Comité Judiciary Non-Civil de la Cámara de Representantes, 2 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:15:23

   Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started.

2. 0:15:29

   I trust everybody's had a chance to sign up. All right.

3. 0:15:32

   20-ish.

4. 0:15:36

   Okay. If you would, bow with me in a word of prayer real quick. Lord Jesus, thank you for this day. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity once again, Lord, that we may do your will. We just ask that you be with those in harm's way, Lord. Be with those service members and their families who are lost in the line of duty of protecting our freedoms, Lord. In Your name we pray, amen. All right. First up, we're gonna have House Bill 984. Chairman Camp, come on down.

5. 0:16:09

   Hi. So we're looking at House Bill 984, LC481723S. And this bill, I appreciate the input from PAC on this. They were very instrumental in narrowing some things down to make this a tight bill. If an individual, a child, um, a disabled adult, or an elderly person, if their safety and well-being is being investigated and they go from a known address to an unknown address, then law enforcement can contact a superior court judge and request a court order to make sure that person is safe.

6. 0:16:44

   So you do have judicial oversight, um, with having to go through the court system, and I'm open for any questions.

7. 0:16:52

   I see no questions. If you wanna scoot over, we will take testimony now. I'm going to limit everyone to a minute, have a hard stop at 5:00 this afternoon. Rules is meeting at 5:00 this afternoon, so we will have a hard stop. Whatever we do not get to today, we will get to on Thursday. So if you need to talk to Expedia, you've got time to do it.

8. 0:17:22

   All right, uh, Tripp Richardson from Frontline, come on down.

9. 0:17:32

   Uh, thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson with Frontline Policy. As we have mentioned previously, we support HB 984 because protecting vulnerable children and elders must be a priority. When someone can avoid accountability by simply moving a victim and cutting off access, that undermines justice and puts lives at risk. This bill ensures the state can, can fulfill its responsibility to protect the innocent while still respecting due process and jud- judicial oversight. That's why we strongly support HB 984 and ask for your favorable vote on this bill.

10. 0:18:05

    Thank you.

11. 0:18:07

    I see no questions. Good job. All right. Anybody else signed up on this that I'm just simply overlooking? All right, seeing none. Okay, thank you. We, uh, will take a vote here, uh, shortly, so thank you.

12. 0:18:22

    Okay, thank you.

13. 0:18:29

    Okay, next I have, uh, Representative Danny Mathis. I think he's out in the hall.

14. 0:18:37

    House Bill 1395. Somebody wanna go get him?

15. 0:18:50

    Come on down.

16. 0:18:54

    Go ahead.

17. 0:18:55

    You ready? Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. I'm here to present House Bill 1395. It's LC 394950. It's to amend, uh, Chapter 5, Title 40, Official Code, and only related to driver's license, so as to require the intervention component of DUI, alcohol or drug use risk reduction program be conducted in person, and that's to provide for related matters, appeal, completing laws, and for other purposes.

18. 0:19:33

    So that's pretty much the bill, is it's, uh, the DUI and drug use reduction program to be in person, Mr. Chairman.

19. 0:19:44

    You know, as long as I've been here, I will say I have never really seen anybody point out that all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the act would be repealed. I mean, it's in just about every piece of legislation we take up, but I want to thank you for being the first that I can remember to point that out in the bill, so it's always a good reminder. All right. Number seven, Representative Roberts.

20. 0:20:10

    Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you just tell me the reason why? Because I can imagine that online helps folks who maybe work nights and can't get somewhere in person, or in rural areas where there's maybe not as much opportunity. I'm just trying to understand what the reason is to take it back the other way.

21. 0:20:29

    Yes, ma'am. The re- the reason for me is, is it's fairly simple, and like I say, this is an opinion. Uh, this is a serious offense, uh, Representative. I have, uh- Been in the funeral home business for years. I've been in coroner business for years. I've worked accidents where DUI was involved, or drugs, where I, I had a specific case. I had a two-year-old child that was thrown through a windshield because of a drunk mother was holding the baby.

22. 0:21:00

    A drunk boyfriend, that's not the daddy of the baby, was thrown through the windshield, hit the middle of a h- Georgia highway. Massive brain trauma, killed it. They had hit a culvert drinking, driving after midnight. Those types of situation, you know, leads me to this. For the simple reason, you have to learn a lesson. A, a, a life was lost in that case. But I worked other cases where people were disabled for the rest of their lives.

23. 0:21:30

    A parent had to raise them because they couldn't work because of a DUI. It's a very serious offense in my opinion. I'm not really concerned about the convenience of the law breaker, because I understand that they do have jobs and they have other folks that they depend on. But this is one of those things when it can be the ultimatum, uh, the ultimate loss is a life or the ability to function normally.

24. 0:22:01

    That's my reasoning behind it.

25. 0:22:04

    So I completely agree with you that it's a horrific offense. No doubt about that. Um, I guess, do we have... How long has it been available online versus in person? 'Cause didn't it used to be in person?

26. 0:22:17

    My understanding is it kinda changed when COVID came along.

27. 0:22:20

    Okay.

28. 0:22:21

    And now we're, we're even letting classes be done, done online from folks that don't even live in Georgia. Uh, they're taking it from all over the country. You can get on one of the programs and, and Zoom. And I understand technology, but, uh, there's nothing like, you know, it's nice to FaceTime my grandchildren that don't live at home, but there's nothing like picking them up and playing with them and taking them for a ride. You understand what I'm saying? I think the impact of being in person, you have to make arrangements to be there, is just part of the rehabilitation.

29. 0:22:57

    I don't want to take this too lightly. I wanna make sure people... I do know enough people to make a mistake. I even had a child at one time got caught for DUI, okay? And in my position, I don't wanna say this arrogantly, but I probably coulda got, got that child out of that. But there needed to be a lesson. Lost his license, okay?

30. 0:23:21

    Mm-hmm.

31. 0:23:21

    Went through the school. That child got their license back, never had another trouble. Never. So it's a, it's an impression thing. On a lighter b- note, when I was in school, this is gonna surprise the chairman, I'm sure, I wasn't very smart in school. So, uh, I failed Algebra 1, okay? Well, my option was go to summer school. When I'm old enough, back summer school was, it started early in the summer. Summer was from 1st of June all the way to end of August back then.

32. 0:23:54

    We didn't start till af- uh, Labor Day. So I had to go take Algebra 1. It made an impression on me. Buddy of mine made 69 in English. I made 68 in algebra, but I said, "I won't never be here again to ruin my summer." So that's the point. I'm trying to make a, a case that says they need to pay the consequences. I understand the fines. I understand the jail time, but this is another way they can rehabilitate and let them know that this is a very, very serious offense.

33. 0:24:29

    Do we have any statistics on before it shifted to that, what the, um, repeat offense was versus, um, you know, online? I'm just curious if-

34. 0:24:41

    Yeah

35. 0:24:41

    ... it has that impact that we talked about.

36. 0:24:42

    I understand that they're, they... You know, and statistics to me is, is kinda who you, who you, you know, get these statistics from. So I'm sure there might be some success. But I'm saying here in Georgia, I think we need to make sure we impose these folks to be there and, and have to do what they need to do to get this, uh, certificate. And it may help them. If, if they sit there and interact with 12, 15 people, it, it may make a difference. You know, if I'm on a computer with you back and forth is one thing, but to be like me and you are right now-

37. 0:25:16

    Yes, sir

38. 0:25:16

    ... it's a whole different thing in my book. Yes, ma'am.

39. 0:25:19

    Thank you.

40. 0:25:19

    Thank you for that.

41. 0:25:20

    Mm-hmm.

42. 0:25:22

    About gets choked up, you telling them stories. I almost fell off my dinosaur. Uh, Representative Neal.

43. 0:25:31

    Thank you to the chair. Um, thank you to the author. So I guess I have a question. So the calls that I received related to people that have military service, um, and, you know, their concerns about that, um, and the calls I received was, was less about convenience of the offender. It was more so about convenience of getting them rehabilitated faster so they don't have to wait. Like, there's no need to delay if they have a online option. And then I was also engaged on this topic in relation to, this is not like a YouTube video.

44. 0:26:03

    It's one where it is interactive. You can't just, you know, sit there and, you know, have your eyes glaze over. So I guess I want your, your feeling about the perspective of it's not about convenience, of making life easier for you. It's about the convenience of getting them rehabilitated faster to have your ultimate goal, um, taken into account.

45. 0:26:25

    Well, I've got, you know, mixed thoughts on that somewhat. I mean, I want them rehabilitated fast. I, I don't want them to do it to start with.

46. 0:26:31

    Right.

47. 0:26:32

    Uh, uh, 'cause, 'cause that's, that's where it all starts. Just don't do it, and you ain't got to worry about it. But, uh, I'm still to the notion that, uh- That's just a consequence of what you did. Uh, so and I don't know, uh, the less, uh, you know, more convenience. I, I just, I, I don't know if I totally agree with that. But again, this is an opinion, and if there's something that, uh...

48. 0:27:03

    I understand the military part, and I understand that. I, I don't have too much sympathy for other states using ours to do it. I mean, uh, it's, uh, this is, this is a very, very... And I know you know this. I mean, you, we're on other committees together, and we talk and we listen. It's a very serious offense, and I just think we need to make sure that these people are accountable and attainable and, and do what they should do.

49. 0:27:27

    Are you open to specific amendments related to the military and what have you, et cetera?

50. 0:27:31

    I mean, I was. Like I said, this is an opinion for me. This is not a conviction.

51. 0:27:36

    Okay.

52. 0:27:36

    It's an o- it's an opinion, a strong opinion.

53. 0:27:39

    Okay. Thank you.

54. 0:27:40

    And so I, I, I'm, I may be.

55. 0:27:44

    Number 14, Representative Bill Fincher.

56. 0:27:48

    I wonder if the, uh, author of the bill would be considering, uh, something where they could go in person. Let's say the person's from Texas or the person's is in military and they're, they're stationed somewhere else, another state. They have these in-person programs all over the United States. I wonder if a amen- amendment to this bill that would allow someone to go in person out of state if they're from out of state or have to be moved from, like a military person. Well, and that might make it more acceptable to the people that are asking these questions.

57. 0:28:22

    I heard two questions in that area. Would you consider that kind of amendment? I, I'd be open to that.

58. 0:28:30

    Okay. Number four, is that Representative Kendrick?

59. 0:28:33

    Yes. Um, so my question is about... Thank you. My question is about line 34 where it says, um, "However, the intervention components of such courses." So I'm unfamiliar with the scope of DUI courses. Are the courses divided into certain components, and this bill only wants the intervention components of the full course to be in person?

60. 0:29:01

    The 20 hours that they, they're subject to?

61. 0:29:04

    Mm-hmm.

62. 0:29:04

    Yes, ma'am.

63. 0:29:05

    So, so a DUI course is divided into different components and, and you're, and this bill only deals with the intervention components. Is that how I, I read it?

64. 0:29:16

    I, I believe that's correct, but I, I'm just interested in the in-person rehabilitation part, that they need to be in person, the risk reduction part.

65. 0:29:30

    Okay.

66. 0:29:36

    All right. I see no other questions. We'll get to testimony. You can s- slide over, Representative, if you want. Okay. Let's go Al Barber. Come on down.

67. 0:29:54

    Just remind you of the minute time frame. Get as much in as you can there, sir.

68. 0:29:57

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I first want to tell you a little bit about myself very quickly. I'm a second-generation owner of a 62-year-old company from Columbus, Georgia. We're a hybrid operating company both online and in person. Uh, we have products across the spectrum from driver education, driver rehabilitation, driver, uh, uh, risk reduction programs, and DDC programs. Uh, I previously have served on the Georgia Driver Ed Commission board for three and a half years, appointed by Governor Deal, and most recently appointed to the Georgia Department of Driver Services board by Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones.

69. 0:30:35

    I'm here today representing the Georgia Driving School Association, who has members throughout the state, Augusta, Savannah, Albany, Tifton, uh, Macon, Albany, and Athens, and Gainesville, and pretty much all the metropolitan area, who are certainly opposed to this bill. And you may have got a packet from our lobbyist showing you those schools. So first I want to address the question of quality, accountability, and outcomes when comparing in-person instruction to, uh, instructor-led online.

70. 0:31:07

    So that question continues to come up. So what we did is we found the best research person we could find in the state of Georgia to give us scientific evidence to tell us which one's better, do we need to eliminate online. So the review was conducted by Professor Oren Mowbray, PhD. He is the executive director of the Rostin Institute of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities at the University of Georgia. They don't come any better than this. And we posed this question to him, and his findings are very conclusive based on research, not based on, uh, stigma or thoughts or emotions.

71. 0:31:47

    He says, "Based on the cumulative evidence, I conclude that instructor-led online DUI and alcohol risk reduction programs perform comparably to in-person programs when delivered, uh, instructor-led where you're interactive, on Zoom, for example. There is no empirical basis to categorically exclude instructor-led virtual delivery on the assumption that inherently this is less than effective."

72. 0:32:12

    Mr. Barber, I hate to cut you off, but maybe we can get through the rest of your, uh-

73. 0:32:16

    Okay. There-

74. 0:32:17

    Testimony

75. 0:32:17

    ... there are numerous public safety, uh, things you can imagine. And I can tell you when you, when you stop online training, you have just disassociated yourself or care for people living in a rural area. Uh, our clients in Tifton and Valdosta called this morning, member schools, and said, "If you stop this, they're out of business." There's already not a, a school in Waycross, in Brunswick. This is the only way they can receive this service, and changing this is not going to solve the problem.

76. 0:32:45

    So-

77. 0:32:45

    In fact-

78. 0:32:46

    Let me ask a question-

79. 0:32:46

    Yes, sir

80. 0:32:47

    ... real quick. So how many right now would you say across the state are in-person- attendees versus virtual online?

81. 0:32:57

    I would say probably 50/50.

82. 0:32:58

    Okay. All right. Number seven. Representative Roberts.

83. 0:33:01

    Uh, that was my question. Sorry.

84. 0:33:02

    Okay. All right. Has there been a... Obviously, I would think around COVID there was probably an uptick.

85. 0:33:10

    Yeah, when you have more accessible ways of taking a class, you have more people attending the class.

86. 0:33:15

    Okay.

87. 0:33:15

    And that's for another strong opponent of keeping the online training. You know, we feel like the bill is really economic protectionism and serves, does not serve the general population of this state at all. As far as the, we wanna punish the DUI offender, why are we not looking at the defensive driving course, driver improvement? So think about this. We're saying that this person needs to be a reha- rehabilitated in person, but what about the offense of vehicle homicide that we're not addressing? What about the offense of feticide by a vehicle?

88. 0:33:46

    What about the offense of someone fleeing and eluding from a police officer doing 100 miles an hour down the street that runs over a child? So this in particular bill addresses one component part of driver education in the state. It's absolutely economic protectionism, and it does not work. It's been proven time and time again. When you try to use legislative power to restrict models of distribution, you actually harm the economy. And think about the Georgia University System. They sat back on their hands for a long time, and they watched companies like Phoenix online come in, take a little bit, and then COVID hit.

