398.

739. 2:30:59

     I'm trying to think everybody's had a time to turn their, uh, discussion. At the appropriate time. Okay, I'll say it's appropriate time. Motion to pass. I got a move to pass. Do I hear a second? Second. All right, got a move to pass, second. Any amendments here? None. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1398 LC60323S, say I. I. All those opposed, same sign. All right, it's on to rules.

740. 2:31:29

     Thank you so much. But thank you for your amendment. Okay. All right. Next up, we will hear House Bill

741. 2:31:42

     894. Is Representative Holcomb here? Yep, I see him. Come on down.

742. 2:35:47

     Thank you. You're welcome. Was that off the whole time? Yeah. Yeah. But I heard you wonderfully. Come on. Okay. We heard you great. All right. Thank you. I'm sorry. Uh, there are certain crimes that are excluded, um, and those are in Section 3. So murder, rape, crimes involving sexual offenses against children, and also aggravated sodomy. The reason why aggravated sodomy is included is because in, in Georgia, rape is gender-based.

743. 2:36:17

     It's man against woman, and aggravated sodomy would capture those instances where it's male-on-male, um, rape. And so not everybody would be eligible for this, and then, uh, they would have to file a petition, and then the petition would go to the court, and it would just give an opportunity for the court to review it with a potential for reduction. My sense is how this would work is if there was opposition from the prosecutor and from the family and from others, the probability of any of these being granted is likely quite low.

744. 2:36:55

     But people change over time, public sentiment and views change over time, and so this gives, after 20 years, a possibility for exactly what it says, a second look. It doesn't mean that you're going to get a reduction in sentence. It just means that you have a possibility of a reduction of sentence and a change. And so the factors, um, are all listed with- within the bill, and it has among or, among other things, the age of the defendant at the time of the offense and relevant research regarding development of the brain.

745. 2:37:27

     That was specifically put in there because we know now that the prefrontal cortex is not fully formed in males until 25, and, and does that excuse criminal behavior? No. But is it a factor that we should take into account the age of when they committed, um, crimes? Absolutely. Um, in addition, uh-

746. 2:37:48

     to, to that, the health of the defendant and the likely impact of this factor to mitigate a potential risk to public safety, the nature of the offense, including any change in societal attitudes regarding the propriety of criminalizing the offense. Uh, for example, drug views have certainly changed over the last, uh, 20 years or so. The history and characteristics of the defendant at the time of the petition, um, with respect to their defendant's disciplinary record while incarcerated and the defendant's efforts to participate in educational, therapeutic, and vocational opportunities while imprisoned.

747. 2:38:22

     Um, the circumstance of the, the offense, again, with the defendant's role in the commission. Reports of physical, mental, or psychiatric examination, et cetera. I won't go through, um, all of them un- unless you want me to, but it's, it's a pretty thorough list in terms of the factors that the judge would take into account. And then if so, the judge could potentially calculate a new term based on, um, this information. There is, I will highlight, I, I've had some conversation about this, and this is on line 121.

748. 2:38:57

     In the case of a defendant who is 55 years of age or older on the date on which the defendant files a petition, there would be a rebuttable presumption that the defendant should be released. Again, these are folks that would have spent 20 years in prison by the time that they can even make a petition, and I would submit that people are very, very different at age 35 than they are, um, at 55. And one could even have spent 30 years. It, it's not necessarily right at 20 that you could have a petition and then potentially, uh, have a change in, in, um, in sentencing.

749. 2:39:33

     And the, the last thing that I'll say sort of high level on this is, is within the whole system that we have for criminal justice, we spend a lot of money on locking people up. And for Mr. Askew, if we keep him in prison until he dies, that's millions of dollars likely aggregated over time. And we don't live in a world of unlimited resources. I would much rather have more police officers, more money towards testing evidence quickly, more on the front end to address and get justice for individuals quicker as opposed to individuals like, like Jesse that are really, really trapped.

750. 2:40:15

     And, and I think too, the final thing that I would say, just objectively, his sentence is unjust, and we have an obligation to push back when there are sentences that are unjust. The parole board cannot do anything about it because it's life without parole. They can't do anything. This is the only path to potentially get him freedom. Thank you.

751. 2:40:38

     All right. Questions from members of the committee. I saw Chairman Leverett first. Or excuse me, uh, Representative Panitch.

752. 2:40:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Rep Holcomb, for bringing this bill. I know juveniles, uh, who were sentenced to life without parole also, the Supreme Court allowed them to have some re-sentencing. Um, so my question is, since they were not subject to any type of probationary period after the expiration of their sentence because it was life without parole, does your bill allow a judge to impose a probationary period, uh, once...

753. 2:41:16

     Or is it just release or stay in?

754. 2:41:20

     I believe... I don't have it memorized, and I apologize for that. Um, there is a, a fair amount of flexibility, but the, the, the g- the general idea is more towards a reduction that can lead to release, with the idea that these would be people that would evidence good behavior in prison and that there wouldn't be much objection to, um, from either the law enforcement individuals that were involved or from the families.

755. 2:41:49

     Is that something you'd be open to, to allow a, the court to impose a probationary period if, if they feel, if the court feels it's necessary?

756. 2:41:56

     Yes. And it may, may be in here, and I don't know if, um, legislative counsel can help me with that quickly.

757. 2:42:07

     While they're looking, we'll go to another question. Let's see. Number 11. Is that you, Chairman Gullett?

758. 2:42:11

     It is. Hey, thank you, uh, Representative. S- two questions. One, who's the, who's the court of standing to hear this? Is it the court that they were prosecuted in?

759. 2:42:21

     Yes.

760. 2:42:22

     Okay. And, um, how hard are you on the 55 that you talked about, line 121, 55 years?

761. 2:42:34

     I'm, I'm open to the wisdom of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

762. 2:42:39

     Well, I wanna be fair. I, I, I agree. I think you're different. I'm not 55 yet, but I think I'm different at 45 than I was at 35. Somehow 55 still seems like you're, you're... You know, 60 seems more, but I also am not trying to get r- you know, I'm not trying to get your bill. I'm not trying to change it materially. I just don't know if I feel like 55 is the right number, but we- we'll talk through that as we go.

763. 2:43:04

     It's on line 121.

764. 2:43:06

     Yeah. But thank you. I, I, I appreciate you, you always advocating for, uh, people, um, who, who are, are most of the time voiceless, you know, in, in these situations.

765. 2:43:16

     Yeah. Thank you.

766. 2:43:19

     Now, Chairman Leverett.

767. 2:43:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

768. 2:43:25

     So I, I, I like, uh, what I think you're doing here. I think this is a good, a good sort of pr- process to put in place. But I, I do have some, some concerns about creating a rebuttable presumption of anything in these kinds of cases. Um, I, I, I guess, Bob, I'm sort of leaning toward assuming the bill gets a motion to pass, which I, I would be willing to make, of striking Paragraph H. And I just would like you to comment on why you think that, if you think that's a horribly bad idea.

769. 2:43:58

     Um, Mr. Chair, I always appreciate your, your views as well. Um,

770. 2:44:07

     it, it is, it is a policy choice, but, uh, I, I would... Between the, the two possibilities of maybe raising it to 60 or, or even 65 versus striking it, I'd rather a raising of the age than, than a striking completely, because while we can't reduce to zero the potential public safety risk, you can't re- reduce any risk to zero, it really does decline as individuals get older, especially somebody that's spent a full 20 years.

771. 2:44:40

     They know what the consequences are if, if they mess up. They're going right back. A- a- and, and, um, I am not quite 55 yet, but I'm not far, and I don't say this lightly. Like, physically, I'm broken. Like, just broken. So, uh, like, it's old in my opinion. Others may disagree, but I mean, look at me. I mean- I'm, I'm, I'm a lot older- Yeah ...

772. 2:45:11

     and it, it doesn't get no better, I got to warn you. Um, and, and I, I, I appreciate and I respect very much your opinion as well. Thank you. Um, I, I guess my concern is the, the rebuttable presumption seems to say generally folks ought to get released at some age- Correct ... no matter what they did and no matter how they're acting now. And, um, that, I just, I'm concerned that we may, uh, that, that that provision could lead to some abuse, um, of the, of the, what I think is a great idea of this procedure.