89. 0:34:23

    What happened? Half the classroom was gone, and they didn't come back. The University of Georgia had to get with the time, they had to modernize, they had to offer the online programs to stay relevant. If you kill online distribution, you will be effectively killing our ability to, to compete. Because just like the representative said, we have schools on the other side. We have Arizona, California, and we have Colorado who currently offers instructor-led interactive programs like us. When you kill online here, what you're doing is inviting out-of-state companies to come in and take our Georgia revenue.

90. 0:34:59

    That's why we're so o- opposed to it. We know what's coming.

91. 0:35:02

    Okay.

92. 0:35:02

    And we don't want you to be part of that, scripting the bill to send revenue and jobs and everything else back off to other states when we need it. That's how we stay in business. I understand the, the argument about punishment, but that was received the day they got arrested when they had to pay huge fines, they had to pay legal fees, they had to pay bonds, and all the other punitive action that is taken. This program was never written to be punitive. It was written to be educational, and we wanna keep it in that format.

93. 0:35:31

    Okay. And if I- I got another question real quick. Hold on.

94. 0:35:33

    Yes. Go ahead.

95. 0:35:34

    Representative Kendrick.

96. 0:35:35

    Thank you. Um, I'm unfamiliar with DUI school, so I'm, I'm trying to, to, to learn here.

97. 0:35:41

    Right.

98. 0:35:41

    So whether it's in person and online, I'm assuming at the end of a course, whether it's in person or online, you're given an assessment or some, some type of test. Is that how it, how-

99. 0:35:53

    Right

100. 0:35:54

     ... is it set up?

101. 0:35:55

     Basically, whether you're in person or you're on camera, you've just moved your location. It's effectively the exact same program. You take an assessment before you're allowed in.

102. 0:36:05

     Mm-hmm.

103. 0:36:05

     Now, we allow the assessment to be taken online. Then the intervention. For six years, our citizens have become customized. They're, they're used to that. They expect these services to be online. And now what... Look, the regulatory authority, DDS, has no problem monitoring, uh, regulating the program. In fact, it's stronger regulation because they got nine field representatives-

104. 0:36:30

     Mm-hmm

105. 0:36:30

     ... nine monitors to try to monitor 200 schools across the state. Can you imagine that? Where they can sign in on a Zoom class, it's time stamped.

106. 0:36:38

     Yes.

107. 0:36:39

     We know when someone's there. We know when they leave. We know when they participate. And the technology there now, we can even, through summary reports, know who's been interactive and who has not been. Never will you accomplish that in person. Never. The oversight is much stronger with virtual, online, interactive, instructive led. I don't want you to be ignorant to what we're hearing here today. We're talking about changing a delivery system that has been delivered and been successful for six years.

108. 0:37:09

     Why take that back? Because a few schools don't wanna move forward? I understand that. That's their choice.

109. 0:37:16

     I understand.

110. 0:37:16

     If they don't wanna adopt online, that's their choice. If they wanna maintain their in-person only status, that's their choice. If they wanna get online, that's their choice. If a, if a client needs to take DUI class that lives 100 miles away from the nearest school, what do you tell them in South Georgia who doesn't have a car, who may be, uh, uh, may be on home arrest and can't leave?

111. 0:37:40

     That's true, yes, sir.

112. 0:37:40

     Think about what we're doing to the less privileged citizens of this state.

113. 0:37:45

     So your answer is yes, that the information that you get in person and online-

114. 0:37:50

     The same

115. 0:37:50

     ... is the same thing.

116. 0:37:51

     The same.

117. 0:37:51

     Okay.

118. 0:37:52

     Same testing, same assessment, everything. What we have here is a few schools who don't like this change that we're going through. You know, my mother, years ago, wouldn't take credit cards in the business. And for years, I'd tell her, "Mom, take the credit card. I'm not paying the bank that discount fee. No way." And I said, "You, you need to make the change. We're losing customers 'cause people have an expectation." Other schools would take it. She wouldn't, right? It was about six months after I started this hard approach with her that one Saturday she had a purse full of cash in her office.

119. 0:38:25

     The UI school had just assimilated, everybody had just paid, and you know what happened? Someone from a previous class came in and, and armed robbed her of that cash. We're not talking about minor things. We're talking about school security. We're talking about female instructors who have challenges to eject people who may be intoxicated, who may be high, or who may be having other issues. We set people out both online and in person, not just for- alcohol and drugs, but we have a lot of people, ADHD, we have bipolar, all these things that make us think we need to set these people out.

120. 0:39:02

     And it's much safer to set them out in a Zoom room than it is to have a physical altercation inside the classroom. There are so many benefits to maintaining this program, and I'm not opposed if someone wants to stay in in person.

121. 0:39:14

     Mm.

122. 0:39:15

     That's their prerogative.

123. 0:39:16

     Mm.

124. 0:39:16

     But don't take away the ability for us to compete in today's market or to cross state lines. Now, he said he's not too concerned about other-

125. 0:39:25

     Mr. Barber

126. 0:39:26

     ... other states.

127. 0:39:26

     I, I hate to interrupt again.

128. 0:39:27

     That's okay. You gave me a g-

129. 0:39:29

     I, I-

130. 0:39:29

     ... a good amount of time. I appreciate it

131. 0:39:30

     ... I've got, I've got a good bit. Uh, there's another Barber on here that-

132. 0:39:33

     Yeah. We gonna clean it up for you

133. 0:39:34

     ... may bear some relationship, uh, with you, so.

134. 0:39:37

     Okay.

135. 0:39:38

     Uh, let's see.

136. 0:39:39

     Members, I really appreciate the time.

137. 0:39:41

     And thank you for coming.

138. 0:39:42

     This... Okay. Thank you.

139. 0:39:43

     Buster Barber.

140. 0:39:44

     Yes, sir.

141. 0:39:45

     Now, is this your brother, Al?

142. 0:39:47

     That's my son. Thank you.

143. 0:39:48

     Okay. All right. Yes, sir. Come on down, Buster.

144. 0:39:51

     So all questions that y'all have about driving schools I can answer. I've been running a family business for 25 years. Thank you for having me here. Uh, just talking on the safety p- perspective when you're talking about instructors and students leaving classrooms late at night, walking through dark parking lots. Uh, we had fights prior to COVID in the classroom. You have instructors have to break them up, call in law enforcement. Um, we have people that show up five or 10 minute late. DDS will not allow us to let people in that are five minutes late to class. You tell someone that not only can they not come into class, but they're gonna lose their money.

145. 0:40:23

     It's really dangerous for an instructor to tell someone that they can't come to the class, that maybe they come sh- They show up, they're 30 minutes late, they're sweating, their ride didn't show up to pick them up. These people don't have driver's licenses. They don't have the money to afford the Uber that may or may not be available in their community. And if you look up what a intervention component is, it's therapeutic education. We're past the point where we're punishing. We're past the point where we're trying to slap them on the wrist. We wanna help these people so that they don't repeat offend.

146. 0:40:55

     17% of our business came from out of state. When you essentially cut off Zoom, you, you cut off 17% of a driving school's revenue if you look at what we get. And if you're pushing people to take out of state courses, that means you're stopping money from coming into Georgia. They might take a Geo- a Texas DUI school for the state of Georgia. Why would you wanna do that? Why, why would you not want for Georgia businesses to be able to get out of state revenue?

147. 0:41:24

     Mr. Barber, I'll give you a chance to conclude.

148. 0:41:26

     Okay. Uh, in conclusion, uh, for employee safety, for customer safety, uh, for a mandated educational class to be as accessible as possible to someone that you don't want to repeat offend, uh, to, to know that we are doing it the right way, there are programs and policies that the DDS has put in place. I've made a packet that all driving schools and instructors have to sign when they have these live interactive classes, that my monitor could click on right this second and see all the participants that are there, all their faces, that they're not driving, they're not working, uh, that they can monitor from anywhere in the world versus having to drive three hours to Columbus and see if that DUI school's actually got those students in there that they're giving certificates to.

149. 0:42:13

     We remember back in the day, Dateline did a, a special on DUI schools s- selling, uh, certificates. It's, it's more regulatory oversight when you can just automatically log into a class and see what's going on, and it, and it's safer for our employees, and it's better for the small businesses.

150. 0:42:29

     Thank you, Mr. Barber. You got a question of, of... She waves. All right. Thank you for being with us today.

151. 0:42:34

     All right. I tried to fit it all in.

152. 0:42:36

     You're good.

153. 0:42:37

     Thank you.

154. 0:42:38

     Uh, Barry, did you have anything you wanted to add?

155. 0:42:40

     Would y'all like these?

156. 0:42:41

     Come on.

157. 0:42:41

     Would you like these two rules-

158. 0:42:42

     Sure. Just pass them off

159. 0:42:43

     ... that are in place? Pretty much one's the instructor and one's the program agreement, and they're all the same rules. So there's two in each so that for all y'all to see what DDS already has in place for us. There you go.

160. 0:42:55

     Go ahead, Barry.

161. 0:42:57

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. My name is Barry Schrenk, S-C-H-R-E-N-K. Been licensed to teach driver education for a little over 50 years in the State of Georgia, 35 years teaching a DUI Risk Reduction program. And, uh, uh, in all those years, I've never had that kind of problem that Mr. Barber just explained, that, uh, we needed to call out the state troopers or something there 'cause we got problems in the classroom. It usually goes pretty smoothly.

162. 0:43:28

     What we have in the State of Georgia since 1990, when it was first implemented, is a first-class Gold Star curriculum that is used, uh, for people who have problems driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. That program consists basically of four different, uh, components. The first, at the present time, is an assessment. It's 120-question, uh, assessment that the student takes before they go into class.

163. 0:43:59

     That assessment instrument is so good, there's about a 96% rate of accuracy with that assessment. Um, for example, uh, that... Okay. Anyway, uh, uh, 96%, uh, uh, accuracy with that assessment. That assessment tool is very important to the instructor because if it's a good instructor, they have looked at that assessment to see what the problems are with each individual student that's in the class.

164. 0:44:31

     That assessment is also important because about three-quarters of the way through the 20-hour class, we present that information to the student. And incidentally, we're not there as judgmental people. This is education and we're trying to help them determine whether they are, uh, addicted to alcohol or they're close to addiction, or maybe they just had a bad night for the first time in their life, but they got stopped the first time they drove drunk, which would be highly unusual, because usually somebody has driven two to 300 times before they get caught on average.

165. 0:45:04

     So Barry-

166. 0:45:05

     Yes

167. 0:45:05

     ... do you support or oppose this legislation?

168. 0:45:08

     I oppose this legislation because we have a great program. It's used, uh, our state was the first in 1990. There's now 16 other states that use this same program. It's also used by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marines, and the Coast Guard. So if a soldier in Fort Benning happens to get a DUI and they get transferred someplace else, uh, they could go to their military people and take the class there, uh, uh, uh, in person. Uh, also there's certain states like Florida, the judges there won't take a Zoom call or, or a Zoom, uh, certificate.

169. 0:45:44

     It has to be in person. There's also judges in, uh, DeKalb County that won't take it online. They want it in person. That, that class, what happens basically is the, when, when the class starts in the morning, no one talks to each other. By the end of the day, they're pretty good friends because they're all in there for the same problem. And then we do exercises with them. We'll break up the class, four here, four there, four there, what have you. And then we do those exercises, and then we go over them together.

170. 0:46:15

     So by the end of the class, the end of the course, that person knows where they are in their use of alcohol and/or drugs. And that's what it is. It's a, uh, uh, it's, it's just an excellent program. Some people have to go on and, uh, take in person, um, um, a, a role in an in-person program. But at least everybody in the class knows where they are, and that's what our job is. They have to w- they have to find out and admit to themselves before they can get other help.

171. 0:46:45

     Okay. I have a question down here.

172. 0:46:46

     That's what it's designed to do.

173. 0:46:47

     Representative Rhodes.

174. 0:46:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two questions. One, where are your schools located?

175. 0:46:53

     Uh, Tucker, Dunwoody, and East Cobb.

176. 0:46:56

     Okay. And what did you do during COVID when you couldn't be in person?

177. 0:47:02

     We were in person.

178. 0:47:05

     Really?

179. 0:47:06

     Yes. Even in the car. All the cars are wiped down. All the instructors wipe down the equipment in car, the classrooms. Now, some of the private schools where we teach our program, they were online for the, uh, for the, uh, classroom portion of it. But the rest of it, and we didn't have one case of COVID.

180. 0:47:25

     Hmm. Okay. Um,

181. 0:47:31

     do you know how many schools there are in the state of Georgia that don't offer online?

182. 0:47:37

     I don't. I don't know that.

183. 0:47:39

     Okay. I'm just curious. Thank you.

184. 0:47:42

     Good job, Barry. I see no other questions. Thank you.

185. 0:47:46

     You're in favor of this bill, right? Oh, yes, I'm in favor of the bill. Did I say I wasn't?

186. 0:47:51

     You said you weren't.

187. 0:47:51

     Oh, you know what? I'm still thinking about the Senate bill. That's a disaster.

188. 0:47:56

     It had me a little-

189. 0:47:57

     That's, that's a disaster. Excuse me.

190. 0:47:59

     Okay. Clear to stay.

191. 0:48:01

     This is a great bill.

192. 0:48:03

     Thank you, Barry.

193. 0:48:04

     You're welcome.

194. 0:48:06

     All right. Anybody else sign up that I didn't see? Okay. Going once, going twice. Thank you. We'll come back to it, Representative Mathis. All right. Next up, we're gonna go back and visit one from last session. A gentleman from Dalton, Georgia. And that would be House Bill 237. Come on down, Chairman Carpenter. Hey, now you want to stay here and revisit me? Yes, we're gonna revisit you.

195. 0:48:37

     I'll be here. We're gonna have two nights of visitation. Yes. And we won't charge you what you would for that. Oh, yeah. I won't charge you a lawyer's rate. Go ahead, Kasey.

196. 0:48:45

     Da- hey, Nancy and Danny, you might wanna stay for this one. Yep, House Bill 237 makes sure that we are, um, addressing some concern among the artists around the state that their, um, their lyrics, et cetera, are being used against them in court, um, in trial. And so this piece of legislation lays out a process that we believe will ensure that the, um, the judge allows the evidence after a meeting before trial so that the jury is not tainted with the evidence.

197. 0:49:16

     Um, passed out of committee last year. Um, nothing has changed with the substitute that was, uh, presented last year that passed. Um, obviously we had some conversations, um, with the DAs when they were here, and I'm sure they may be here to talk today. But basically it's just making sure that we're protecting our creatives to be creative and, and, and what they say in a, um, in a song is not used against them, uh, in, in, in court proceedings. And I'll yield for any questions.

198. 0:49:45

     Okay. I think we heard this ad nauseam last session.

199. 0:49:49

     Yep.