773. 2:45:51

     Um, and I'm also reminded of the expression Judge Robert M. Heard used to say is, "You keep the shortest chain on the oldest wolf." So, um, I, I just am a little concerned about, about that, so I just wanted to share that, that concern with you. Yeah. And all things being equal, if it's, if it's take that out and pass it or, you know, keep it in and not, deal. Okay. Okay. All right, thank you. You're welcome.

774. 2:46:22

     Number 17, Representative Fincher. I just want to join with, uh, Representative Leverett in saying that I think that's a killer for me. If you, if you're gonna put it this rebuttable presumption, that's saying the judge ca- can't make a good decision. Let's let the judge make that decision if you're gonna bring it back before a judge.

775. 2:46:45

     I hear you. Thank you.

776. 2:46:52

     Okay. Thank you, Representative Holcomb. I'm gonna move on to see if there's testimony from the audience.

777. 2:47:02

     Uh, Chairman Child, did you have anything you wanted to add? I'm not sure what's been covered other than, uh, I just wanted to thank Representative Holcomb. This is a constituent of mine that had a very personal issue. You want to come up? Yes, sir. I was gonna keep it real brief. I know it's late, but I just had a real personal situation as a former DA, and he asked us to consider bringing this legislation forward, and, you know, uh, Representative Holcomb being, uh, sort of a subject matter expert in this space agreed to work with me on that.

778. 2:47:35

     So I thank you, and I thank you for the hearing today, and I know my constituent thanks you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. Well, thank you. Members of the committee. And, uh, thank you for your hard work today on getting some much needed relief headed towards Georgians. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Let's see. Uh, Southern Center on 894. Come on down. Good to see you again, Mike. Thank you.

779. 2:48:02

     It's been about an hour and a half. I have an hour and a half to talk to you about this? No.

780. 2:48:10

     Buckle up. Uh- You want to kill the bill, don't you? Uh, Mike Limon, I'm at the Southern Center for Human Rights. Um, in the last decade, we've worked with district attorneys across the state to revisit and correct extreme sentences that were imposed decades ago that everyone now agrees were unfair. For example, uh, one man we represented in South Georgia was sentenced to life without parole in the early '90s for possessing a small amount of cocaine.

781. 2:48:41

     He served 24 years of that sentence, and he went the entire time without a single disciplinary infraction in prison. Thankfully, we worked with the district attorney to get him re-sentenced and released. He's been out for more than a decade, he's in his 70s now, and he's never had another problem with the law. And that case is typical. Someone has served a very long time in prison, they have a good record, and everyone agrees that the sentence imposed decades ago should be revisited. But unfortunately, sometimes there are questions about what the process should be, and in certain circumstance, certain circumstances, um, that question gets muddied up by what was previously filed, uh, what effect that has, and other issues along those lines.

782. 2:49:24

     The result has been we've had cases where everyone, the defense lawyer, the district attorney, even the judges agree that the sentence was too long, but they think that their hands are tied. This bill would just clarify the process for those types of claims and, and i- including the evidence that could be considered as long as someone meets certain criteria. It would allow, it would also allow the court to consider evidence that wasn't previously available, such as how sentencing ranges have changed in the, in the decades since the, uh, original sentence was imposed, and any evidence of the defendant's rehabilitation.

783. 2:50:00

     Uh, finally, if this bill were passed, Georgia would join a growing number of states, uh, to enact second chance bills such as this one. Um, and I, and I do wanna say on a personal note, um, regarding the case that has prompted this law, um, after that article appeared in The New York Times, the Georgia parole board contacted me and asked if we could take on Jesse Aske's case to look and see if there was something we could do to try to help him. I don't wanna comment on anything we've proposed at this point, but I will say it's very tough sledding given the current landscape, and a bill like this would help them because at the moment their parole board's hands are tied, uh, and courts have felt that their hands are tied as well.

784. 2:50:38

     I welcome any questions. And we support this bill. I didn't say that, if that wasn't clear.

785. 2:50:43

     I see no questions. Thank you, Mike.

786. 2:50:45

     Thank you very much.

787. 2:50:47

     All right. Next, and, uh, last but not least, Mr. Randy McGinley from the Alcovey Circuit.

788. 2:50:58

     Good evening.

789. 2:51:05

     The bottom.

790. 2:51:06

     The gray button on the base of the microphone. The gray button on the right-hand side.

791. 2:51:18

     That's a good place. All right. That's better. All right. Randy McGinley, DA in the Alcovey Circuit, which is Newton and Walton County. Um, I will just first thank Representative Holcomb. I know he and I talked for 27 minutes on Friday, um, and I know a number of changes have been made, especially involving the sex crimes, um, being excluded. That was a, a big, big concern, I think myself and other DAs. Um, some of the representatives have, have already expressed some concerns about the age of 55. I, I'm not ready to say 55 is old. I'm not there yet, but there's a lot of 55-year-olds that can do a lot of things. My, my dad is 78 and hunts with a s- climbing stand, and goes up and climbs a tree with a n- you know, by himself at 78 years old.

792. 2:51:52

     Um, and so 55 year old- year olds can still do a lot of damage. We have murder defendants in my jurisdiction that are 87 years old, 75 years old. A lot of bad things can happen. I just, I, and I think 55 is just frankly too young. Um, I think the rebuttal presumption, uh, when you mix that with... A lot of these factors include things such as any evidence the defendant is innocent. Well, first of all, if there's evidence the defendant is innocent, he shouldn't be in prison. So to me, that's a separate thing. Um, that is something that is a habeas or a short new motion of a new trial.

793. 2:52:22

     It is not this. Um, or the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. Again, that is a habeas and some other sort of situation where that should be handled because let's be honest, that probably already was addressed in those stages. And so were we re-litigating all those issues in this? And a lot of these issues are gonna be real hard for the state to, if it's a rebuttable presumption, how are we gonna rebut something that's 25, 30 years old? That i- that's just a big concern I have, is because felonies for the most part have to be kept for 25 years. Real serious stuff we keep longer.

794. 2:52:53

     It's just our own policy. I don't know if I'll be here 25 years from now, but, um, th- those are just the concerns I have. A- a- another thing is there's no difference between a negotiated plea and a tr- a sentence after trial or non-negotiated plea. A negot- negotiated plea where someone came in and said, "I'm agreeing this is the appropriate sentence for the terrible crimes I committed." Th- we should consider that. There, there's a difference between that a- a- in another situation. They have agreed to the sentence, um, because there is some level of certainty with victims where I can tell a victim, "You don't have to worry about this." And we talk about young defendants, but what about young victims, um, who were a victim of a crime, you know, when they were teenagers, and they don't wanna have to worry about coming to a hearing when they were 35 years old in the prime of their life when they were robbed at gunpoint?

795. 2:53:37

     And I know we can sit here and say, "Well, in a certain situation, no gun was actually fired," but we've already just had a discussion about whether or not you pull a gun or point a gun or pull a trigger, it's still a serious crime regardless of whether or not you pulled the trigger. Um, and I, and look, I get there's this specific situation. Um, what I'll say is I know the other, um, sponsor of the bill is from Houston County. I think he's spoken to the DA there in Houston County who can't be here today. Um, he has, uh, told me that it's okay that I share that no one's reached out to h- him specifically about this case, and he's willing to take a look at it if it's one specific situation.

796. 2:54:13

     I just generally have the feeling that if we're looking to fix one thing, w- going to an extreme of legislating something seems a bit much i, i- in my personal view of that. Um, and so again, those are my concerns. Again, I, I do wanna thank, um, Representative Holcomb. He did change a n- a number of things in this bill, um, that were big, big concerns of mine, um, involving the sex crimes and the aggravated sodomy, so I very much appreciate that. Um, and, and one thing I do wanna point out is this individual, at least my view of the law, is it, it may seem like a difference without a real difference.

797. 2:54:46

     Uh, he was sentenced to not life without p- parole, but life as a recidivist. Because our legislator has said if you commit three prior felonies, the fourth one you are sentenced as a recidivist. That is what this body has said, and that is what the law in Georgia is. And so there's a difference there. I know there may not seem like one for the person serving it, but that is, there is a difference in the law. He did not commit one felony and get a life without parole sentence. He was sentenced to life as a recidivist, which is a life without parole sentence, but there's a difference. It's because of the history that the person had. So I'll be happy to answer any questions if there are any.

798. 2:55:20

     Number eight. Is that Representative Kendrick?

799. 2:55:23

     We're number eight.

800. 2:55:24

     Go ahead.