200. 0:49:50

     I see no members of the committee with questions. If you wanna slide over there, Chairman Carpenter, we'll go on to testimony. Uh, Brown Hudson, if he wanted to come down. Hey, these, it's about time to replace these chairs here. They're worn. They're being worn out.

201. 0:50:05

     Yeah, slightly.

202. 0:50:06

     He's on his way. Okay, he's on his way. Anybody else sign up for this that I'm just too blind to see? Oh, hey, come on down, DA McGinley.

203. 0:50:17

     We had a good time with this thing last year, didn't we? I'll be quick. I'll give myself my, a, a minute limit, even if you were not going to. I feel like you were going to, though, so uh, Randy McGinley, I'm the DA in the Oconee Circuit. Um, I think we discussed this last year. I think some of the issues are, um, what is creative artistic expression? I mean, frankly, we just tried a case in Walton County last, two weeks ago, that somebody could get up there and say, "I created artistic expression. It's a video of me having sex with an eight-year-old little girl." And then have, we'd have to argue that. And I, if we think that people, defendants are not going to say those things, I- They're going to.

204. 0:50:50

     Um, but in general, this idea that it is a basically rebuttable presumption that is not admissible, DAs are not using rap w- we're not prosecuting people for their lyrics, their music lyrics. We're using lyrics as evidence in the prosecution of the case. There's a big difference between those things. Um, and again, making this a re- a r- rebuttable presumption that it is not admissible is treating it vastly different than any other type of evidence that we have and that we use in cases in criminal court. Um, so with that, I'll yield any questions.

205. 0:51:24

     You had eight seconds to spare. Good job.

206. 0:51:26

     I'll take that eight seconds to, uh, wish my wife, in case she's watching, a happy birthday, if that's all right.

207. 0:51:30

     Oh. Oh. That's proper. That's impressive. Hold on. Hold on one second. You got a question. Okay, I do have a question. Try to get away without a question. Well, happy birthday to her as well. All right. Representative Kendrick. Here instead. Yeah.

208. 0:51:43

     Oh, thank you. So, um, I believe you testified at the last committee we had. So you don't like rebuttable pres- presumptions-

209. 0:51:50

     Mm-mm

210. 0:51:50

     ... I'm, I'm assuming.

211. 0:51:52

     No, I, I, just, it's treating it completely different than any other type of evidence. It, it should be treated just like any other evidence, and if the, the defense wants to file a motion and try to exclude it under 403 or, like, which is the prejudice weighing thing, or that it's not relevant, defense attorneys do that all the time when they think that evidence should not be used by the prosecution. They can file a motion and we can treat it just like any other type of evidence.

212. 0:52:12

     So if that was ... So that is your only problem with the bill, is the way that it is treated? You don't have a issue with the heart of the, of what the bill is trying to do, you just don't like the way it's treated in evidence?

213. 0:52:28

     I don't know if I see the difference with those things, though, frankly. Um, I, I, I mean, to me, the heart of the bill is treating it different than other types of evidence. And when, when you say the, the broad definition of artistic expression evidence could encompass all sorts of things. I know they exclude, like, gang signs.

214. 0:52:45

     Mm-hmm.

215. 0:52:45

     But what if somebody is doing a video of him and his gang members together? I ... And he calls it artistic expression. I mean, to me, that is, why are we treating that different than any other type of evidence?

216. 0:52:56

     Okay, I understand your argument. Thank you.

217. 0:52:59

     No other questions.

218. 0:53:00

     All right.

219. 0:53:00

     Thank you.

220. 0:53:01

     Thank y'all.

221. 0:53:02

     All right. Uh, Brian Hudson.

222. 0:53:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This seems to be a regular occurrence in this committee. Uh, I am here to support, uh, Rep- uh, Chairman Carpenter's legislation. Uh, excuse me, I just ran over here from the LOB. I apologize. Um, my name is Brian Hudson. I am here on behalf of The Recording Academy, which, uh, as many may kn- might know, they put on the Grammys. And I also represent the Recording Industry Association of America, which is the record companies, as well as Georgia Music Partners. And so we've been working with Chairman Carpenter for a couple years, I think, on this legislation.

223. 0:53:46

     And so I'm just rising to support the legislation, and happy to answer any questions.

224. 0:53:52

     Seeing no questions. Thank you.

225. 0:53:53

     Thank you. Sorry I was late.

226. 0:53:54

     If it had been anybody else that wasn't as fit as you are, we wouldn't have done that to you.

227. 0:53:59

     You're so kind. Thank you.

228. 0:54:00

     All right. I see no questions. All right. Anybody else signed up to this? Okay. Seeing none, what say the committee? Oh, number seven. No, I was just gonna make a motion. Okay. I'll entertain motion. Motion to pass.

229. 0:54:17

     Second.

230. 0:54:18

     Move to pass and second. Any discussion? Seeing none. See no amendments. All right. I got a move and a second that House Bill 237 do pass. All those in favor say aye.

231. 0:54:34

     Aye.

232. 0:54:35

     All those opposed same sign.

233. 0:54:36

     No, no.

234. 0:54:37

     Ayes have it. You're on the rules. Get that form to me today, Representative.

235. 0:54:41

     I will do. Have a good day, guys. Hitting the highway. Thank you for world.

236. 0:54:49

     See you for the last trip. Is, uh, Chairman Gullett with us?

237. 0:54:52

     I'm here.

238. 0:54:54

     That was perfect timing. I will allow you to present from right there, Chairman Gullett.

239. 0:54:59

     Fantastic. I appreciate that.

240. 0:55:00

     What number are you?

241. 0:55:01

     Uh, 12.

242. 0:55:02

     Okay. And this is, uh, House Bill 1432.

243. 0:55:08

     One second while I find the legislation, sir. All right.

244. 0:55:13

     Yep, so this is LC443481. Um, we currently have an oversight, legislative oversight committee for public defenders today. Um, there is a short amount of time that appointees can happen for that oversight commission. Um, and when people leave the commission or the committee, uh, there's no method for reappointing people until that opening slot of, I think, 10 days from the start of the first year of a session.

245. 0:55:47

     And so what this bill does is it allows a way for, uh, replacement appointees to happen, which is in line 20, um, for a vacancy. Um, and then additionally, you'll see on line 42, uh, we just change it to it should be ill- unlawful for the council and director to fail to cooperate with such committee. Um, happy to entertain a, um, if this doesn't move forward, happy to entertain a, an amendment to say or, so council or director, um, instead of an and there. But, um, again, this is just a, a legislative oversight committee, just freshening it up so we can actually make it active, uh, and use it today.

246. 0:56:28

     That change would be on which line there, Chairman Gullett?

247. 0:56:32

     Yeah, line 42.

248. 0:56:33

     Yes.

249. 0:56:33

     Uh, the council says it shall be unlawful for the council. Striking and, and putting or director.

250. 0:56:43

     Okay, I got a question over here. Number five, Representative Neal.

251. 0:56:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. Um, so I just had a question about line 42. Um, pardon my ignorance, but, uh, so when you add, "It shall be unlawful"

252. 0:56:56

     for the council and/or director to fail to cooperate, is there like a penalty? Like, I feel like it's, it's incomplete, like, unlawful. What's, what's like a-

253. 0:57:07

     It just, it's a misdemeanor.

254. 0:57:08

     Misdemeanor.

255. 0:57:09

     Yeah.

256. 0:57:09

     Does that need to be in here or like-

257. 0:57:11

     No, I think that's just the way the law... When it's unlawful for something, it is a misdemeanor.

258. 0:57:15

     Understanding.

259. 0:57:20

     Okay.

260. 0:57:20

     Okay. I see no other questions at this moment. All right. Let's see.

261. 0:57:29

     Uh, Chris Cahalis, Cahalis?

262. 0:57:33

     Cahilas.

263. 0:57:33

     Cahilas, come on down.

264. 0:57:38

     I don't think we've had anybody from your office ever grace us before.

265. 0:57:44

     From which office?

266. 0:57:45

     From your o- Are you from the central office?

267. 0:57:47

     No. No, no. I'm the chairperson for the Georgia Public Defender Standards Council.

268. 0:57:51

     Outstanding.

269. 0:57:52

     I'm a, I'm a private attorney in Albany, Georgia. Um, former county commission chairman for eight years in Dougherty County. Um, former prosecutor for seven years.

270. 0:58:04

     Well, God bless you.

271. 0:58:05

     Prosecuted-

272. 0:58:06

     Go ahead.

273. 0:58:06

     Yeah. Um, prosecuting crimes against women and children for seven years. Um, first of all, Chairman, uh, Committee, I want to thank you for the time to be here and to address this matter. Um, there are two changes in, uh, bill number 14-32 that are dealt with. Uh, the first is dealing with vacancies. I'm not here to advocate one way or the other. However a legislative oversight occurs or however this body wants to do that, that's its own business.

274. 0:58:38

     Uh, that's not something that, um, I'm here to quibble with. I wanted to talk about, though, the practical impact of what is being proposed, and also to talk about, um, historically what has happened. Um, historically speaking, it used to be that the council was a strong operational council, where it had a lot of operational authority. It was able to, to, you know, take control of the everyday goings on of the organization. That didn't work out very well, and ultimately it was brought within the executive branch.

275. 0:59:12

     The council is more of an advisory board. Uh, we oversee certain things, but we don't manage day-to-day operations. Uh, that being said, uh, the language that's being proposed, I understand completely the good place that it's coming from, but I'm here to talk about the law of unintended consequences. Uh, there is a natural conflict that occurs between the Public Defender Standards Council and other agencies, other people, other entities that often sue us, including the Southern Center for Human Rights, uh, that we've been sued multiple times by that organization, and we've actually seen it partner with other state organizations that have tried to actually and obtain attorney-client privileged materials.

276. 1:00:01

     I mean, that's-

277. 1:00:01

     Chris, we've run out of time, but I do wanna get into this a little bit. Um, as far as the bill, you mentioned an amendment. Uh, what was your thoughts? I think it was about vacancy, lines 20 through 23. Could you enlighten us as to what you would change in that?

278. 1:00:19

     No. I, I don't have any, any issue with 20 through 23. Just historically speaking, um, I don't think that there's been a, um, a lot of coordination as it relates to the o- oversight committee. I would know that historically speaking, we've had appointees from the Senate. I don't know that we've had people that we've been able to interact with or the director's been able to interact with from, from the House. Obviously, there's been renewed interest there. We don't take issue with that. The issue that we take issue with are lines 42 through 43, which you have these vague terms of cooperation and shall be unlawful for.

279. 1:00:57

     And if you have professionals that are taking principled positions about what is or is not capable of being released, and you have volunteers such as myself and many other private attorneys that are volunteering their time to serve as public servants, and they're being potentially, potentially threatened with a misdemeanor if a principled position is taken, uh, I think this is something that should go back to a study committee. I think that the, the appropriate consequences should be realized, and what you're gonna end up doing is running off some very good people, respectfully.

280. 1:01:31

     Well, with all due respect, we've got a pretty dire constitutional issue down in, I believe it's the Camilla or Cordele. I've got two-

281. 1:01:42

     Oh, I'm very familiar

282. 1:01:43

     ... family down there. A- and so I, I would say this, the chair is very empathetic to this piece of legislation because the response from the head of this department was absolutely abysmal. And so I understand your point and unintended consequences, but our system is just a gnat's hairs breadth away from having lawsuits filed across the state. In my home circuit alone, we are very, very close to having private counsel appointed.

283. 1:02:16

     Now, I've been at a firm before that took contracts in nine different counties. I'm very empathetic to the public defenders, but I, I think part of this is we're having a very hard time getting our message through to that department. So I think this is the first time we've ever had somebody from the council come while I've been chair, and I thank you for that. This is not directed at you.

284. 1:02:38

     I totally understand that. I'm also very familiar with the situation in Cordele, and if you wanna talk about that later or now-

285. 1:02:44

     Sure

286. 1:02:44

     ... or some other time, I'm happy to-

287. 1:02:45

     We can talk offline about it.

288. 1:02:46

     Sure, sure. Be happy to.

289. 1:02:48

     Okay. Chairman Gullett.

290. 1:02:49

     I'll just say today the current law says the council and director shall cooperate with such committee. It's already a requirement today to co- to cooperate We're just making it to where when we're, we don't feel like there's cooperation happening, 'cause it's already in the law to shall, there's just no penalty for it. And so there is a penalty for not cooperating. That's the, that is the gist. You're already supposed to do it. It's a shall in there. It's not a may. And this just is, is just reaffirming that you sh- you shall cooperate with us or it could be a misdemeanor.

291. 1:03:26

     Now, the legislature does not co- we don't prosecute, as you know. That would g- that'd fall to a solicitor, uh, to go make that happen, and that's a, that's a high threshold probably to happen. But this is something I think is important, uh, part of the bill where we need cooperation, and this is just, uh, you know, stressing we need cooperation that we don't get.

292. 1:03:46

     Well, I, I fully understand and what I'm, uh, very humbly suggesting... Look, I'm here to support transparency. I've been a prosecutor. I've been an elected official. Your positions, I, I appreciate your, your public service. Uh, the reality is, though, there is a component of discretion and certain principle decisions that do have to be made as it relates to attorney-client privilege. Who determines what cooperation is? Who determines what information is capable of being-

293. 1:04:13

     This, it's already there. You already shall cooperate. We're not defining... We didn't add the word cooper- cooperate. That's already been there. Um, we just, we just upped the ante on saying that's, that's-

294. 1:04:24

     Yeah

295. 1:04:24

     ... it's unlawful not to do it.

296. 1:04:25

     It-

297. 1:04:25

     Which it should be unlawful. We, this is a oversight committee, and if you're not cooperating, I don't know how you can do oversight.

298. 1:04:30

     Well, there, and there are also laws that, um, that conflict sometimes with the requirements of the state bar, uh, particularly as it relates to confidentiality. And I've seen these conflicts play out, and I'm not being argumentative. I'm just saying there are conflicts that occur, and when you have professionals that have to guard their licenses, when you're potentially liable for a misdemeanor, it is, has a remarkable chilling effect. And I, I just, I think there's probably a way to find a solution, uh, to all this, and, uh, those are my humble remarks.

299. 1:05:00

     Thank you.

300. 1:05:01

     Chris, uh, no more questions. Uh, thank you for coming by today. That was not directed at you.

301. 1:05:07

     Sure.

302. 1:05:07

     It's just I, I've been incensed at what's going on, not only in one circuit, but across others that I hear. Uh, so thank you for being with us. Hope to talk with you again. Um, and you have no more questions.

303. 1:05:20

     All right. Thank you very much.

304. 1:05:22

     All right. That's all I have signed up, I think. Um, I'll entertain motion. Move to pass. Move to pass. Do I hear a second?

305. 1:05:31

     Second.

306. 1:05:31

     All right, move to pass and second. See no amendments. All those... Amendment. Oh, okay. All right. One second. Okay. What are you talking about? Go ahead.

307. 1:05:43

     The and, I mean, changing and to or, line 42.

308. 1:05:47

     Okay.