801. 2:55:26

     Thank you, and thank you to, um, Speaker. Two things. Um, it's my understanding you mentioned about evidence of in- innocence and ineffective, uh, counsel, but on line 89 and, uh, and 90, I'm understanding that this is considered in totality as one of the factors. Um, so it's not a freestanding consideration. It's just one of many factors that can be considered. So if there is a habeas that which is, or, or there was a resolution, um, that would just be considered just like any other, um, decision that was made.

802. 2:56:03

     So- I, I, I don't understand the, the issue with it being part of the factors

803. 2:56:11

     No, the, the way this is written, they must consider all those factors that are outlined.

804. 2:56:17

     No, what I'm saying though is, is it is part of a lot of factors. It's not like a factor, it's, it's part of what? One through-

805. 2:56:28

     13

806. 2:56:28

     Yeah, through 13.

807. 2:56:29

     I'll defer to my friend from

808. 2:56:31

     Yeah, I mean, I agree it is one of the factors, but again, I, I ... To me, if a, if a judge is saying there's evidence that you didn't commit this crime, that seems like that should be dealt with in a different way than ... I mean, if he's innocent, then he's innocent of the crime, right?

809. 2:56:48

     Right, right. And I understand that he sh- it should be dealt in-

810. 2:56:51

     Right

811. 2:56:51

     ... another way, but maybe it, for whatever reason, was not. So I don't understand why we just can't-

812. 2:56:57

     I, I guess my, my concern was more of the having to then, if someone raises that as an issue, us having to rebut that 25, 30 years later is very difficult. Somebody's to come up and say, "I'm innocent. Here's why I'm innocent. I'm saying I'm innocent" we don't have witnesses that are alive, around. You, you know, think there weren't body cams and things 25, 30 years ago. And, and so that, that's my concern is just how are we going to rebut those sort of, some of these factors?

813. 2:57:24

     Right. But that, that goes back to my n- my first point, which is it's one of several factors.

814. 2:57:29

     Right. No, I, I'm not disagreeing with you.

815. 2:57:30

     So-

816. 2:57:30

     That it, it is a totality of ... I, it's saying the court has to consider those factors. I guess it also could consider other factors that are not listed. I don't think this is an exclusive list, but-

817. 2:57:38

     Right. So, okay.

818. 2:57:39

     Yeah.

819. 2:57:39

     So, uh, my next question is you mentioned something about plea deals. Now I don't practice criminal law. I know we have other people who do. Um, but it's my understanding working at least with courts in my jurisdiction and, um, and just attorney friends of mine, um, you know, plea deals are not perfect. Um, people take plea deals, uh, for any number of reasons. Um, and so to say that somebody consented to a plea deal and so they should just serve it out, I'm not quite sure I, um, agree with that argument because plea deals for a very long time, particularly in communities that look like me, have always been contentious because of any number of things, um, that people take plea deals, uh, right, you know, on the spot for any family reasons or money reasons or any number of reasons.

820. 2:58:32

     So I'm a little concerned that we, we are saying that plea deals is the end all be all, and that, you know, what- whatever somebody consented to under a plea deal, then they should just carry out that sentence.

821. 2:58:46

     Right. And, and what I'll say is I, I, I've heard the arguments before where someone's pleading guilty 'cause they're getting out of jail. That's not the situation we have here. We have someone that's pleading guilty and pleading guilty to 25, 20, 30 years in prison. Uh, to me there's a difference between ... I just, that seems less likely to be happening when it is that serious amount of time. That someone's just pleading guilty for family reasons to go to prison for 30 years? I-

822. 2:59:07

     I mean, it happens. It, it-

823. 2:59:08

     I-

824. 2:59:08

     It really does.

825. 2:59:10

     I, I guess I, I just, I, I don't, I don't share that belief with you. I, I just-

826. 2:59:13

     Okay. We, we'll go, we'll disagree with that.

827. 2:59:14

     Yeah.

828. 2:59:14

     But that's, that's my only questions.

829. 2:59:19

     Number six. Is that Chairman Leverett?

830. 2:59:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming here today and y- for your testimony. W- w- we, your concerns about some of these factors, was that more in the context of the rebuttable presumption?

831. 2:59:35

     I ... Yes. I mean, that, that makes it much ... Be- because if there's a rebu- rebuttable presumption, the factors concerning

832. 2:59:42

     Right. It throws the burden on you to rebut

833. 2:59:43

     ... because how do we rebut things that happened, I mean, it's, I'm gonna have some-

834. 2:59:47

     A long time ago

835. 2:59:48

     ... I'm gonna have some ADAs that weren't, I, I mean, I have some ADAs that were 25 years old. So I-

836. 2:59:52

     You're right.

837. 2:59:52

     I, and I understand that.

838. 2:59:53

     I understand that concern. So would the removal of the rebuttable presumption, um, allay some of those concerns?

839. 3:00:01

     It would. I, I, I mean, yes. I mean, frankly it would allay some of those concerns. I, I just, like I said, the, the certainty and being able to tell victims and things, uh, this is the sentence, that's not changing with that. But I, I, yes, I mean, that, yes. I mean, to a certain extent it does.

840. 3:00:15

     And o- one other follow-up, Mr., well not really a follow-up, just an additional question. Um, I did note that the, it's kind of hidden at the top of page six, but on line 120, one of the factors is any other information the court determines relevant to the decision. So I would assume that would allow you to make the argument with the, that, uh, that, um, uh, you know, you're making, I think in, in a sense about a plea deal, uh, if it were-

841. 3:00:40

     Right

842. 3:00:40

     ... uh, the subject of a plea agreement, and, uh, hopefully Judge Kendrick won't be deciding the case for you.

843. 3:00:46

     Yeah, correct.

844. 3:00:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

845. 3:00:52

     Thank you, Randy. Appreciate it.

846. 3:00:53

     I, if I could add one thing, I will say is I think the, as Representative Panitch brought up, that is a fair concern about somebody just getting out and having no supervision. I, I, I ... That's a fair concern. If somebody's getting out after a long period in prison and just saying, "Hey, be released with no supervision," that, that is a fair concern too. So I just wanted to add that.

847. 3:01:12

     Representative Panitch had a question.

848. 3:01:14

     Thank you. First, I'm 54, so I'm close to 55, and it's not old.

849. 3:01:20

     It's all them children getting-

850. 3:01:21

     That's right. That's right. Uh, but seriously, for the, um ... I just want to clarify because, yes, people take plea deals for all sorts of reasons, but people don't usually take a plea deal to life without parole-

851. 3:01:35

     Right

852. 3:01:35

     ... 'cause they have nothing to lose by going to trial. There's no other option. Um, and unless they're taking it to get the death penalty off the table, but none of these crimes would be eligible for early release because death penalty would be for a murder.

853. 3:01:49

     Right. I, I think the, the only life without parole, well, I guess armed, well ... I guess armed robbery is one of those. Um, but yeah, I mean, rape and murder are obviously excluded from this, but I mean, life as a recidivist would still be on the table for a lot of these crimes. Um, but life without parole for the most part would not be.

854. 3:02:06

     Okay.

855. 3:02:07

     Yeah.

856. 3:02:07

     Do you ta- typically have people taking pleas for life without parole?

857. 3:02:09

     I, I would say is I've probably on non, the situation you described, uh, someone trying to avoid the death penalty, pleading guilty to life without parole. I've probably seen it two or three times in the last 15 years, and in situations where they, somebody went to prison 15 years for child molestation, gets out, and molests three or four family members. A- and frankly, my opinion is they're doing that because they know what they're doing is so wrong and they don't want to put the kids through it again. And so I, I, I can't say I haven't seen someone plead guilty to life without parole, but I've probably seen it maybe twice in the last 15 years.

858. 3:02:40

     And it was one situation like that of a sex case, and then one where a guy murdered his grandparents and didn't want to put his family through the trial and agreed to plead to life without parole. And so I... Very, very, very, very rare.

859. 3:02:51

     And neither of those would be covered in this bill anyway because one is murder and one is-

860. 3:02:55

     I would be-

861. 3:02:56

     ... it's a sex crime

862. 3:02:56

     ... ri- yeah. If those were covered, I, yeah.

863. 3:02:58

     Right.

864. 3:02:58

     I, no.

865. 3:02:59

     Okay.

866. 3:02:59

     They would not be covered in this, in this situation whatsoever.

867. 3:03:01

     Okay. Thank you.

868. 3:03:02

     Yes.

869. 3:03:04

     Chairman Crowe.

870. 3:03:10

     Well, I'll be 53 in, uh, June.

871. 3:03:13

     Why we going around the room?

872. 3:03:14

     And I certainly-

873. 3:03:16

     I think it's a great idea.

874. 3:03:17

     And, and between the time I pushed my button and the time you recognized me, I forgot what I was gonna ask. So I'll wave.

875. 3:03:27

     Good.

876. 3:03:34

     It's because you're 53.

877. 3:03:35

     Representative Fincher, if you're gonna tell us that you were here for Hoke Smith's inauguration, then- ... noted. Re-

878. 3:03:44

     I'm going to go to, uh, line, page six, line 139, and call the attention to the witness, um, about the victim sh- shall not be excluded. Now, I come from an era where the victim's rights were very important to the sentence and to any ultimate sentence. Again, do you think this bill should be amended to, uh, say that the, um, victim should be absolutely be in- included in the, uh, this re-sentencing?

879. 3:04:17

     Right. I guess, I, I, I mean, that does...

880. 3:04:19

     Shouldn't they be included?

881. 3:04:20

     Right. I mean, as long as they are able to speak, I mean, I s- that's gonna be one situation. I mean, I've had situations where somebody is... And the, the parole board has the ability to give people compassionate release. I mean, that, that is a, that is a possibility the prison system has.

882. 3:04:33

     But ha- I mean, I-

883. 3:04:33

     I've had the prison system reach out to us-

884. 3:04:34

     ... but I'm giving the opportunity to be included in this

885. 3:04:34

     ... and one of the issues we have, we run into is-

886. 3:04:36

     This is not wrong

887. 3:04:37

     ... we have to track a victim down 25 years later is not always easy. And I agree with you. I mean, we have to 100... I- if we, if this passes and we get a petition, we have to do everything in our possible to make sure a victim has the ability to be there. And then are we going to then fly the victim if they've moved, fly them in for... So I guess that's just some of the concerns is, is that passage of time makes it hard to make sure the victim is actually included. Um, I mean, a victim doesn't have the, doesn't have the need to keep us updated of their contact information for 25 years.

888. 3:05:08

     And Mr. Speaker, may I ask one more question?

889. 3:05:10

     I'm just the chairman, but-

890. 3:05:12

     To, Mr.... Oh, So Mr. Chairman. I, I didn't promote you. I didn't mean to promote you. The, um, other question I have is in, in the plea agreement or the, in the, at the time, do you say to the victim, uh, they're going to plead to, um, life without parole?

891. 3:05:30

     A- absolutely.

892. 3:05:31

     And that, uh, that gives the, the victim the calm and the peace that they're never gonna have to face down this, uh, perpetrator ever again.

893. 3:05:39

     I, I, what I say is, even if someone has a life without parole sentence, is that they are, the sentence is that they have a life without parole sentence, they will never get out, except there are some, there are some possibilities. There's compassionate release and some par- you know, pardons and things like that, that I have no control over, but that is very, very rare. And so I, I have a hard time ever telling anybody some guarantee because I just don't have control over those things. Um, but if it's a non-parolable sentence, including life, or, I mean, even nowadays with life being 30 years before you're eligible for parole, I mean, I will tell the victims that, and there is a certain level of comfort from victims, um, in those situations.

894. 3:06:15

     Of course, my concern is shall not be excluded. I get that, but I think they should be included, the victim, and that's the, that's what I don't see here.

895. 3:06:25

     Right.

896. 3:06:25

     The-

897. 3:06:29

     Notes.

898. 3:06:29

     Okay. Chairman Crowe, if you'll just bear with me, I, we're, we've talked this one pretty at length.

899. 3:06:36

     Yep.

900. 3:06:37

     So I'm gonna let you be the last one.

901. 3:06:39

     Okay. And thank you, and I wrote it down just so I wouldn't forget. Uh, again, to their point earlier, um, about somebody coming out after a long time in prison, I know that typically on long sentences, there is a re-entry type program that the state has, pardons and paroles have. Like, is that correct?

902. 3:06:58

     Yeah, and, and there's certain ser- sentences where they can, people are eligible to go to sort of a work release type program within the DOC for the last year of their non-parolable sentence. So there, there are programs in place.

903. 3:07:09

     Right. And so would this, would this be maybe an amendment of their sentence that would allow for time for that re-entry? And I ask that, I don't know, maybe the author would, would know, um, this as well. I'm just curious if this would be just amending their sentence to where it would give time for their not immediate release then, but maybe that, that, um, runwayed re-entry that is often for people who have done a life sentence, that they have that, uh, re-entry program. Because after 20 years, you know, you think 20 years ago, we didn't have iPhones or half the stuff we have now, so j- the society changes a lot.

904. 3:07:48

     Right. I, I, I mean, I agree. That's, that's a concern. Yeah.

905. 3:07:50

     I'm, I'm just, I don't know if this addresses that.

906. 3:07:51

     I, I don't know, but I, I don't... I'm not sure if I read this as it being a re-sentencing, so I, I don't, I don't, I don't know if I... And maybe I'm wrong on this. I don't know if I read it as the judge can say, "Well, you got to do five more years, and I can, then I'll let you out." I don't know. I, I think the determination is more of you're either getting out or not, and you can re-petition, and then there is some limitation on when you can re-petition, but I, I, I don't think it's in here. But I, I understand the concern.

907. 3:08:17

     Thank you, sir. Thank y'all. All right. I think there's some amendments. Representative Holcomb, uh, uh, I will do this. We have a- another meeting for sure on Monday, if you want to get with some of the members that have raised some concerns and have some help on the amendment, we'll go right ahead. I don't think I have anybody else signed up for this, do I? Okay, outstanding. We're gonna move on to the next. Thank you, Representative Holcomb, for your long suffering. Next, I'm going to pull up House Bill 1282.

908. 3:09:03

     I'll give you a chance to get to...

909. 3:09:34

     Okay. All right. Members, I bring to you House Bill 1282. I'm gonna present this from right here unless somebody objects. I hear none. Okay. All right. House Bill 1282, uh, this is amending OCGA 17-3-2.1 to add aggravated sexual battery to the list of offenses, which if committed on or after July 1st, 2012, and the victim is under 16 years of age, may be prosecuted at any time.

910. 3:10:10

     Uh, for an aggravated sexual battery offense against a victim under 16 years of age between July 1st, 1992, and June 30th, 2012, the applicable statute of limitations is tolled until the victim reaches the age of 16 or the violation is reported to a law enforcement agency, prosecuting attorney, or other governmental agency, whichever occurs earlier. Basically, members of the committee, we looked back to try and, and determine why this had been left out so many years ago, um, and nobody really had a good answer as to why this had been left off of the list.

911. 3:10:51

     So anyways, I'll stand for any questions.

912. 3:10:57

     Representative Tom, I make a motion to do pass.

913. 3:10:59

     Second.

914. 3:11:00

     Okay, I got a motion to do pass and a second. Was anybody signed up on this? Okay. All right.

915. 3:11:09

     Yeah.

916. 3:11:10

     Happy to, since you've left y'all by himself.

917. 3:11:15

     Thank you.

918. 3:11:16

     Well, good thing your boss is here, Ms. Cart. She'll- ... excuse you. All right. Uh, I'll recognize both of my DAs here today, uh, my home county DA, Jason Smith, and, uh, my county of origin for my Smith family, uh, Sarah Depore. Thank y'all for being here. And Allison Cart, who I've known for longer than I want to admit right now, uh, always a good ADA to work with back home. So anyways, anybody else signed up to talk for or against this?

919. 3:11:49

     All right, we got a motion and a second do pass. Any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1282, LC481731, say, "Aye."

920. 3:12:00

     Aye.

921. 3:12:00

     All those opposed same sign. Okay. Thank you, members. All right. And last but not least, we have House Bill 496, Representative Jasmine Clark.

922. 3:12:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know the hour is late, so I'll make this quick. This is a pretty, uh, simple bill. Um, this bill acknowledges that back in 2019, Georgia made hemp products, uh, legal, and because of that, um, that has, um, created a little bit of ambiguity when it comes to probable cause. And so this bill, um, simply states that the scent of marijuana, cannabis, or hemp on its own, so if that's the only thing, cannot be used as probable cause in, um, a s- uh, stop search procedure.