309. 1:05:47

     The council or director.

310. 1:05:51

     So it would read, instead of an and there on line 42, it would be an or.

311. 1:05:56

     That's correct.

312. 1:05:58

     Okay. Everybody hear the Gullett amendment?

313. 1:06:00

     Second.

314. 1:06:01

     All right, move or second on the Gullett amendment. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the Gullett amendment say aye. Aye.

315. 1:06:07

     Aye.

316. 1:06:07

     All right. Back to the bills, Hall. Seeing no other amendments, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1432, LC 443481 as amended, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations, you're on to rules. Ayes have it. Okay. Uh, Representative Leverett, I'll let you present from right there where you're at, House Bill 997.

317. 1:06:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, House Bill 997 was presented to the committee several weeks ago. This is a bill that would, well, as filed, would have increased the per diem reimbursement to counties and county jails for housing state inmates. It currently, the statutory rate is $7.50 per day, plus such additional amount as is appropriated. We were proposing to raise that to 50 a day, plus any additional amount we might appropriate. Um, and then we also had some limits on transport, and we applied that rule, um, uh, to, um, Department of Community Services for if we were housing people who were i- in, in jail, in a county jail, um, on a probation, uh, warrant, and, uh, to the Department of Corrections and also to Pardons and Paroles 'cause we sometimes do hold, uh, probationers who have been revoked, uh, in county jails.

318. 1:07:27

     The substitute, uh, uh, tempered that zeal substantially to try to make it a little more palatable. We got a fiscal note, Mr. Chairman, thank you for requesting that, and it would've largely broke the bank, uh, of the state budget to do that, um, which I, I... And I'm, I'm, uh, would acknowledge the reality of that. I don't wanna break the state budget, but I would submit that someone's paying those costs, and right now it's our counties and our sheriffs' budgets. And so I, I still think further attention is needed, but in the hopes that I could at least try to make some incremental change, what I've done in, in LC 630129S, that's the substitute before you today, is, um, we made a couple of changes.

319. 1:08:10

     The main one is where the statutory rate of 750, uh, was going to be changed to 50, w- I've changed it to 30 per day, plus such amount as may be appropriated. So that's basically the going rate for reimbursement that Department of, uh, Corrections pays. I believe that is more, uh, my understanding is, is Pardons and Paroles only pays 15, so that would constitute an increase for them, but they were the, um, uh, I guess I would say they're, they're sort of the lesser frequent flyer, uh, customer when it comes to housing people in, in county jails.

320. 1:08:44

     And then in the first section, we had a provision that would have, uh, basically said that, that probationers couldn't be held in county jails for more than 30 days unless you had the consent of the sheriff, and that was because frequently they stay there much, much longer. And some, um, there's a practice also of submitting waivers where the, uh, someone who's been revoked and is in a county jail signs a waiver that allows them to serve a certain amount of time and be done completely, but they stay in the county jail, which is not really where they're supposed to stay if they've had a disposition of their probation revocation.

321. 1:09:17

     So, uh, what I did is on line 37, I changed that S- 30 days to 60 days, so they could stay there for up to 60 days. That should give, uh, correct, uh, the community service enough time to collect them or make some disposition. Um, and then we did add language in 38 through 42 that basically says the, the, the sheriff should not be responsible for any transport of those, uh, probationers. Um, and I have requested an updated fiscal note, but I don't believe Department of Community Service has gotten the information to the Department of Audit yet to do that.

322. 1:09:54

     But it's my understanding that they already have ample personnel and vehicles to take care of that issue. To the extent there is some additional expenditure required, that's something I think we can try to address through the appropriations process. Um, so we tried to sort of, uh, for lack of a better word, mellow the bill down quite a bit, Mr. Chairman, so it might be less, um, impactful on the state budget and more, hopefully more acceptable. Um, it doesn't do as much for the sheriffs, but, um, our poor sheriffs are at the point where they'll, you know...

323. 1:10:25

     E- any small victory is yet a victory for them, 'cause they've been forced to com- to pay these expenses for so long. And so that's the substitute, Mr. Chairman.

324. 1:10:37

     Usually a revenue bill such as this would go through a different committee, but this seems to be a bill that we don't get too often where we can save the taxpayers money in each one, every one of our counties. Isn't that true?

325. 1:10:48

     That, well, that's exactly, that's the goal here, um, Mr. Chairman. You've hit it on the head.

326. 1:10:52

     Okay. All right. See no questions from members of the committee.

327. 1:11:00

     Anyone signed up?

328. 1:11:04

     Nobody signed up.

329. 1:11:05

     Yep.

330. 1:11:06

     Oh, yes. Come on down.

331. 1:11:07

     I didn't sign up, but may I speak for a minute? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

332. 1:11:11

     Sure.

333. 1:11:11

     I'm Terry Norris. I'm executive director of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. Uh, my 44th year of enjoying the, a session of the General Assembly. Uh, most of you, or a lot of you were in middle school when I started. Uh, you, uh, you, the, the chairman and I talked-

334. 1:11:28

     I was on my second kid at that point.

335. 1:11:30

     Second, okay.

336. 1:11:30

     Keep going.

337. 1:11:31

     Anyway, 44 years ago now. So anyway, um, very briefly, uh, had an opportunity to speak to the subcommittee on this matter. This is not a new issue. This has been going on for my entire career. It's changed a little bit over the last 16 years due to criminal justice reform and, uh, efforts in the state to keep people out of prison, give them second chances. So a lot of people get on probation. Um, the, the, the part of the bill... Well, let me say it this way. We're asking for a morsel.

338. 1:12:02

     Um, the counties have never been adequately reimbursed for state inmates in county jails. Uh, the code, as the chairman said, is 750 now. Uh, the appropriation process allowed for more, but certainly not the amount that was needed to compensate or to pay the cost of these, uh, inmates in county jails that our local property taxpayers pay through our county governing authorities. So this is a step in the right direction to get us to a point where, you know, it's closer to the actual cost of housing inmates.

339. 1:12:35

     And as you, uh, well can imagine, we're talking about mental health costs, we're talking about medical costs, we're talking about food, everything that inmates have a right to have. So this, this will help in that regard. On the matter of, uh, probation violators, there's never been a reimbursement for probation violators housed in a county jail until the point they were revoked to prison and became a full-fledged state inmate. Uh, this bill does contemplate reimbursement there, but as im- important is the fact that when, when CJ reform came through, there was some wonderful things that happened.

340. 1:13:14

     One thing that happened, it allowed the Department of Community Service, uh, Supervision to, uh, select from administrative sanctions. So say a judge in a... And all these are felony cases. So a judge in a felony case would sentence someone to probation. Uh, that person would be on probation for a while, maybe not be successful, uh, go back before the judge. Uh, the judge would say, "We're gonna sentence you to a treatment center or a probation detention center." There are not a whole lot of those, so they're spread throughout the state.

341. 1:13:48

     So this person would, uh, sit in a county jail, awaiting a bed at a treatment center or a probation detention center. So one important aspect of this bill is heretofore sheriff, uh, community service supervisors, probation officers, would let the sheriff know you need to take this person to some faraway location. There is no reason that probation officers can't make these transports themselves. In some cases, when we're talking about treatment centers, we would have stories from sheriffs who say, "We took them to the RSAT center.

342. 1:14:23

     They stayed two days. They failed out, and now they want us to go get them."

343. 1:14:26

     Terry, I'll give you a chance to conclude. We're a little over time-

344. 1:14:29

     Okay

345. 1:14:29

     ... but wanted to hear your perspective.

346. 1:14:30

     Yeah. I'm good. Thank you.

347. 1:14:31

     You, you can finish.

348. 1:14:32

     I'm finished.

349. 1:14:33

     Okay. I'll-

350. 1:14:33

     If you say I am. If you say I'm finished, Chairman, I'm finished.

351. 1:14:38

     That's what I love about sheriffs.

352. 1:14:39

     All right. Thank you.

353. 1:14:40

     All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that perspective. Okay. Chris, come on.

354. 1:14:48

     That's fine.

355. 1:14:52

     That's fine.

356. 1:14:52

     Philip, I'm sorry.

357. 1:14:53

     That's all right, sir.

358. 1:14:54

     Go ahead.

359. 1:14:55

     Uh, good afternoon. Sorry. Good afternoon. My name is Philip Hinson. I'm the government relations coordinator for the Department of Community Supervision. Uh, with respect to the substitute, uh, I believe Chairman Leverett, you had referenced taking some of the language out for the reimbursement of probationers. That language is still in the bill. It is lines 138 to 149,

360. 1:15:22

     as well as possibly 176 to 181

361. 1:15:30

     And Mr. Chairman, I believe I provided a copy of a handout to the committee. Uh, we did a snapshot to look at how many DCS supervisees are in county jails across the state. We reviewed every jail roster to get this information for the committee. Uh, just to, uh, put it in perspective, 9,048 of the 41,279 county inmates were DCS supervisees. That represents about 21.92% of the total jail population. 97% of those are probationers. I will note that probation is a judicially mandated community sentence, and it remains under the jurisdiction and authority of the superior court judge until revocation or sentence completion.

362. 1:16:08

     Uh, with respect to section one of the bill, uh, we'll note that's the Georgia Probation Management Act. It was implemented in, I believe, 2004 or 2005 with the explicit intent of reducing jail utilizations. Uh, under POM, DCS must serve a POM waiver or hold a hearing within 15 days of arrest. I will note that the key word in this is options. So the way POM works is the superior court judge has the option at any point to enter, uh, into the Probation Options Management system, which allows DCS to address the violation.

363. 1:16:42

     It doesn't change anything that happens prior to an arrest. It just allows DCS to address the violation without conducting a court hearing. Uh, on average, uh, a non-POM technical violation spends 99 days in jail. A POM technical violation spends 31 days in jail. So it's about a 69% reduction in jail time, and we're only talking about, uh, technical violations. So we're not talking about new felony offenses, we're not talking about violent misdemeanors, and we're not talking about DUIs. Uh, we'll note also, though, uh, despite its effectiveness at reducing jail stays, only 18% of probation cases are POM cases.

364. 1:17:16

     Uh, with the addition of the transport language in the substitute, uh, we are working on the fiscal note, Chairman Leverett. Uh, there is going to be a cost. We don't have, uh, transport officers. We don't have all of our vehicles aren't caged vehicles, so we'd have to get those vehicles caged. It would also be, uh, an additional, uh, requirement for our supervision officers to handle these transports. Uh, so we are working on those. Uh, I will note, though, that transports are typically ordered by the superior court judge, not by DCS. So...

365. 1:17:47

     Thank you, sir.

366. 1:17:47

     All right.

367. 1:17:49

     Uh-

368. 1:17:50

     May I?

369. 1:17:50

     Yes, sir.

370. 1:17:54

     Which one are you?

371. 1:17:55

     I'm gonna try. I can't... This one. I think you can cut it on. I can never get it.

372. 1:18:01

     Never mind. It is.

373. 1:18:02

     Thank, thank you. I appreciate your testimony. And to, as to that, uh, language, you're correct. That, that does need to be stricken. I did strike the language that would have implied that, I think, in the first section. I th- I think the concern that I'm hearing is despite what your data supposedly shows, some of your officers are having inmates in county facilities after they've been there more than just 30 days sign waivers that allow them to complete their, to serve time, to, to expunge their sentence, and do it in a county facility, which is not, I think, the state policy for doing.

374. 1:18:37

     But when they sign that waiver, it, it, it effectively, it, it has the impact a- as if it were a court order, and that's happening. I know it's happening, and my, th- that was sort of one of the main reasons for my filing the bill is one of my sheriffs came to me, and that was the, that was the main problem he had. Not so much with corrections, but with DCS.

375. 1:18:57

     Yes, sir. I think that's, uh... So those are consent waivers. And I will, again, just to reiterate, DCS cannot unilaterally revoke anyone to a county facility. Even with a consent waiver, it typically has to be signed off by the, uh, the probationer, their attorney, the DA, as well as the s- uh, s- sentencing court.

376. 1:19:13

     But who does it originate with? I think it originates with one of your officers.

377. 1:19:16

     It originates as a recommendation. Sometimes it's from DCS. Sometimes it's b- in consultation with the, uh, the DA.

378. 1:19:23

     So, well, that's one thing I would like to stop. I, I, I don't think it's appropriate for anyone in your department to suggest that a state felony probationer serve a sentence in order to, you know, uh, uh, com- complete his sentence in a county facility. It should be in a state facility.

379. 1:19:44

     Well-

380. 1:19:44

     So that's, that's, that's one thing I'd like to hit at with the bill, with your cooperation.

381. 1:19:50

     I'll make note of that, sir.

382. 1:19:51

     Thank you.

383. 1:19:52

     See no other questions. Thank you.

384. 1:19:53

     All right. Thank you, sir.

385. 1:19:54

     Right now, we're gonna take a restroom break. We'll be back in 10.

386. 1:20:01

     So we'll be, we'll stand at ease for 10 minutes.

387. 1:22:11

     Yeah. Yeah. That's good.

388. 1:28:24

     In order.

389. 1:28:34

     All right. Chairman Leverett, I'll give you the last word.

390. 1:28:41

     Order.

391. 1:28:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I think if, if the committee is inclined to act on the bill, I think I've got some amendments that should address the concerns of the Department of Community, um, uh, not Service, Department of Community, um-

392. 1:28:58

     Supervision

393. 1:28:58

     ... Supervision. Thank you.

394. 1:29:00

     All in unison.

395. 1:29:02

     Okay.

396. 1:29:03

     DCS, DCS.

397. 1:29:03

     DCS, yeah.

398. 1:29:05

     Okay. We'll need a move to get in that posture. Move. All right, got a move. Do we pass?

399. 1:29:11

     Second.

400. 1:29:11

     Second. All right. Chairman Leverett, amendment.

401. 1:29:14

     All right. Mr. Chairman, I would move we amend House Bill 997 LC 63-0129S in the following particulars. We would strike, um, on line 129, strike everything, s- strike the text. We'd leave the number 2 in, but strike reimbursement under paragraph one of the subsection shall apply as follows, and then delete the, uh, paragraph heading A.

402. 1:29:45

     One more time.

403. 1:29:46

     We would delete ... Well, I'm ... Uh, no, I'm sorry. We are gonna keeping A and B. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Pardon me. Strike that. We are, we are keeping everything on 129 and 130. We are deleting lines 138 through 149,

404. 1:30:03

     and then deleting lines 176 through 181.

405. 1:30:16

     And I guess we, on 150, we would need to renumber the 4 as 3.

406. 1:30:24

     Okay, one more time from the top.

407. 1:30:26

     All right. W- we will delete lines 138 through 149. We, on line 150, we would renumber the paragraph heading of 4 as number 3, and then we would delete lines 176 through 181.

408. 1:30:57

     And that's the amendments, Chair.

409. 1:30:59

     Second. I got motion and second on Leverett amendment. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of Leverett amendment say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. Any other amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 997 as amended, which has the LC 63-0129S, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. You're on the rolls, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

410. 1:31:30

     Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

411. 1:31:34

     For planning purposes, at the request of Chairman Hagan, we have taken House Bill 1142 off. It will be back on for Thursday.

412. 1:31:49

     All right. Representative, uh, Rick Townsend, House Bill 968.

413. 1:32:02

     You can go ahead when ready.

414. 1:32:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

415. 1:32:09

     I just want to say thank you, committee, again for hearing this. I know some of you s- hear Kratom, and everybody runs from me. So I apologize now. My wife does that, too, so you're in good company. But again, thank you very much. Uh, I'm just gonna wrap up some things that was said last meeting when we talked about the research. That's what you have to go back to. We understand that one of the biggest points made was there needs to be more research, and we know this is used a lot of times, even though they're not supposed to, FDA, for, uh, pain meds or, uh, aches and pains or other illnesses we've heard, uh, from, about.

416. 1:32:43

     But yet it is, it, it, it's kind of backwards. We've approved something before we have good research. Unfortunately, there's only two schools in the southeast that I know of that has any research at all coming into this. One's University of Georgia, Dr. Merle Norton. If you remember an email he sent before in the past, he, he does not, uh ... He, he is for banning it. Right now, he does believe long-term there may be some use for it, but he says there's not enough research out there. That comes from, uh, one of the leading pharmacist researchers in the country.

417. 1:33:14

     We know Dr. Gritton from University of Florida, they have a lot of research. They talk about it as dangerous for j- guys like me who walk in off the street, where my buddy, uh, works out all the time and says, "Hey, Rick, you can take this, you know, when you work out." I feel great when I do, and I have less aches and pains. I take it, and I see my favorite gas station clerk, and I'm taking blood pressure medicine, and it could cause cardiac arrest. Seizure medicine, blood pressure medicine, pregnant women, other type medications, again, this has all been documented where it interacts with these.

418. 1:33:52

     It, it's not a good spot to be in, uh- when you're just walking off the street. Dr. Joe Mendez and the, Dr. Lopez in the past, George Pors and Catrell, his assistant, who also was a Grady guy, Patrick Felkins talked about Russian roulette. Again, when you take that bottle of kratom off the counter, is it too strong? Did the manufacturer trick us? Right now we're guessing, I'm saying guessing because we're still doing the data with the police department's confiscate some of it, is over the amounts allowed in current, current law.

419. 1:34:27

     And that again is Russian roulette. Is it safe for the average person? Dr. Eastham spoke last time. He's also a registered pharmacist. He's an orthopedic doctor, talked about the dangers of the alkaloids inside kratom and how it's affecting his son and his family. It's torn up his family. You also have, uh, Judge McMillan who testified, probate judge in Bradley County, tore up his family, former sheriff. Also, uh, you saw the West Georgia people here, the district attorney and the officers talking about what it's doing to the West Georgia ar- area and your area, Mr.

420. 1:35:00

     Chair. It's, it's tearing, tearing things up. One of the things recently in Glenn County that's happened, and this-

421. 1:35:08

     Representative Townsend, I hate to cut you short.

422. 1:35:10

     May I go quick?

423. 1:35:10

     We, uh, here's what I want you to address is the substitute-

424. 1:35:14

     It is substitute-

425. 1:35:15

     ... that you introduced

426. 1:35:15

     ... so yes, substitute. The biggest part of the substitute basically was we listened to PAC to make it, uh, where they could prosecute in Georgia for this bill. It is for a ban, and I could tell you more later if you want. But this is kind of, right now there's other states doing it as well, and it's affected a lot of people, even recently.

427. 1:35:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

428. 1:35:38

     Okay. We've got questions. Representative Roberts.

429. 1:35:41

     Yes, ma'am.

430. 1:35:42

     Okay, I wasn't in the subcommittee meeting, so, um, can you just... This is a complete ban of any form?

431. 1:35:48

     Th- this is a ban, yes, ma'am.

432. 1:35:50

     So when we did the leaf form before-

433. 1:35:53

     Yeah, we, yeah, we did before. We regulated it down to a lower strength. We got it behind the regular counter. We got a, um, 21 years old. Um, and, uh, right now based on what's happening out there in the community, we still need more. Uh, but you've got one of the major researchers at University of Florida is like, "Rick, you've got to get it out of gas stations if nothing else. It's dangerous in gas stations and places like that." It's-

434. 1:36:17

     I could agree with that part

435. 1:36:18

     ... real dangerous. And so, um, and he's a leading researcher for them. He's, uh, Florida's done a good job and Georgia of leading that research.

436. 1:36:28

     Representative Panitch.

437. 1:36:31

     Hi.

438. 1:36:31

     Hey.

439. 1:36:32

     I know you and I have talked about this-

440. 1:36:33

     We have

441. 1:36:33

     ... a lot-

442. 1:36:34

     We have

443. 1:36:34

     ... on the floor.

444. 1:36:34

     And I appreciate your talking.

445. 1:36:37

     Thank you. Um, are you not amenable to amending it to allow it to be, uh, available for people with a medical li- or for people under a doctor's care or put it behind the pharmacy like we do with other substances that are subject to abuse?

446. 1:36:54

     Yeah, I'm not sure if there's a way to do what you talked about the first option, uh, where you could, um, allow someone with a doctor's note, because we tried that. That was one of the first things I tried was could a doctor prescribe it? Right now there's not enough research, and that's the problem. Usually, when you get a medication approved, you go through all this research first, then they say it's safe for the general public. Well, unfortunately, they've just now started that research, so we don't know if it's safe or not. That's the problem, and that's why they won't let us do that.

447. 1:37:22

     So then without-

448. 1:37:23

     But the s- part two question, you could actually could, uh, if, if the committee so chose, um, that was a where you could put it behind a pharmacy counter so they could ask the pharmacist if it's, um, would hurt... Like, for me, if I walked in and tried to buy it, it was like I'm on blood pressure medicine.

449. 1:37:40

     Right.

450. 1:37:40

     I've been on it since I donated a kidney, and they told me I would, I'd be on it. And, uh, they could, that, that is an option where you could do that and do some other things like outdoor advertising, limit that, or ban it, and that would, that would not ban the substance itself, but you would have that, um, you'd have to go inside a pharmacy to get it, and behind the counter too and 21 and all that, a lot of restrictions, and that'd be natural leaf and all that. Preference based on, we just had a kid named Andrew Wood, just died. Walked, the sheriff's office in Glenn County, they, they walked in and said, "What happened?" She said, "He walked to the counter.

451. 1:38:14

     He said he thought it was safe because it was sold over the counter," and he just died in the past two weeks. Glenn County, the constituent-based bill. So that's, that's why I'm still sticking with the ban. Uh, the community wants it. I represent my community, and, uh, that's definitely my first option.

452. 1:38:31

     Thank you.

453. 1:38:33

     Representative Kendrick.

454. 1:38:34

     Yes. Thank you. So I was in the subcommittee, and I know we had a lot of testimony about, um, some benefits, uh, from kratom, particularly, um, from, uh, almost the, the pure form of it, and I'm not a pharmacist-

455. 1:38:48

     That's okay

456. 1:38:49

     ... so I, I won't go into trying to pronounce the derivatives of it. But a lot of it, um, it, a lot of the complaints for kratom seem to be because there was different substances and other things added to the pure kratom that was causing some of the side effects. Um, so for those of you that were not in subcommittee, I just wanted to point that out. But this, this bill would ban, um, it in its entirety, not just things that were added to kratom, but even the pure form of the kratom, correct?

457. 1:39:20

     Correct. And if I can add to that with, uh, what you talked about the substance, uh, if it can go, like, doctor, I had Dr. Norton look at the research, and you have, I can get you that research. But basically, there's not the research, like, for how many natural leaves is it okay to put in a cup of coffee or tea? And these pills, even 10 natural leaves of natural kratom's not good. That's a lot of leaves. And so y- you can't cut it down and cut it down and cut it down. It just hasn't been effective, and that, that's the whole issue.

458. 1:39:51

     And now there's other states too that I could name if you want me to about who's banned it. It's growing.

459. 1:40:00

     Do you have a follow-up or you-

460. 1:40:02

     Uh, n- no, I just think that there's a big difference between s- the synthetic, um, and the pure leaf kratom, so I'll offer an amendment at the appropriate time.

461. 1:40:13

     Representative Neal. Okay.

462. 1:40:15

     Thank you. I'll make this brief because, uh, looking forward to not having to deal with kratom anymore. Um, but, um, I know we keep... No, not we. I know you keep mentioning, um, research, not enough research to kind of keep it out, but I think this is what we were pushing back the last time. There's not enough research to ban it completely either, 'cause, you know, we had all this testimony where it was inconsistent across the board. And so that's why we, you know, we're more amicable to what we did before as opposed to doing a full ban.

463. 1:40:45

     So I just want to kind of remind us where we were the last time.

464. 1:40:48

     I, I understand, and that's why the Dr. Lopez called it Russian roulette, where you're not sure what you're taking sometimes. And, uh, it, it's just, in, in other, any other drugs, whether it's Tylenol or any drugs you get from a doctor, prescribed by a doctor, they have to go through rigorous testing first to get approved. This was never approved. That, that's the, that's the ba- base of the problem. But thank you.

465. 1:41:22

     All right, I see no other questions. Representative, you want to slide over? We're gonna-

466. 1:41:25

     Yes, sir

467. 1:41:25

     ... get the testimony report.

468. 1:41:30

     All right, I'll just remind witnesses, one minute. Uh, let's see. Uh, Pitter Goffner, come on.

469. 1:41:44

     Welcome back.

470. 1:41:45

     Hi, how are you?

471. 1:41:46

     Good.

472. 1:41:49

     I gotta bring this down close.

473. 1:41:53

     All right. My name is Pitter Goffner, and I'm here on behalf of, um, my family and my daughter, and she wanted me to remind you to roll tide.

474. 1:42:04

     Oh, I just talked to her. She said she's sorry she couldn't be here. But anyway, I just, um... Thank you again, Chairman, and, um, everyone for, um, just taking the time to be here today. Um, on October 22nd, 2022, um, I got a call from, um, uh, my late husband's, um, work. And they said he had collapsed. And I was like, "He collapsed? What are you talking about, he collapsed?" And, um, he said, "I, I don't know." And long story short, uh, fast-forward, I was...

475. 1:42:35

     I'm the only person in, in the United States to have a, um, video of me being on FaceTime with him while they are working on him trying to save his life. And if I'm able to, if, if I can, may I play just a clip of that? Um, I di- I, I don't know if you'll let me or not, but it's a, it's a, it's about a second clip to hear what it's like for a woman to beg for someone's life knowing that they're, this person could be dying.

476. 1:43:06

     Um, would you allow that? You don't have to. I just thought I would bring it up.

477. 1:43:11

     Things such as that I'd need to pre-clear beforehand.

478. 1:43:14

     Okay. Yeah. It's-

479. 1:43:15

     So-

480. 1:43:15

     Perfect. No, I, again, I thought I'd ask and-

481. 1:43:17

     No, it's, it's-

482. 1:43:18

     ... it's here if I, if I needed it. But just to hear what it's like not knowing exactly what he was dying from. And then I said, "There's no way that he's dying from something of natural causes because he just got a clean bill of health. What's going on? He's healthy." And, um, so when, um, when I was watching the video when they were working on him, I said, "Something's off." So I got a call, uh, fast-forward that, um, I had to tell my daughter that her father was not coming home after she said, "Is Dad coming home?" The nurse said, "We lost him to cardiac arrest." Well, the, the, it first starts out as a seizure, stroke, and then cardiac arrest.

483. 1:44:02

     Um, that's what it, it's the, in order. And the medical examiner said they don't know how many other deaths are even, could not even been reported from kratom that are coming in as cardiac arrest, but not knowing that it was kratom. So that is something that, you know, I am in favor of the ban because we don't know what this kratom is doing. We, we really don't know what it's doing to our kids, to people. And, um, the, the lady in Pennsylvania, they were at a coffee shop, and their daughter put kratom in her tea, and 20 minutes later she was dead on the ground.

484. 1:44:42

     So we don't know. A- and they're not educating. This is the biggest key right here. Education is not being taught from the top down on how to educate the store owners and the store owners and how to e- educate the employees. So they could take a monster drink that my husband took thinking that the kratom was healthy, mix them together, and it's a lethal cocktail for death. Tea, chocolate, they just don't know. So anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you for that.

485. 1:45:12

     And then maybe we'll talk about hearing that one day.

486. 1:45:15

     Thank you. Appreciate that.

487. 1:45:16

     Thank you.

488. 1:45:16

     I see no questions.

489. 1:45:17

     Okay. Thank you.

490. 1:45:18

     Thank you.

491. 1:45:19

     Thank you so much.

492. 1:45:20

     All right. Next up I have Eli Cohen. Come on down.

493. 1:45:25

     I'm gonna do one minute.

494. 1:45:26

     One of Drew-

495. 1:45:27

     Make sure you guys listen to me every time

496. 1:45:28

     ... one of Drew Ashby's, uh, lieutenants here today.

497. 1:45:31

     Uh, no, he works for me. Let's, let's get that right.

498. 1:45:33

     I like that. I like that. Go ahead.

499. 1:45:35

     Yeah, that's important.

500. 1:45:36

     Go ahead.

501. 1:45:36

     You guys know my position. I've been taking kratom cases and suing these companies for the last few years since I was here two weeks ago. I think I got another four people reach out to my office about a loved one dying. Uh, what you haven't seen is that the people who make the biggest brands of kratom, like OPMS, who live in Georgia, come and talk to you about their own product even though they're miles away. So I thought it'd be fun to read their warning so that they actually can sit here and talk to you guys directly. Uh, 'cause these are their words. Again, you can go to opmskratom.com, read their warning. And this is what they say about kratom. It's also in the little pamphlet here now since we've been suing them.

502. 1:46:06

     Kratom may be associated with serious potential side effects, including seizures, liver damage, withdrawal, addiction, abuse, and death. Please review the FDA's advisory commentary on kratom. They tell you in the product now, since we've been suing them for the last four years, that this product will kill you and it should be banned. Why are we letting a product that the manufacturer knows is deadly stay on Georgia shelves? Uh, they say you should talk to your doctor about this, and this is ... They want you to have a pretty normal conversation with your doctor. They say, "During this consultation," that I'm reading, "be sure to request advisement on enzyme, enzyme in- inhibition, including related to CYP enzymes," 'cause we've all had those talks with our doctors about CYP enzymes.

503. 1:46:47

     Please pass this bill. Thank you.

504. 1:46:50

     Well, I see no questions. Thank you. All right. Next up we have Matt Wetherington.

505. 1:46:58

     Hello.

506. 1:46:59

     Come on.