923. 3:12:59

     And that is the bill.

924. 3:13:01

     You've had the shortest presentation

925. 3:13:04

     Hey, it's l- it's late. Um, and like I said, this is pretty straightforward. Um, we're not doing anything fancy. This isn't a legalization bill or decriminalization bill. This is just a straight up let's get the law in line with laws that we have already passed here in Georgia.

926. 3:13:20

     Okay.

927. 3:13:22

     And happy to take any questions.

928. 3:13:23

     We have members of the, uh, uh, fellow members of the party of Jackson coming to ask you questions. Representative Panitch.

929. 3:13:30

     Thank you. Thank you for the bill. I've had too many cases where a stop was pretextual, uh, just to search, and that w- the odor of, of marijuana was the reason. But the, if it... So you're saying an officer can't pull over somebody because of the scent. Once they are pulled over, if there was a different reason and the scent, they can identify it, that can be a reason for probable cause. It's just not, can't be the reason for probable cause.

930. 3:14:00

     Yeah, absolutely. So, um, when it comes to probable cause, totality of circumstances, um, and I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, so, um, but what, um, this says is just, um, using only the scent cannot be, um, reach the level of, of reliability for probable cause.

931. 3:14:21

     Thank you.

932. 3:14:25

     Chairman Crowe. Thank you, and I'm gonna ask you another one of those questions that you may not ... I'm not a lawyer either, so we're in the same boat. Um- Welcome to the club. But that same paragraph A starting on 11, it says that, uh, the scent of marijuana, cannabis, or hemp on its own, whether burnt or not, shall not provide a law enforcement officer with a reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a stop, search, seizure, or arrest. And so to her point, um, y- probable articulable suspicion a lot of times is used for a request for consent to search.

933. 3:15:00

     Would this impact that, that you can't use it for a reasonable suspicion to ask for consent to search the vehicle? So I will be very honest, I am not 100% married to reasonable suspicion being in this bill. And so if it is the pleasure of the committee, I'm happy to strike that. I really want this bill to be focused on probable cause, and I just did not have an amendment prepared for that. Okay, thank you. Representative Holly.

934. 3:15:29

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, uh, madam, for being able to bring this bill. Um, just for the viewing public and for those who are seated and hearing this, um, for what other ways are you familiar, uh, through which, um, a approaching law enforcement officer, uh, is able to, um, identify that the person, uh, could possibly be, um, using s- uh, using, um, marijuana or cannabis products that are illegal? So, um, if they see it.

935. 3:16:01

     So we at this point have body cam, all these different things. There are lots of objective ways for a police officer to, you know, say that I have enough probable cause for a warrantless search. But unfortunately, odor is very subjective. And so, um, this would strengthen the probable cause, um, for that law enforcement officer by them having something objective that they can look at. So if they see it, um, if the person is doing something else that gives them reason to believe that a crime is being committed, then that is fine.

936. 3:16:38

     This law would not change any of that. It only specifically relates to the scent of marijuana, which again, is, uh, subjective- Thank you, ma'am ... and not measurable. No, thank you. I remember we both were here to pass, uh, House Bill 324 and House Bill 213, and so really if you're just relying on that as a sole factor, then it could very well be said that the officer is smelling the vi- is smelling the, um, suspect, um, in the possession of, of something that is actually lawful.

937. 3:17:09

     Absolutely. So, um, a- as I mentioned earlier, we did legalize hemp in the state of Georgia. Um, the, uh, chemical composition of hemp products is exactly the same as far as the thing that makes the smell. It's terpenes and volatile sulfuric compounds, and that's where you get that skunk-like smell. That is consistent through all of these different products, including the ones that are legal. So the smell alone is not an indication that there's any illegal activity happening.

938. 3:17:44

     See no other questions. Thank you. Thank you. We have several signed up. Remind you, a minute and 30. Uh, and I'm just gonna go in the order I have right here. Let's see, uh, Corey Lowe.

939. 3:18:10

     I

940. 3:18:21

     just wanted to use it as a demonstration, just to show you.

941. 3:18:24

     Yeah.

942. 3:18:25

     Oh, I didn't know that.

943. 3:18:29

     We don't usually have props.

944. 3:18:29

     Okay.

945. 3:18:29

     We don't use props.

946. 3:18:32

     No problem. Can I get started? It's a minute and 30 seconds.

947. 3:18:35

     Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

948. 3:18:36

     Okay. Thank you all for being here. I know it's a long day. And, um, I have two different testimonies. They're both in your folder. Um, one is from LEAP, which is Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. They've approved that, uh, testimony. And basically, I'm just here as a former DeKalb County police officer and, um, one of the Allen Peak families who got the bill passed for kids with seizures. And my daughter was having a seizure, seizure in the vehicle. I sprayed the rescue spray that I can't show you all, and, um, basically, the sheriff said that he smelled marijuana.

949. 3:19:08

     We have the low-THC card, and we have her nasal spray that was legally obtained from a dispensary. And they basically called the convoy, and K9 and, um, narcotics wanted me to buy fentanyl for them, said that they would let me go. I explained that there's no... In the six months of police academy t- there was no determination between hemp and THC. There was no classes that we took that would tell you the difference in the scent. It all smells the same. And I tried to explain that to the officer, and he said, "Marijuana is marijuana is marijuana.

950. 3:19:38

     It's all the same. It's all the same." And I said, "No, sir. I used to be a cop. I understand that there's a difference." People take hemp, and I was in front of a hemp store, and I had the receipt. I did all the things because I also had a pack of CBD cigarettes that were legally obtained. They took those and basically just charged me with tampering with evidence and possession of marijuana. And I have my daughter's oil and the card, and we're a patient, and we're trying to do everything legally, but we had to spend $25,000 fighting the case.

951. 3:20:14

     Did you win?

952. 3:20:16

     Partially. I mean, 'cause the sheriff said that there was destruction of evidence, and no one had on their body cam. No one had a dash cam. No one out of all the officers, the K9, the narcotics, no one turned on a body cam, and no one knows where the receipt went for the CBD cigarettes. They just sent me a letter, said I can come pick them up, 'cause they've determined it's CBD.

953. 3:20:34

     Okay.

954. 3:20:35

     Three years later.

955. 3:20:36

     Thank you.

956. 3:20:37

     Yes, sir.

957. 3:20:37

     See no other questions from members of the committee. Thank you for being here today.

958. 3:20:40

     Thank you. Thank you for having us. Thank you for your time.

959. 3:20:43

     Randy, you're on this one, too, if you want to come up.

960. 3:20:54

     Thank you all again. Randy McGinley, uh, DA...

961. 3:21:03

     Okay. There we go. Um, I, I, I met with Representative Clark earlier today. And I, and this isn't... I, I guess my point of view on this is I can't think of another situation in the entire law where we determine what is reasonable suspicion or probable cause other than the judge making that determination upon hearing the evidence in the case. Um, and, and again, it is weird for me to come up here and say I'm not sure that the legislators... Well, I, I caution saying that, I guess, but to me, that is a judicial det- determination, is what is reasonable suspicion, what is probable cause, is based on what the, the judge determines it to be.

962. 3:21:40

     A- and to say it is, there are subjective things that are considered, somebody's body language, someone's actions are subjective. And I guess if we're gonna say that if it's something that you can't see on a video, then you can't use that, that seems, uh... We're saying a law enforcement officer's saying they smell it, we're just not gonna trust what they're saying in any situation. Um, a- and, you know, because you can, frankly, if you look at something with your own eyes and on a video and you're asked, "Is that marijuana or is that hemp?" Even though it's on video, are you gonna be able to answer that question?

963. 3:22:11

     I, I don't know if you are. So it just seems, it, it, to me it seems a strange thing to limit this situation of just to a smell, and this will be the first time in anywhere in the code section I can find where the legislator is telling courts what is reasonable suspicion, what is not reasonable suspicion, what is probable cause, what is not probable cause. Um, and I just think it's a strange situation to wade into for the legislator. Um, again, and I... And if I could just finish real brief, just real quick, is, uh, you know, the hemp, what is legal and what is not legal with hemp, there are some situ- there are some readings of it that you need to have a license to possess hemp.

964. 3:22:48

     It's hard, and I don't... And I'll also say this respectfully, is some of the changes in the law to marijuana and hemp and everything for the last six years has made a law enforcement and prosecutor's job very hard, 'cause it's very, very hard for us to know what we can do, what we can't do, what we can prosecute, what we cannot prosecute. And overly complicating it more is maybe not the way to go, in my opinion.