507. 1:47:01

     I have ... I'm gonna use my one minute to answer any questions anyone has about kratom and this, or this bill. If you wanna know anything about how this is gonna impact people, anything like that, happy to answer any questions. Everyone here k- knows my position. I'm in favor of passing the bill. I would like for people to stop dying, and I think that we have put the cart before the horse. If you believe that you wanna pass an amendment that says kratom should still be legal because it has health benefits, that's fine, but you should come with science that says these are the health benefits, not just people who are saying, "This is how I feel about it." So I would argue that when you come with a pamphlet that says, "These are all the side effects.

508. 1:47:38

     These are all the problems with our product. Talk to your doctor," it kinda sounds like a d- a drug, doesn't it? Well, drugs need to go through a process before they're getting sold. If down the road we determine that there are scientifically backed benefits of this product, nothing stops them from coming back here and w- and getting a bill passed that allows them to use it in compliance with whatever the safe usage is. This is not complicated. It's been made complicated by the amount of money involved in the industry and the amount of spend that has been at this Capitol, but it's time that we get this right.

509. 1:48:12

     So just so I've got this straight, you're not one of his lieutenants either? Does he work for you?

510. 1:48:16

     Oh, I'll do anything Drew Ashby asks me to do.

511. 1:48:18

     Okay. All right. I wanna make sure. Number seven, Representative Roberts.

512. 1:48:23

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, so I'm not ... I, I have no dog in this fight.

513. 1:48:29

     I understand.

514. 1:48:29

     We got tons of emails from the other ... lots of people saying that it benefits them. H- how do you respond to ... I mean, I watch a commercial on TV, and approved drugs have a long list of side effects that can sometimes include death.

515. 1:48:46

     Mm-hmm.

516. 1:48:46

     Uh, drugs that help them with blood pressure or I don't even know. And then we also have other natural supplements that people take all the time that haven't been tested. And so I'm just trying to figure out what makes this different than those. I get that we know some counterindications, but if we put it behind a counter with a pharmacist that could ask those questions, is that still not good enough?

517. 1:49:16

     So I'll tell you three things. So number one is the difference between those things you see on TV and kratom is that those things have all gone through human testing. They've all been approved by the FDA for sale and use as a drug. Kratom has not been approved for any human consumption usage at all, period, end of story. So those things you see where they've studied it and determined these are in fact the side effects that include death, these are the times h- this is how ... But they've also done the step that kratom has not done, which is, "And this is how you use this drug and don't die." So that step has been, has happened for all those commercials that you see on TV with those same disclosures like you see with kratom.

518. 1:49:56

     So then number two is that if you put it behind a pharmacy shelf, they're gonna say, "I'm not putting this behind my shelf. It's not an approved drug. We don't distribute unapproved drugs from a pharmacy. I'm sorry." So it wouldn't-

519. 1:50:09

     I got it

520. 1:50:09

     ... work as, as a practical matter. Any other questions?

521. 1:50:14

     Representative Panitch.

522. 1:50:15

     So I know that there are things behind the countertop, uh, be- behind the pharmacy counter that are over-the-counter-

523. 1:50:22

     Mm-hmm

524. 1:50:23

     ... things like decongestants-

525. 1:50:24

     Mm-hmm

526. 1:50:24

     ... you have to check because people use it to make other drugs, uh, uh, really bad drugs. Uh, w- why would this be different from that?

527. 1:50:35

     Exact same situation though. Like, when you're selling something that has a medical use ... 'Cause the, the other difference here, and this is important, is that those things actually say, "We are a drug. We are used to treat a medical condition." Kratom affirmatively says, "We are not a drug. Do not put this in your mouth or you might die. Also, you should put this in your mouth." So that's what kratom is doing. Like, they are firmly saying, "Not a drug. Not a drug. It's a food. This is like a topping on a salad. Don't worry about it."

528. 1:51:04

     May I follow up?

529. 1:51:06

     Yes.

530. 1:51:06

     So for the peop- do you deny that there may be good uses for it? Because the emails I'm getting, I have nothing to do with kratom.

531. 1:51:13

     Which I understand.

532. 1:51:14

     I don't know who kratom people are. Um, I don't really shop in gas- in, you know, gas stations for-

533. 1:51:22

     Drugs

534. 1:51:22

     ... for anything except, you know, a smoo- uh, like a Slurpee or something. But what, um, what do you say to them if they're people that there is real, uh, you know, there could be value in this?

535. 1:51:35

     Absolutely. I would tell those people to do what they're already doing, which is encouraging the FDA to continue testing the product, to continue pushing their advocacy organizations to sponsor and to put out good testing to determine the safe usage of the product, and for them to continue to go down the normal process that every other drug in America has gone through and not leapfrog over safety rules. Because I get it, there are people who might have a preferred pain prescription, but if you told me that, hey, one in e- one in every 100 people who consume Advil are gonna die- I might go take a different pain medicine.

536. 1:52:10

     And I think that if these people were actually educated on what the hazards of this product were and they were done in an actual meaningful way, I don't think you would be getting those emails, if they're even from people at all, which I will remind you that this committee as well as the other state committees have been victim of astroturfing by the American Kratom Association and related organizations by them paying for people to send you emails, to come down here to do the lobbying, because these are not people who are in Georgia. These are people from across the state who may have an interest, may have not. They're not the ones sitting in front of you.

537. 1:52:41

     We are, as well as the victims of, and pa- parents and children and husbands and wives of people who have actually lost kratom. And I, I would ask you to question this at the end of the day. What would you prefer? To give people their preferred version of this drug, uh, this pain reliever or this natural substance, whatever they want, or to have another group of people in your district, in Georgia, who die? What sh- what is the greater harm here? Would you prefer to let them have this thing that they think benefits them with no medical backing whatsoever, or for people to actually die?

538. 1:53:15

     Because that's the current situation that we're in, and I leave it to this committee to decide what you think the good policy is, because I think the answer is ban the product until it's been proven safe.

539. 1:53:27

     Thank you.

540. 1:53:30

     Uh, let's see. Representative Holly, is that you down there on two? Go ahead.

541. 1:53:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, thank you for being very clear with your position. I always like that when-

542. 1:53:41

     Mm-hmm

543. 1:53:41

     ... someone is very clear about where you stand. Um, is, would it be correct if your position is that because these, the waiver of liabilities are highly unenforced, you would like to see that, the product be removed?

544. 1:53:57

     I'm not sure I under-

545. 1:53:57

     Or would you, or would you be okay with, for in the sense of the kratom actually being on the shelf, if there was, you know, if there's an assumption of risk, you know, if it's labeled there, um, is it... I guess your position is that it should be removed and be further studied. Um, you have a problem with if there is actually a liability warning on there.

546. 1:54:19

     I'm not sure I understand your question, but I think what you're saying is that kind of if I were to put up a big box, you know, kind of like they do with cigarettes, and they say, "Hey, smoking this is gonna cause cancer."

547. 1:54:28

     Mm.

548. 1:54:28

     And the kratom people were to put on there the same size big boxes, "Taking this and you will die." Okay. So the answer-

549. 1:54:34

     Right

550. 1:54:34

     ... to that question is I have no idea. Like, you would have to have people come in and testify and determine whether those warnings are effective, whether children are able to access them. Like, what does that look like? And that's a policy decision that I'm really not prepared to address just because we've seen kind of similar things happen in other states, and those states have also ultimately ended up in banning the product. But I, I understand your point, and your point's well taken. And I think that if there are people who are sufficiently motivated to get kratom, they will obviously go to places where they can get it and, and acquire it, and that's, you know, that's their issue if they want to do that.

551. 1:55:07

     Thank you. Yeah, the only reason I raised it is because, you know, in this committee we do get to amend the language. And so, you know, if the bill sponsor wanted, you know, it's up to his choice, you know, whether he wants to or not, um, in terms of actually adding in language that would allow for, um, a, you know, notifying the public that there is an assumption when that they buy the product, um, that they, you know, could be causing harm to themselves, and then leave it up to the persons to make that decision. You know, if that was, you know, being able to write that in legalese to add that in.

552. 1:55:38

     So I would... This committee and other committees have heard, had somewhere north of 100 to 200 hours worth of testimony on kratom, and I'm sorry. Like, I'm so sorry. Um, just first and foremost, I, I'm sorry that we're having to do this. What we have also had is testimony from Poison Control. We've also had testimony from the addiction recovery centers. We've been, from all those things, and all of those entities support the ban bill. And I think part of this as well is that once you're addicted to this product, because remember, there has been testing on the addictive principles of kratom, and what did they determine?

553. 1:56:09

     They determined it's just about as addictive as morphine and heroin and a variety of other of those, you know, the bad drugs. So you put the warning on there, someone to- ha- is taking kratom or has taken kratom, again, from a policy perspective, what do we wanna do here? Do we want to keep a drug that is deadly and addictive out of the hands of the public, or do we want to ease some liability concerns that lawyers might have somewhere? Like, I think the answer is health and safety and protecting life.

554. 1:56:40

     So anything else?

555. 1:56:41

     Representative Roberts.

556. 1:56:42

     Thank you. Sorry, I had another question.

557. 1:56:44

     No problem.

558. 1:56:44

     Okay, so it sounds like you litigate these cases often.

559. 1:56:47

     I do.

560. 1:56:47

     Are there any other... And you're very persuasive, so you must be good for your clients. Um, are there any other natural products that aren't considered a, a drug that you get cases and you litigate over?

561. 1:57:00

     Oh, yeah. I'll give you a great one. Magic dirt. Okay?

562. 1:57:05

     What?

563. 1:57:05

     So there was this product-

564. 1:57:06

     What is that?

565. 1:57:06

     ... called Magic Dirt, and what it was was it was a dirt that was sold, and you eat it or you put it in your eyes, or you put it in your ears-

566. 1:57:15

     What?

567. 1:57:15

     ... and it will cure your cancer, it will cr- cure your brain injuries, it will cure COVID. All of these kinds of things. So the typical process is people buy dumb things, and that's okay. That's their problem. Uh, unfortunately, this dirt was being mined from downstream of a nuclear waste facility- ... uh, and so people were putting radioactive dirt into their body. Um, and so-

568. 1:57:37

     Oh

569. 1:57:37

     ... it was $100 for dirt that was the size of a Skittles bag. Um, but yeah, I litigated those. Um-

570. 1:57:44

     Wow, okay.

571. 1:57:44

     But yeah, Google Magic Dirt. It's an amazing story. Uh-

572. 1:57:48

     Black Oxygen Organics.

573. 1:57:49

     Yeah, Black Oxygen Organics. Uh, they shut down about three weeks after we brought all this to the news, and then they were banned in, like, 17 countries.

574. 1:57:57

     Wow, okay. Thank you.

575. 1:57:58

     So yes. All right, thank you.

576. 1:58:01

     Okay, I see no other questions. Thank you. Robert Smith with PAC.

577. 1:58:19

     Since I'm the one that screwed things up in the, in the subcommittee, I'm here to answer any questions.

578. 1:58:30

     And specifically what I'm talking about is that in Georgia, to be a controlled substance, it has to be scheduled by you, the legislature, and also the federal government. It can't be a controlled substance unless it's sched- unless it's scheduled by both parties. And that was the, the request that I made at the subcommittee, was to do one or the other. But you can't sched- you can't pass the bill and say kratom is a Schedule 1 controlled substance in Georgia, because we can't prosecute it in the c- in the way, the way, the way the, the law is currently drafted.

579. 1:59:00

     Have you, and so have you seen the sub?

580. 1:59:03

     I've heard rumors of a sub. Yeah, so Butch was- I looked, I looked at- ... mentioning it earlier. You did, but I just didn't- But we corrected it. And by changing- We worked together and- Yes ... we went, we wrote exactly what he asked, and it should be corrected. And changing the word would allow us to prosecute possession, if this is the policy you guys want us to do.

581. 1:59:22

     Say that again?

582. 1:59:23

     By changing the and to an or, it now allows us to prosecute possession of kratom, um, if this law passes. Now, I'm gonna also be full disclosure. By passing it this way, there's gonna, there could be some unintended consequences as well.

583. 1:59:38

     Surprise.

584. 1:59:39

     Right.

585. 1:59:39

     Yeah, right.

586. 1:59:41

     I don't have a magic eight ball, but I can't tell you everything that's scheduled by Georgia but not scheduled by the feds and vice versa.

587. 1:59:46

     Oh.

588. 1:59:47

     Because by changing it from and, because before, remember before, to be a s- controlled substance in Georgia, it had to be scheduled by both the State of Georgia and the federal government. By changing the and to an or, which allows us to do this kratom bill, because as you've heard, the federal government hasn't weighed in on kratom, so we can't prosecute it as a controlled substance in Georgia. But by changing that to an or, that means if there's things that the federal government has scheduled that Georgia has not scheduled, we have the ability to prosecute that as well, and our, with our law enforcement partners.

589. 2:00:22

     Remember, I don't, I try not to advocate one way or the other. I just try to tell you guys what's happening.

590. 2:00:34

     It's the or on the line, right?

591. 2:00:36

     Yes, ma'am.

592. 2:00:45

     On LC52-0989S-

593. 2:00:48

     Oh, oh, okay

594. 2:00:48

     ... it's the or on line 14, ma'am.

595. 2:00:52

     Which we-

596. 2:00:53

     The change the and to an or. Yeah.

597. 2:01:07

     You can be.

598. 2:01:12

     I was once told that good, that, you know, basically good policy and good everything is when everybody gets a little bit. Every, you know, uh, though also that's what happens, justice happens in a courtroom.

599. 2:01:25

     I'm still curious about unintended consequences. So if, uh, I mean, I know you might have the hypothetical, but I think it would be beneficial to us. Just one example.

600. 2:01:40

     I don't wanna speak out of turn, but I think there was a change by the federal government about marijuana recently that Georgia doesn't have. But it, but I'll tell, here's a positive. The federal government also, I believe, took action against 70H. Or, um, uh, uh, and see, this is when you, you, you get, yeah, I'm speaking out of turn, et cetera, but I think there was also, uh, Trank. And I'm not, I wish the- 70H for sure, yeah. Yes. I'm wish, wish, and I wish that- Trank. But there's, there were some other drug, there's been some other drugs that the federal government has done.

601. 2:02:13

     Um, if you remember, I think it's, uh, Chairman Stevens brings a bill every year from the GBI Crime Lab. This would negate that requirement. Because when the federal government s- schedules a drug, now all of a sudden we can prosecute it at that moment, rather than having to wait for you guys to then take the GBI Crime Lab bill and add all those drugs that no one can pronounce to the different schedules. We could then immediately start prosecuting those upon action of the federal government. But once again, you know.

602. 2:02:43

     Against federal laws. The or. Because then suddenly, if the federal government says this is a Schedule 1 controlled substance, the possession of it in Georgia becomes illegal as well. Right. But we can't touch it. We could, if this and becomes an or.

603. 2:03:00

     Chairman-

604. 2:03:00

     Federal law

605. 2:03:00

     ... oh, yeah.

606. 2:03:03

     Yeah. So that's federal law, though.

607. 2:03:05

     Yes, sir.

608. 2:03:06

     You're gonna prosecute the federal law in state's court, state court?