965. 3:23:11

     Look like you got a question. Chairman Gullett.

966. 3:23:14

     If we were to strike reasonable suspicion, so it just basically provide law enforcement, shall not provide law enforcement with probable cause for a stop, you would say that makes it better. Am I right?

967. 3:23:26

     I, I, I would agree it makes it better. I still have some of the same concerns though.

968. 3:23:29

     Sure. You still have concerns, but it makes it better.

969. 3:23:31

     Right. I, I think that's fair.

970. 3:23:32

     Okay. Thank you.

971. 3:23:34

     See no other questions. Thank you again.

972. 3:23:37

     Mike, may I? I hate to jump in, but, uh, I'm gonna speak up for law enforcement if I, anytime I can, because that's my background. Essentially, what they're saying is they're making it impossible to make a case for marijuana. I mean, if you're on a stop, an automobile stop, y- you smell it, they're burning marijuana or burning a product in the car, you should be able to, um, approach to see if it's marijuana or not. Uh, the, uh, if they don't, if they don't, you've legalized marijuana or, or you can, an officer can't make a stop and can't make a, a, an arrest.

973. 3:24:10

     I mean, I can't see how you can go forward if you can't articulate reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Can you see a situation where they could? I guess the concern with that, and I may ... I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you can't approach somebody because of the smell, how can you s- do those other things other than the smell? If you can't even approach somebody when you smell something to be able to see it, to be able to see their manifestations, I think that limitation is the concern here. And, and it appears that there may be a step someday soon where we just legalize marijuana, but that's not done yet, and until that's done, it's a ...

974. 3:24:48

     You're, you're stepping into the purview of the, of the review from a, a judicial officer. Do you, don't you agree with that? And that, that's my concern, is this will be the first time where we're, the legislature, stepping into what's reasonable suspicion and what's probable cause. Thank you. Well, I'm not like a Christmas tree up here. Let's see. Number eight, Representative Kendrick. Uh, thank you. I was trying to understand. So you're, um, saying if somebody is driving in a car and, uh, you see something that might look like marijuana, y- you don't think that the officer is going to be able to pull them ...

975. 3:25:28

     Well, i- if you see it under this bill, it's perfectly fine. Right. But if you just smell it, it's not okay. Right. So I'm, I'm trying to figure out, so you, you want law enforcement officers to be able to smell hemp, whatever, or marijuana, whatever that smell is, and to be able to pull someone over and to, to confirm that it is the marijuana and hemp under the pro- under probable cause or reasonable suspicion. I guess just to be clear, my opinion is that I think courts should make the determination of what is reasonable suspicion and what is probable cause.

976. 3:26:03

     Okay. That, that, that's my take on that. Okay. So there's no way that we can make this bill better in your opinion. You're just against the bill just as a policy reason. I mean, I guess to what Chairman Gullett said, it's hard to say. If you say, make ... Will this make it better or worse? I'm going to be truthful and say this makes it better or worse, but I don't ... I, I just think that that is ... I, I ... Again, I've never seen a s- situation in the statutes of Georgia where probable cause or reasonable suspicion is defined by the legislature. I've never ... That's not anywhere else in the, in our code section.

977. 3:26:36

     Okay. So as a policy reason, you just think we should- Well, I, I think that is a determination that a neutral and, a neutral magistrate or j- or judge, you know, should, should make. It's just against the bill period. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Number five, Representative Panitch. Hi. I'm having a little challenge with this. This isn't in court. This is on the side of the road where the officer would see, have a car go by, I guess smell something, and then use that to stop the car.

978. 3:27:06

     We're saying that the smell alone can't be your reason to stop the car. But this isn't a judge making this determination. This is an officer on the side of the road in the moment making the determination. Well, Rep, but I guess in my world as a prosecutor, how does that come up unless there's some arrest made and then it comes into court? And that, I guess that's what I'm viewing this as- Right. And then- ... as like a motion to suppress sort of issue, is where I'm ... And maybe I'm looking at that wrong, is only limiting it to that. But is ... I- if it comes to court and that is, it gets challenged, that's when this would come up.

979. 3:27:38

     Yes. But we're also telling co- officers not to pull people over if the only thing they have is the smell of a car going by. And so- Right ... yes, you would have, if somebody got arrested, they'd file a motion to suppress under the Fourth Amendment, and then you'd have a hearing, but we're tell- we're trying to stop that by saying, "Officer, if the only thing you have is smell, that is not to be considered as probable cause." I, I guess, and along the same lines, I, I just, I ... This would be the only situation where I can think of where we're telling law enforcement, "This thing is illegal, but if you have some evidence of it, you can't use that." And that just is, again, that's strange to me.

980. 3:28:18

     Like, we're, we're, we're not trying to ... Like, at least in this bill, we're saying it is, it is still illegal. And, and so we're trying to s- like, limit what, what is the s- what is the level of evidence that an officer can then be involved in that situation when it ... Because, I mean, again, reasonable suspicion is not, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt. Right. It is reasonable suspicion. Um, and, and so I think just defining that, I just, I, I don't think that's appropriate for the ... I think that's ... I, I don't know. I, I guess from a policy perspective, I, I, I find that strange that law- that legislators wading into what is and what is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

981. 3:28:54

     Okay. I mean, we tell judges what they can include or consider or not consider all the time, so I don't know that that ... That maybe it's odd for that particular- Yeah ... burden, but I don't ... I mean, I, that's what we do. We, we make the laws. Sure. Thank you. I know he's so much fun to spar with. I mean, I enjoy it myself because he's such a worthy sparring partner. Um, so let's wrap this up. I'm gonna take, uh, these last two questions.

982. 3:29:27

     Representative Holly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, from what I, what I've heard you, in terms of it s- almost seems like the, the scent alone, you see it as that it can be an, actually an initial, um, an initial identification of something illegal. And would it, because of the legislation that we passed, do you consider it that actually it could be very well, um, it could qualify something legal?

983. 3:29:59

     That the, that ... And so because of that, and, and, and by asking that, you know, when I look at line 15 and I see the two words "based solely," does it not maybe, is it considered that maybe the officer might follow up with a sobriety test?

984. 3:30:15

     Well, I, and as a prosecutor I would hope they would. I mean, I would tell law enforcement they need to do more than just one thing.

985. 3:30:20

     Mm-hmm.

986. 3:30:20

     Um, but again, I, back to the we're saying that smelling something is not enough but seeing something is, in a reality that's not always true either though, right? Just 'cause you see some white powdery substance, does that mean it's cocaine or meth or heroin or something that's not illegal. And so if we're gonna say that it's okay for officers to see something based on their training experience, then why are we gonna limit it and say that if they smell something, they can't do that?

987. 3:30:45

     So would it, you would feel better if it was actually in there where it would specify that, or you could add in that of the looks of it beyond just the smelling of it is would, would have to be necessary so that basically that you'd have to put in...

988. 3:31:04

     Sorry for making-

989. 3:31:05

     No, you're okay. You're okay

990. 3:31:06

     ... you know, um, but just it would have to, you wanted to make sure that it is actually included in here that if you take out the reasonable suspicion part, then you could still have the officer be able to determine probable cause by other means beyond just the smell of something that is actually legal.

991. 3:31:23

     Right, and that's why I said to Chairman Gullett's question is would that be better in my opinion, and, and my answer was yes.

992. 3:31:27

     Okay.

993. 3:31:27

     Yeah.

994. 3:31:27

     Thank you.

995. 3:31:31

     Chairman Crowe.

996. 3:31:33

     Thank you. Um, uh, obviously you're aware of my background and, and, uh, I have a different perspective on it than some of my colleagues. Um, and, and it is true that, that if you smell the odor, you may or may not, an officer may or may not be able to determine whether or not it is marijuana or hemp or, uh, something else. But my concern is if we make a policy decision that there could be something illegal going on, I think it is...

997. 3:32:05

     I, I don't like a policy perspective that says it may or may not be legal to tell the officers then that they cannot investigate or stop to determine whether it is legal or illegal what is going on. Uh, an example I used earlier when I was talking to some of my friends that, that, that are here in the back back there, uh, we had a good chat at the ropes. Um, if I was, when I was working, if I smelled, uh, if I saw a cargo bike was behind a vehicle or whatever, saw smoke come out or smelled the odor coming from that vehicle as I was driving behind it, uh, stopping that vehicle, if they are smoking marijuana in that vehicle going down the road, um, there is a high likelihood they are driving under the influence of marijuana and that needs to be stopped to be investigated.