609. 2:03:09

     If it- With the or, you can, you know.

610. 2:03:10

     With the or, we could.

611. 2:03:14

     Because how it reads is that it m- the way, the, the change then become, the and, it's, right now it says and.

612. 2:03:21

     Okay.

613. 2:03:22

     So it says we have to do both.

614. 2:03:23

     So what you're saying is it would also make everything in their schedules illegal on ours?

615. 2:03:26

     Potentially, yes.

616. 2:03:27

     So ours and theirs would both be, and whatever differences, whichever one had the most wins, essentially, right?

617. 2:03:34

     Potentially. The other, the other th- and the, once again, this, you know, this is one of those issues. There's a side issue about, you know, Georgia abdicating its, you know, authority to the federal government, dealing with federal government changes without Georgia action. But this is one way to solve the problem.

618. 2:04:01

     There's a lot.

619. 2:04:02

     Number 14, Representative Bill Fincher.

620. 2:04:04

     Mr. Chairman, you, so basically you're telling us you, you'd like to see us pass this bill?

621. 2:04:09

     No, sir. This is a policy decision. Uh, basically the idea is that if you don't change the and to an or, the problem, what you're doing is you're f- you're saying, you're telling us a- and law enforcement, "Arrest people for possession of kratom," and then when I go to, then when we go to prosecute them, we have to dismiss the charges because it's not a schedule, it's not a controlled substance under Georgia law.

622. 2:04:29

     Of course, this, and this, um, you've seen this. It has or in it.

623. 2:04:33

     Yes, sir. The, the substitute has or in it, so we could do that

624. 2:04:37

     We can prosecute?

625. 2:04:38

     We could, yes.

626. 2:04:41

     So what's your recommendation?

627. 2:04:45

     If you want this, you- but I'm not recommending passage or, or d- or not moving the bill, or I'm basically telling you this is what... If you want to change, you want to do this, this is how you do it.

628. 2:04:55

     Okay.

629. 2:04:57

     That's it.

630. 2:04:57

     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Always a absolute, uh, wealth of knowledge.

631. 2:05:04

     Like I said, I screwed it up in co- in subcommittee. I was going to stand up here and take the, take the hit, too, so.

632. 2:05:09

     All right. Members, there's some question on whether we want to abdicate state authority under the Tenth Amendment, so the chair is going to take this under advisement and bring it back on Thursday.

633. 2:05:20

     Okay.

634. 2:05:20

     Thank you.

635. 2:05:20

     Thanks, Mr. Chair.

636. 2:05:22

     It's over.

637. 2:05:23

     Thank you, committee.

638. 2:05:24

     Thank you.

639. 2:05:38

     I don't want to be ...

640. 2:05:42

     It's a good possibility.

641. 2:05:50

     Yeah.

642. 2:05:56

     All right. Next up, we're going to get to House Bill 1255, by yours truly. I'll present, I'll present from here, unless there's objection. Hearing none. And I'm going to let Kevin pass out the substitute. There is a sub to what y'all have in your folders.

643. 2:06:25

     Sorry.

644. 2:06:27

     Sarah, if you, if you want to come down, I'll let you sit there just to go over.

645. 2:06:47

     And Sarah, just fill in where I might leave out or need to clarify.

646. 2:06:52

     Sure can.

647. 2:06:52

     Members, this is a very lengthy piece of legislation. But in summary, uh, first of all, I got to recognize some... I got to recognize a few folks, uh, that gentleman from Forsyth County, Bill Finch. Good to see you, my friend. Uh, Lawyer of the Week, a good friend of mine from good old West Georgia, Christie Draper, and, uh, her main sidekick there- ...

648. 2:07:24

     uh, Miss Katie. And so it's good to see y'all. Uh, welcome. Uh, both of my district attorneys, uh, Mr. Jason Smith and then Ms. Sarah DePoer, thank you all very much. So all right, we're going to get into it. Uh, members, I bring to you House Bill 1255, and this has been a lot of work. I want to thank PAC. I know that obviously there's some opposition, uh, members of PAC, uh, different, uh, DAs that have helped on this.

649. 2:07:54

     Uh, even though I know that there's still some issues to work out, uh, thank you all to all your work, uh, and even the solicitors that have, uh, chimed in, uh, or opposition to it. So this is primarily a criminal discovery modernization bill. Uh, you'll see that it would accelerate and expand discovery timelines. It would add detailed expert disclosure requirements, and, uh, actually clarifies what it means to the, as far as the term of possession, custody or control, uh, to include investigating law enforcement agencies and, uh, certain private individuals as well.

650. 2:08:34

     And this would, uh, also attempt to update our subpoena service rules. Um, I'll go through section by section as quickly as possible. Section 1, and this is LC481803S that we're presenting here. Uh, Section 1 covers that a copy of an indictment from a grand jury must be either mailed or electronically transmitted to the defendant and attorney if none within five days of being filed, unless the arraignment is scheduled within that five-day period.

651. 2:09:08

     Section 2 covers the accusation must either be mailed or electronically transmitted to the defendant and attorney if none within five days of being filed, unless arraignment is scheduled within that five-day period. Section 3 would in essence provide that when the defendant has opted into discovery, pretrial motions must be filed within 30 days of the state's compliance with discovery obligations and not later than 30 days prior to trial.

652. 2:09:38

     Section 4 would revise the definition section of discovery for both felony and misdemeanor to add a definition for law enforcement agency. It would specify that body cameras and dash cam footage containing oral statements made by the witness are within the definition of statement of witness. It would also provide a definition for written scientific reports, which includes, one, GBI forensic reports; two, autopsies by coroners or pathologists; three, blood alcohol content test results; or four, forensic interviews conducted by child advocacy centers or nonprofits.

653. 2:10:16

     I will pause there to say that there is a potential amendment that I will consider friendly that we have worked with those advocacy centers on. Uh, then you'll see from line 75 through 105, it would make the discovery proceedings apply to state superior court cases when the defendant opts in. The defendant cannot revoke the opt-in. In multi-defendant cases, when one defendant opts in, it applies to all defendants unless the case is severed.

654. 2:10:47

     Article two of the chapter applies to all misdemeanor cases in city municipal recorders, probate, or other courts in which a jury cannot be empaneled unless the state and defendant agree in writing to opt into article one. This in lines 103 through 105 specifically, and the use of this article on lines or line 105 refers to article one. You'll go forward to lines 106 through 110, and this would allow the prosecution to provide at arraignment all those charged with a copy of the indictment or accusation and list of witnesses.

655. 2:11:25

     Currently, it requires those be provided prior to. This can still be supplemented afterwards. All right. You'll move forward to lines 111 to 319. This would adjust various timelines throughout these lines regarding the timing of when discovery must be provided to the defendant, was at least ten days prior to trial. This makes it within thirty days of the arraignment, but no later than thirty days prior to trial unless the court orders otherwise.

656. 2:11:58

     This requires the state to provide the defendant with a copy of relevant discovery rather than solely providing access to it. This requires prosecution to provide evidence of relevant oral statements made by the defendant while being interrogated. Currently, this is limited to statements the prosecution intends to use at trial. Statements of co-conspirators that are attributable to the defendant must be disclosed. Currently only required if they are arguably admissible against the defendant at trial. Lines 149 through 151 specifies that copies of tapes created by third parties' data from posted security cameras or automated license readers must be provided as part of discovery.

657. 2:12:41

     This limits certain discovery materials that must be provided to those that are material to be, uh, material to preparing the defense and that are co-capable of being copied. If the evidence is unable to be copied, the defendant is entitled to inspect and copy or photograph the items. Lines 182 through 195 regarding written scientific a- reports. If the state knows or through due diligence could know the item exists, it must be provided to the defendant so long as it's material to the case or the state intends to introduce it as evidence.

658. 2:13:18

     If the report does not exist at the time of arraignment, it must be provided to the defendant within ten days of receipt, but no, not later than thirty days prior to trial. I've actually seen this in real life, a case out in West Georgia where a scientific report was not provided, ended up in a mistrial once it was discovered. Lines 199 through 221 regarding expert witnesses. The state must provide a complete statement of all opinions that the state will elicit from the witness.

659. 2:13:49

     Two, the bases and reasons for the opinions. Three, all technical notes and data supporting conclusions or results. Four, all documents relating to a peer review, examination, or other verification provided for conclusions. Five, all standards, protocols, policies, and guidelines serving as the basis for the expert's opinion. Six, the witness's qualifications, including a list of publications he or she has authored in the previous ten years. And seven, a list of all other cases that the expert has testified in during the previous four years as an expert.

660. 2:14:24

     Note that the GBI's Division of Forensic Sciences is exempted out from provision six and seven on lines 217 through 219, and then again on lines 221 through 223, respectively. Lines 227 or 22 through 27, if the required expert witness information is not furnished by the state, the court must decide if exclusion and suppression of the evidence is the appropriate remedy. Lines 228 through 231, those are stylistic changes for precision.

661. 2:14:59

     Lines 232 through 242 r- requires the defendant to provide the state with a copy of relevant discovery rather than solely providing access to it. Changes the date from ten days to thirty days after timely compliance by the state, but no later than five days prior to trial for when the defendant must provide the state with copies of relevant discovery. Okay, lines 243 through 255 changes the date from ten days to thirty days after timely compliance by the state, but no later than the ten days prior to trial for when the defendant must provide the state with a copy of relevant examinations and of scientific tests or experiments the defendant intends to use at trial.

662. 2:15:46

     Lines 256 through 277 regarding expert witnesses, the defendant must provide the state with a complete statement of all opinions that the defendant will elicit from the witness. Two, the basis and reasons for the opinions. Three, all technical notes and data supporting conclusions or results. Number four, all documents relating to a peer review, examination, or other verification provided for conclusions. Five, all standards, protocols, policies, and guidelines serving as the basis for the expert's opinion.

663. 2:16:19

     Six, the witness's qualifications, including a list of publications he or she has authored in the previous ten years. And seven, a list of all other cases that the expert has testified in during the previous four years as an expert. Note again that GBI's Division of Forensic Sciences is exempted out from the provision six and seven on lines six hund- or lines 273 to 75 and lines 277 to 79, respectively.

664. 2:16:49

     Lines 278 through 83, if the required expert witness information is not furnished by the defendant, the court must decide if exclusion and suppression of the evidence is the appropriate remedy. Lines 284 through 302 provides judicial discretion to a court when determining whether the defendant must provide relevant discovery that is within the defendant's possession and that defendant intends to use in the pre-sentence hearing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, this must occur by announcement of the verdict of the jury or when the verdict is published by the court.

665. 2:17:25

     Lines 303 through 312, these are stylistic changes for presi- precision. Lines 313 through 317 requires either party that is subject to disclosure to notify the other party of the existence of additional evidence or material, and to correct its disclosure and make the evidence available. We did not change anything there in lines 318 through 328 from the previous sub. Lines 329 through 356 adjust the timeline for when the prosecution can request notice of the defendant's intention to use an alibi defense to be within 30 days after arraignment.

666. 2:18:05

     This was previously within 10 days. A court can still order a different timeline. Lines 373 through 382 changes the timeline to within 30 days of arraignment, but no later than 30 days prior to trial for when the prosecution must provide witness statements. Lines 383 through 391 changes the timeline for when the state must furnish their witness information to the defendant from 10 days before trial to within 10 days after arraignment. The defense must furnish their witness information within 10 days after compliance by the state, but no later than 10 days prior to trial.

667. 2:18:45

     Lines 406 through 415 revised, or were revised to ensure clarity and conformance with existing law in Chapters 11 and 14 of Title 17, which restrict reimbursement of fees. Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 24 of the Georgia Constitution, no person shall be compelled to pay costs in any criminal case except after conviction on final trial. As an example of OCGA 17-11-1 provides that the cost of a prosecution, except the fees of his own witnesses, shall not be demanded of a defendant until after trial and conviction.

668. 2:19:28

     If convicted, judgment may be entered against the defendant for all costs occurring in the committing and trial courts and by any officer pending the prosecution. Lines 425 through 431 makes Article 2 only apply to misdemeanor cases in city, municipal, recorders, probate, and any other court in which a jury cannot be empaneled unless the state and defendant agree in writing. Lines 474 through 495 removes the definition of written scientific reports, which was re-added on lines 67 through 74, makes the provisions only apply to Article 2, and has additional stylistic changes for precision.

669. 2:20:12

     Section 5 requires that subpoenas for production of documentary evidence be served in accordance with OCGA 24-13-24. Section 6 adds definitions for child advocacy center, law enforcement support personnel, law enforcement unit, and peace officer. As I remind members, we are working on some language concerning child advocacy centers. This would require that law enforcement units designate at least one person to whom subpoenas for law enforcement or child advocacy staff can be served.

670. 2:20:48

     The designation will be made in writing and will provide notice to any person on request. This is to avoid having to serve law enforcement personnel at their homes. It would also allow for personal service to a law enforcement unit through the designated individual at the law enforcement office. I can speak from experience. I have been in a GBI field office at 5:30 in the morning to catch the officer I needed to subpoena within that 24-hour period before a trial were to take place.

671. 2:21:20

     Section 7 makes all of OCGA 17-16-4A apply to the responsibilities of the GBI's Division of Forensic Sciences, re the independent testing of evidence. And Section 8 effective date is July the 1st, 2026, and the bill applies to any motion made or hearing or trial commenced on or after that date. That, members, is the bill, and I'll stand for questions.

672. 2:21:53

     Chairman Gullett.

673. 2:21:55

     Thank you, Chairman. That's a mighty lofty presentation. Really long bill. Um, I'm trying to absorb it all. I know I, I've looked into this a little bit. I, I do have a question related to line 144, like, this, that's section A. Um, and when it, when I saw, uh, within 30 days prior to trial as otherwise ordered by the court, provide the defendant with copies of books, papers, blah, blah, blah, including tapes of third parties and data posted, security cameras, automated license readers, et cetera.

674. 2:22:25

     What happens in, in, like, a child pornography case? I don't know, is it a, is it a policy decision where we're saying we're gonna transfer... Like, say, say someone had child pornography where we're transferring those tapes or making copies of those tapes. Is that, is that a good policy decision from that particular issue here?

675. 2:22:50

     Oh, defer, Sarah.

676. 2:22:52

     Hey, um, thank you for the question, uh, Representative R- Representative Gullett. That doesn't happen under, under current law, and I think that the prosecutors that are here could agree with me and let me know. What happens is that, um, is that, th- it's, it's under kind of a protective order. We go to their office. We usually have to meet with their investigator, um, we don't like looking at those images either, but it's a part of our job.

677. 2:23:15

     Sure.

678. 2:23:15

     Uh, they do not leave that office. If we need to have, sometimes we need to have an expert examine that information, then we'll re- we reach an agreement with the prosecutor. But this language here I do not believe would impact the way that things currently happen, which, and, and that's how they currently happen.

679. 2:23:32

     Okay. And you're confident in that?

680. 2:23:34

     Yeah.

681. 2:23:34

     Okay.