998. 3:32:50

     And so I think telling officers that they cannot use that as a determination to at least take that next investigatory step I think is dangerous policy, uh, because I think that we need to err on the side of giving them more tools rather than less tools. Um, you know, I think that it did complicate things when we legalized hemp and some other things. I say we, I don't know that I was here when that happened, uh, but maybe we should revisit that, uh, as whether or not that's legal or not, so.

999. 3:33:20

     And if I could add one thing to that just very briefly is there are a number of substances that you can legally take but you don't need to be driving under the influence even though they're legal.

1000. 3:33:30

      Thank you.

1001. 3:33:31

      Seeing no further questions.

1002. 3:33:33

      Thank y'all.

1003. 3:33:34

      Thank you. All right.

1004. 3:33:38

      I got several signed up. Let me get to it. Um,

1005. 3:33:45

      Brian Rashad.

1006. 3:33:48

      Okay. All right. He didn't say which one he was signed up for so I wanted to check and see. Uh, Omari?

1007. 3:33:58

      That's me.

1008. 3:33:59

      Come on down.

1009. 3:34:03

      I know it's late so I'll keep it brief.

1010. 3:34:08

      Um, thank you for your time. So I wanna be very clear about something. HB496 does not prevent law enforcement from doing their job. If there is impairment, unsafe driving, illegal possession in plain view or any other objective evidence, officers still have the full authority to act. Um, what this bill does is remove aroma alone as justification, right? That's the part that we keep missing, right? Law enforcement can still do their job. There's something that is legal here that does not smell different from marijuana.

1011. 3:34:44

      So while folks say they can tell the difference, scientifically they cannot. This is not anti-police, this is pro clear standards. Clear standards protect officers from bad stops, bad searches, bad cases. They also protect citizens from unnecessary encounters that escalate simply because of a smell that could come from a legal product. I'm in favor of police standards and giving police all the tools they need, but I need them to also have objective standards.

1012. 3:35:18

      Thank you.

1013. 3:35:23

      I see no questions. Thank you.

1014. 3:35:29

      All right. Next I have, uh, Ms. Yolanda Bennett. Come on down.

1015. 3:35:49

      Good evening. Um, thank you all for waiting on my cane. Yes, it woke some people up. Um, I went ahead and I'm gonna keep this brief. My name is Yolanda Bennett. I'm with the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society. I know that you all may have in your packet, um, our packet that we sent over with the different laws that have already passed in other states that would prevent law enforcement from Um, having it probable cause by the scent alone.

1016. 3:36:22

      I want to go ahead and share with you, you continue to mention hemp. Georgia has passed the Medical Cannabis Low-Dose THC Program. That right there smells like hemp, cannabis, 'cause it is. Cannabis is one plant. So to move for- further, also last year, SB 244 passed. This right here, if this legislation is passed, this would allow the state and other DAs from not being liable for false accusations when it comes to, uh, the smell test alone.

1017. 3:37:04

      So basically it will save the state money, and also it would protect constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment right. I've also shared the different, um, cases alone, including the Fifth Amendment right. Now, if the product is seen out in public view, yes, they can arrest a per- whatever they choose to do with it, but the smell alone is subjective. I myself am a medical cannabis patient, and I can't smell cannabis.

1018. 3:37:34

      Just telling you. I can smell nat off of a... I can smell dust off a gnat. But anyway, any questions?

1019. 3:37:43

      Number 17, Mr. Bill Fincher.

1020. 3:37:44

      Um, tell me the group that you represent, please. What's the name of that?

1021. 3:37:48

      Uh, the Georgia Medical Cannabis Society. I am a medical cannabis patient, a former correctional officer. So yes, cannabis, I used to believe that cannabis was a gateway drug.

1022. 3:38:00

      Now, you heard the district attorney who was here a minute ago-

1023. 3:38:05

      Mm

1024. 3:38:05

      ... talk about if someone's under the influence of a drug and, and you need to investigate that, it could save someone's life if they're unca- incapable of driving to the point they can't drive-

1025. 3:38:17

      Oh

1026. 3:38:17

      ... or, or be unsafe driving. Did you not hear that?

1027. 3:38:20

      Yes, I did hear that. However, the thing is when it says that's incapable or having some issues with driving, the police has other measures to determine whether or not if that, that stop is probable, meaning if the person swerves, that means they have the DE- the DEI, I think it's like a, a drug enforcement. It's some kind of special test that they give you, drug identification of the, um, impairment, what you're having. So they do have special tests for that.

1028. 3:38:51

      So the probable cause of smell, smell is subjective. And as you see in the packet, there is also some chemical smells that can come through the pores. That's another thing that with the medical cannabis program that... Oh. With the medical cannabis program that we here have now, some patients are afraid to participate because of things like this, being pulled over for cannabis, leaving a dispensary for cannabis on this possibility of the smell. So basically, in a sense, I'm speaking out for medical cannabis patients and the fact that patients like me, patients like Corey with her daughter, to be pulled over.

1029. 3:39:30

      We're already sick, we're tired, and we don't... It... Just the inconvenience of having a police officer to go through our things. That's the thing. You have to put it in the patient's point of view. With a patient's point of view, you have to look at the fact like, "Look, I'm already sick. I'm taking my meds just trying to live, but I'm gonna get pulled over by the police." So our concern is to make sure that we protect all people without being subjected to, you know, the smell, 'cause you have the Fourth Amendment right.

1030. 3:40:04

      So if you smell something, just like in the Leary versus the United States, he had probable cause. They, they pulled him over, which that one particular case overturned a law that had been in stake since 1937. It overturned a Marijuana Tax Act. Can you imagine if you do pass this, how many different other people will be saved from, uh, lack of funding from the public defenders?

1031. 3:40:34

      The public defender's office is already overwhelmed. The prison system, I'm a former correction officer, the prison industry's over- o- overwhelmed. So overall, by passing this legislation, would benefit not only the person who might not be able to afford, but the impaired driving, uh, training that doctors, not doctors, that police officers are already trained with. So that's, that's pretty much it.

1032. 3:41:05

      Thank you. No further questions. Appreciate you-

1033. 3:41:07

      All right. Thank you

1034. 3:41:08

      ... being here with us today.

1035. 3:41:10

      Where's my camera? Oh.

1036. 3:41:12

      Okay. Um, Ms. Aviva, come on down.

1037. 3:41:20

      Hi, my name is Aviva Vuvezela with the Georgia Hemp Economic Revival Organization. Thanks for having us here on this very late hour. Um, I did... I know you don't want me to hand this out, but if anyone wants to approach me later, I have hemp pre-rolls that not only smell like marijuana, but to the DA's point, they also look like them. So does a bag of chips that has THC on it. So I understand that, uh, dilemma there. I just want to remind you that this bill does not allow driving while being intoxicated, it does not encourage underage smoking, and it does not remove this, once again, as a contributing factor if there's other issues at hand.

1038. 3:42:00

      Um, there are so many states that have already passed this legislation. Obviously, all the legal states, Michigan, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mexico, New Jersey, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Oregon, and so many more. We've got 300,000 tourists coming for FIFA. I think we might be smelling something very legal. And we don't want to flood what's going on. The, um, the other thing that can smell like cannabis is sage, which I love.

1039. 3:42:32

      You burn sage sticks to clean environments, and I've been approached 'cause I do sage my car, especially after passengers sometimes. Um, medical cannabis obviously in a cigarillo can be confused. I also, uh, read about phantosmia, which is when you have traumatic brain injury, you can have a fake smell come up, which I think might be even more common amongst officers because they go through trauma as well. And, uh, so I'll, I'll yield to Scribbles if he'll let me. Uh, he has one thing to say.

1040. 3:43:06

      I'll allow.

1041. 3:43:07

      Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and I just think we need to get some serious schnoz testing going on if we're gonna be depending on smell testing alone. Thank you very much.

1042. 3:43:28

      Bill, is she good? You good now?

1043. 3:43:31

      Wow.

1044. 3:43:31

      All right. Uh, Chris Bruce.

1045. 3:43:33

      Oh, three plus.

1046. 3:43:37

      Whatever she says.

1047. 3:43:44

      Mr. Chairman, I love this committee.

1048. 3:43:49

      I, I can be honest with you? When I woke up today, I didn't see that one coming. Okay? Every day is something. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Christopher Bruce. I'm the deputy executive director of the ACLU of Georgia. It is a pleasure to talk to you at this late hour, and I will get right into it because I don't think there's too much that we disagree on. Uh, we know that Georgia has legalized hemp and other certain forms of medical marijuana. We also know that these produce smells that are indistinguishable between, uh, cannabis and which, and marijuana.

1049. 3:44:27

      So looking at it when lawful and unlawful substances share the same scent, smell ceases to be reliable indicator of illegality and cannot itself justify police intrusion. Let's go into the court cases, 'cause we know in certain frameworks where there are other states who have passed this law, this is where you do have a handout, uh, for House Bill 496. Places such as Florida and Pennsylvania where hemp and medical marijuana are lawful but recreational marijuana remains illegal, like here in the State of Georgia, courts have held that odor may be considered as part of the totality of circumstances, but it cannot alone establish probable cause for a warrantless search.

1050. 3:45:15

      Officers must point to additional objective facts suggesting that crime is occurring. This approach is consistent with a decision made by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which concluded that marijuana possession may be lawful. Odor by itself does not establish probable cause. Instead, law enforcement must identify facts indicating unlawful possession. The same reasoning applies right here in Georgia. Because legal cannabis-related products can smell identical to illegal marijuana, odor alone is too unreliable to justify a stop, search, or seizure.

1051. 3:45:53

      House Bill 496 provides clear guidance when it comes to this. And with that, I urge you to pass this bill. Um, I will also yield for questions. I am also a criminal defense attorney with over 10 years of experience. That's right. Uh, so these type of cases, including when it deals with the vehicle stops, uh, police officers have over 20 ways of stopping you already. So if we know that you are swerving in between lanes, if anything else has happened, they can stop you for that reason.

1052. 3:46:27

      Odor alone should not be one of them.

1053. 3:46:29

      I see no questions. Thank you, sir.

1054. 3:46:31

      Thank, thank you, Chairman.

1055. 3:46:33

      All right. And I believe this is the last one on the list, uh, and not least, uh, Erin Jimenez.

1056. 3:46:49

      Oh. My name is Erin Jimenez. I'm a cannabis advocate. Um, thank you for having me. Uh, I know it's been a really long day, so I'll try to keep it brief. Um, in my advocacy, I did a lot of work on decriminalization. Oh, thank you. A lot of work on decriminalization in Athens, and we really wanted, uh, probable cause for the smell to be removed, um, in Athens-Clarke County as a part of that. Um, we were actually advised that it was not in our best interest because a lotta jurisdictions are simply throwing their hands up, um, because they know that there's a law complication in regards to what the smell of marijuana is.

1057. 3:47:29

      Um, so frankly, I think this would clarify things for police officers. Um, my colleague, who was unable to be here, has testified in five cases in Athens and the surrounding areas, um, as to the smell being subjective. Um, and in, to my understanding, in every case, he brought CBD flower, which was perfectly legal at the time. Um, pre-rolls are now legal now. Um, and once the judge smelled it, they threw the cases out. Um, if we don't have to travel to every courthouse in the State of Georgia, that would be incredible.

1058. 3:48:02

      Um, but I do wanna say that it also hurts small businesses, um, because even though our products are federally legal and state compliant, sometimes customers are afraid to even buy it. Like, they come in out of curiosity, they're clearly interested, they have needs for it, um, but they walk back out because they don't wanna be harassed based on probable cause. Um, and I can tell you as someone who used to work in a hemp dispensary every day, that was a big concern of mine, was simply working in that environment every day.

1059. 3:48:34

      I did smell like marijuana. Um, so even if I did not partake, which I typically don't until the end of the day, um- I could be stopped and I could be searched. And I don't think just for going to work I should have that fear in my head. Um, so again, I support HB 496, and thank you for your time.

1060. 3:48:56

      You got a question? Representative Panitch.

1061. 3:48:58

      Second. I, I ... And you just, uh, testified to us that you knew that you smelled like marijuana, did you not?

1062. 3:49:06

      I did, because hemp and marijuana smell exactly the same, and I worked in a hemp dispensary, not around marijuana, to be clear. Are there any other questions?

1063. 3:49:18

      Seeing none, thank you very much.

1064. 3:49:20

      Thank you.

1065. 3:49:21

      Representative Clark, if you wanna come up and say one last word. I don't think I missed anybody, did I? Anybody else wanna testify? Oh, yep, Representative Clark, hold on a sec. Yes, sir.

1066. 3:49:38

      I'll be quick. My name is Mr. Su- Sully Sullivan. I'm with the Veterans for America First. I'm a national ambassador. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I rise in opposition of this bill because while it may be well-intentioned, it creates serious unintended consequences for public safety, law enforcement operations, and judicial clarity. One, it undermines the established probable cause standards. For decades, courts across the country have recognized the odor of marijuana as a legitimate factor in establishing probable cause under the totality of the circumstances standard.

1067. 3:50:16

      Removing that tool does not modernize the law, it weakens it. Officers rely on sensory observation, sight, sound, and smell a- as part of constitutional policy. The bill artificially removes one of those recognized indicators, making unlawful searches more vulnerable to suppression challenges. Two, it creates a practical enforcement confusion. Hemp and marijuana are visually and olfactorily similar in real world roadside encounters, but officers cannot re- reliably distinguish between them based solely on smell.

1068. 3:50:54

      By prohibiting reliance on the odor, criminal actors gain a built-in defense, officers are forced into hesitation, prosecutors face higher evidentiary burdens. This bill creates ambiguity where clarity is essential. Three, it increases risk to public safety. Drug-related stops frequently uncover illegal firearms, trafficking operations, and impaired drivers. The odor of marijuana has historically been lawful starting to point for uncovering more serious offenses.

1069. 3:51:26

      Limiting that authority could prevent lawful investigations that remove dangerous individuals and contrabands for our community, for it would increase the litigation and court backlogs. This legislative, this legislation invites expanded suppression hearings, challenges to officers' testimony, appeals on probable cause determinations. Instead of simplifying criminal procedure, it adds layers of litigation that burdens the courts and prosecutors. Five, it sends a conflicting policy message.

1070. 3:51:57

      If marijuana remains illegal in certain quantities or circumstances, but officers are stripped of tools to enforce the laws, the state sends a contradictory message. The law exists, but the enforcement is constrained. If policy goal is to reform, the conversation should be addressed directly, not indirectly through procedural limitations. In my conclusion, members of the committee, this bill reduces clarity, increases litigation, and weakens a long-standing investigative standard without proving a workable alternative.

1071. 3:52:29

      Although I do agree with recreational marijuana, but this bill is, is, is weak because there's a difference between recreational marijuana and THC.

1072. 3:52:44

      Thank you, sir. I see no questions. Thank you.

1073. 3:52:49

      Now, Representative Clark, you wanna come and give us the last word.

1074. 3:52:59

      Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really do appreciate the committee's time and consideration on this bill, and I would ask that this, um, committee consider passing, um, this bill. Uh, the purpose of the bill is to provide clarity. As has been stated by many people who have come to this podium, there is plenty of case law that establishes that once you make any form of cannabis product legal in your state, then the smell or the scent of cannabis can no longer be used as the sole probable cause.

1075. 3:53:35

      I also want to reiterate that the purpose of this bill is to strengthen the evidence that can be used if a person is in fact committing a crime. We do not need subjective things that, again, could completely be legal, um, muddying up cases for our prosecutors. We wanna make sure that they are using objective, verifiable evidence in these cases. And so it's a simple bill. It's like a page and a couple of sentences.

1076. 3:54:08

      And, uh, again, I am completely open to removing reasonable suspicion from the bill. If that is the pleasure of the committee, I have no qualms with that. And, uh, again, I hope that you all will consider this bill for passage. Thank you.

1077. 3:54:25

      Thank you, Representative Clark.

1078. 3:54:30

      All right, so we've lost quorum, so what we'll do is we'll bring this back up, uh, probably Monday. Uh, I'm going to cancel tomorrow morning's meeting. That was just a fail-safe in case we didn't hear any, uh, leg- if we were not able to get the bills today. So no 8:00 meeting in the morning. Uh, have a good evening. Thank y'all for your long suffering here in Judiciary Non-Civil. We are adjourned.