682. 2:23:35

     I am.

683. 2:23:35

     I don't believe-

684. 2:23:36

     But I-

685. 2:23:36

     ... this is one I don't want to happen, so I'm, I'm, I'm-

686. 2:23:38

     Ab-

687. 2:23:38

     Okay

688. 2:23:38

     ... absolutely, and if we needed to put some clarifying language in there to address it, but we don't have clarifying language of that nature in the statute now.

689. 2:23:46

     Okay.

690. 2:23:46

     And I think that probably prosecutors would agree with me that they're obligated to give us access to that information now.

691. 2:23:52

     Yeah. I'm not saying not access.

692. 2:23:53

     Yeah.

693. 2:23:53

     I'm just talking about making copies is where my-

694. 2:23:55

     Okay

695. 2:23:55

     ... you're basically providing copies.

696. 2:23:57

     Sure.

697. 2:23:57

     "Provide the defendant with copies of..." That's where my, that's where my worry is.

698. 2:24:00

     Or, or access to, um-

699. 2:24:03

     Well, including tapes, and basically it says down later if, um, s- so long as items-

700. 2:24:09

     And, and if that-

701. 2:24:09

     ... are capable of being copied, provided however you can't be copied, you can go in and make copies.

702. 2:24:15

     And, and I guess my-

703. 2:24:16

     Photocopies

704. 2:24:16

     ... argument would be that that covers it, but we'd be happy to work on language with the chair to address that because I think it says if it cannot be copied. That material under law right now cannot be copied. It cannot be disseminated.

705. 2:24:27

     Okay.

706. 2:24:28

     Um, so I think that it's... But certainly if we needed to make that clearer, I think that's something we could easily do to address-

707. 2:24:33

     Okay

708. 2:24:33

     ... that concern.

709. 2:24:34

     Thank you.

710. 2:24:36

     Number 11.

711. 2:24:40

     I, I think I found the answer to the one part I had. I've... It was the most recent part and I'm going back through looking for other questions. Thank you.

712. 2:24:48

     Number six.

713. 2:24:50

     Thank you. Hi.

714. 2:24:51

     Thank you.

715. 2:24:51

     I, can... I, I don't know what this applies to. It's lines 284 through 302, but it's the beginning of each paragraph, "Unless otherwise ordered by the court, the defendant shall no later than the announcement of the verdict of the jury or if the defendant has waived the time the verdict is published, serve upon s- the state all books." What, why are they waiting until the verdict to-

716. 2:25:14

     Um, so I know this is, was a little bit confusing to me, but if we go back and look at what they're talking about here is sentencing materials.

717. 2:25:21

     Okay.

718. 2:25:22

     Yeah.

719. 2:25:22

     Thank you. Okay.

720. 2:25:22

     And, and it's just kind of hard to get that from, I think, the way that it's modified here.

721. 2:25:27

     Oh, yeah, I tried to go back and I couldn't figure it out still, so thank you.

722. 2:25:31

     You're welcome.

723. 2:25:36

     I see no other questions. Do you have anything you wanted to add?

724. 2:25:40

     Um, uh, just very briefly because I know time is tight. I just want to make sure that everybody understands how hard we've tried to work collaboratively on this for over a year with all interested stakeholders. We have, um, a number of, and, and we're w- we're willing to continue to do that moving forward in this process. Um, this is not a bill that's aimed at, at making things better for defense attorneys. It's a bill that's aimed at making things better for the system. We think that the, the, the rules don't reflect the reality of e- what is our best practices now, and that's what this bill does.

725. 2:26:12

     Um, it, it imparts fairness and efficiency in a system that right now requires oftentimes a lot of litigation around processes apar- as opposed to substance. Um, and, a- and, you know, I'm happy to answer any additional questions were there any, but this is truly an aim, and we have proposed language already ready for consideration to address some issues that we've discussed, potential concerns of the judiciary. Um, we've made many changes in response to requests of the prosecutors. Uh, we think it's, it's, it's a bill that is, is ripe to be moved now to help us, um, deal with the changes in evidence that have happened over the last 30 years.

726. 2:26:51

     You do have one question, Chairman Crowe.

727. 2:26:52

     Certainly.

728. 2:26:53

     I spoke.

729. 2:26:54

     Oh, sorry.

730. 2:26:55

     Okay.

731. 2:26:55

     Chairman Gullett.

732. 2:26:56

     I'll, I'll say, I just want to cl- ... Not all interested stakeholders, I dropped a bill last year related to discovery, uh, and I never got a conversation about this out there. So n- I was interested in that, in that process.

733. 2:27:08

     Mm-hmm.

734. 2:27:09

     Um, again, dropped last year. I know Gacdal for sure is familiar with it. Um, I know the chairman's familiar with it, but I was not in, I was not involved in any way in this, in this legislation here. Not that I need to be, but not, but I was an interested party.

735. 2:27:21

     And I apologize for that. And, and, and Representative Gullett, I didn't mean to say anything that was untrue. Um, I've, I... It was my understanding that we had done our very best to reach out to everybody. I know that we have talked extensively and met both, um, in person with, with the solicitors, and I apologize if for, if somehow that, that, um, connection didn't get made with you, and I am happy to talk to you at any point going forward. I am also, um, a full-time, uh, sole pr- practitioner, so, um, I, I will, I, I, I will be available, but I apologize if I have, uh, dropped the ball in any way in, in making a reach out.

736. 2:27:56

     Okay. Thank you.

737. 2:27:57

     Thank you.

738. 2:27:58

     All right. Thank you. No other questions.

739. 2:28:00

     Thank you.

740. 2:28:03

     All right.

741. 2:28:06

     Let's see. Mr. Bill Fincher, come on up.

742. 2:28:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

743. 2:28:18

     This is rather low.

744. 2:28:29

     All right. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and, uh, members of, uh, the committee. I heard that this was, uh, being described as, uh, not a defense bill, but it, it is, uh, ironic that all the, the, the author and the signers all practice criminal defense in the State of Georgia Um, so I think that that ought to be noted, first of all. Um, second, uh, we attempted to get the misdemeanor discovery bill passed last year, uh, that was authored by Representative Gullett.

745. 2:29:07

     We appreciate your, uh, leadership on that, and it was, uh... I believe it was signed off on by T.P. Hair, uh, Smith. Sorry.

746. 2:29:15

     Mr. Silcox, with all due respect, and I'd do this for any other member of the committee, when I step in these doors and step into this position, it's neither one way or the other. Just to point that out. You may continue.

747. 2:29:34

     Well, I understand what you're saying, but I, I think it, it needs to be noted, uh, for the record. And I, I, I appreciate what you say, uh, and I've taken it into consideration, but we couldn't get this passed last... We couldn't even get it, uh, to a committee last year. So I think that is important for, uh, this body to understand. Uh, we are already, um... The state of Georgia has expended a lot of money, um, through the, um, the, the, uh, Chief Justice's Commission, uh, to get a case management study, uh, that's out, and that is to be able to provide discovery through one entity.

748. 2:30:19

     Uh, I think it's important that if we're talking about discovery and the be... and being able to, uh, disseminate that, we ought to con- consider how much money has been sent by the state of Georgia already in order to, uh, facilitate some of the discovery processes that, that this bill, that this omnibus bill is attempting to, um, to achieve. Uh, I think that we ought to, um, have the, the, uh, Chief Justice's Commission on that, uh, to be brought in within the purview of this commission so that we can understand what it is that we're asking prosecutors to do, what we're asking our, um, our law enforcement agency and our partners to do.

749. 2:31:01

     I think that this is something that, uh, that needs to be considered by the board, um, and by this committee before it, it passes. And I think I'm probably coming up on my time, but it's also my grandchild's, uh, birthday today, so I'd like to wish him a, a happy birthday. It is Maximilian Aubrey, uh, Morrow. So I stand ready to answer any questions any of you may have.

750. 2:31:25

     Well, happy birthday to him.

751. 2:31:27

     Thank you, Chairman.

752. 2:31:27

     Any questions from members of the committee?

753. 2:31:30

     Chairman, if I might ask a question of this witness. Um, you, you're, you're telling me that there's no wa- way you can fund producing this kind of material. Is that what you're telling me? There's nobody there to create this kind of, uh, discovery?

754. 2:31:46

     Well, uh, we're talking about a whole bunch of different, um, agencies throughout the state. I, I'm fortunate to live in Forsyth County, and we can do this. We are, we are able to give out discovery, uh, uh, many times within, uh, two weeks of arrest in, in my, in my county. Uh, we have Axon. Many counties throughout the state do not have that. And putting these mandates and these time limits on these smaller jurisdictions are, are, are...

755. 2:32:20

     It, it'll be hard for them to comply with it. I'm lucky, and I am fortunate to live in Forsyth.

756. 2:32:31

     You said, you mentioned the chief... Am I asking a question? You mentioned the Chief Justice Commission. Now tell me, I'm, I'm, uh, sort of a rookie at this thing, new, kind of a little of a newbie. Tell me what you're... And w- we're not related, just so p- people understand that.

757. 2:32:45

     Right. You're, you're Finch. I'm Fincher, and you're Fincher. We're anticipating Finch-es to come in here later.

758. 2:32:50

     That's right. But, uh, t- tell me about this commission. Is there, is there such an entity that could review this for us?

759. 2:32:58

     What is happening right now is that the chief justice has, has determined that our, uh, process for getting information from law enforcement to prosecutor to clerk and then, you know, throughout the, the process is unworkable. Uh, many times, um, case management systems within a, in a county can't even talk to each other. It... For those of y'all who are a little bit older, um, I won't say any, uh, of the females here were a little bit older, but do you remember the time where we had to talk about, discuss WordPerfect with Word, and how it was impossible to get that to, um, to understand what one program was saying to another?

760. 2:33:48

     Uh, and I me- uh, what I meant to say was I don't want to be rude when talking about, uh, somebody's age as being the same age as I am. Um, I am past 60, so, um, it is difficult to get those case management systems to talk to each other, just like it was difficult to get programs that are probably good on their own to talk with each other, like Word and WordPerfect. It's impossible.

761. 2:34:16

     Uh, you're not answering... Um, we missed... May I continue and ask another question? Uh, my question is, is there such a commission? But do you think that the-

762. 2:34:24

     The-

763. 2:34:24

     What you're saying, you think that the judges would like to be heard on these issues or, or review these issues before we pass a bill. Is that what you're saying?

764. 2:34:34

     I, I think some of the things have been, um, uh, brought to the attention of, of our judges, particularly in section two, as to who's gonna, uh, comply, uh, with, uh, you know, mailing the notices out. And it depends on what each, um, county has, uh, designated as their case manager for mine, the case managers fall within ... The judicial case managers fall with, under the judge. Some places it's the prosecutor, other places it's the clerk.

765. 2:35:07

     And who is going to be responsible for, uh, mailing out those notices? And which, um, department is responsible for the cost of that?

766. 2:35:16

     Yeah, uh, um, we're still not getting at what the question I'm asking, is we've ... Evidently there's been a lot of work done before I ever got here on this. There's been work b- on from both sides, but has there ever been a weigh-in from the, uh, judiciary on this? Have they reviewed any of this and made a, made any kind of recommendations or, or given us any kind of feedback?

767. 2:35:39

     I don't know that they would.

768. 2:35:40

     If you're asking about the case management.

769. 2:35:41

     I, I'll answer that one-

770. 2:35:42

     Okay

771. 2:35:42

     ... Mr. Solister.

772. 2:35:44

     Okay.

773. 2:35:44

     We have talked with the superior court judges here in the state and listened to a lot of their feedback over the last several weeks.

774. 2:35:54

     But I, I will note we are the legislative branch, and although we do invite their input, we are separate, a separate branch of government.

775. 2:36:05

     I'm not, I'm not one to argue ... I'm, I'm pull it out of a witness if I can, but what I'm, I'm saying, it looks like there's a lot of, lot of burden here on the court system as well as on the prosecutors, as well as on ... There's a defense discovery here involved, and we're talking about make ... It appears that this, you're gonna make the, um, solicitors and the prosecutors pay for the, um, material that's prepared by the, by the defendants. Um, as, uh, basically it reads that you're going to have to ...

776. 2:36:35

     That we're gonna have to supply money for them so they can afford to, to produce this, this, the, the discovery that's reciprocal. Is that, is that how you understand it?

777. 2:36:45

     Some of that, I believe, uh, because the, I think the chairman noted that you can't put those co- costs on a defendant. I think, you know, for us to be able to get that from the defendant, we would have to pay for it on the front end.

778. 2:36:58

     And then, of course, I guess if they're sentenced, they would be ordered to pay for it.

779. 2:37:02

     So-

780. 2:37:02

     Well, Representative Fincher, I'll, I'll tell you how it works in Forsyth County.

781. 2:37:06

     Yeah.

782. 2:37:06

     What was it, $75 for the discovery file?

783. 2:37:09

     No, it's free. We do it by Axon.

784. 2:37:11

     Okay. All right. The- there was written material, I believe, at one time that we used to get charged for them.

785. 2:37:16

     No, it was the, uh, cost of, of copying, uh, the, uh, videos. The video copying, uh, took an extensive amount of, um, of download time in order to get it from the sheriff's department to us. Once we had downloaded it, then we had to copy it. Uh, and then once copied, uh, it had to be, uh, passed along to, uh, the defense.

786. 2:37:43

     So Forsyth County, you have to pay $75 to get those disks already as it stands today?

787. 2:37:49

     No, that's not true. Uh, everything in Forsyth County is provided by Axon links now.

788. 2:37:54

     For the copy of the disk then that they-

789. 2:37:56

     We don't-

790. 2:37:56

     ... provided on and the downloading?

791. 2:37:58

     It, it is ... No. It ... You're given a link, and that link, uh, we are allowed to make a determination as to how long that link is active. Uh, it is, uh, up to 90 days. And so defense counsel has an, um ... It, they are not restricted at all during that 90 days, uh, to have a copy of that, and they can make their own copy. They don't have to go through us to make copies anymore.

792. 2:38:29

     You're talking about a past policy that we used to have.

793. 2:38:32

     Oh, I'm glad to hear that policy's changed then.

794. 2:38:34

     Okay. It, it, it is no longer, uh, a burden on us to, to spend, uh, untold hours copying, uh, videotapes, so we are appreciative of Axon, but then that costs money, uh, for the, for my county. And my county is fortunate. They pay for it. Um, and so I'm able to get that discovery out to you with, on, on DUIs within 14 days of arrest. I like to be able to do that because, uh, I want you to be able to make a decision, an informed decision.

795. 2:39:08

     You can't make a deformed, informed decision un- unless you have all the evidence.

796. 2:39:13

     Well, I'm glad to hear that policy changed. Thank you.

797. 2:39:16

     Mr., Mr. Chairman, if I might ask another question. Either, uh, whoever wants to respond. Now, do we know in, through- throughout the state are, how many, uh, prosecutors, how many, uh, counties have this Axon equipment in, uh, at their disposal? I mean, is it every single jurisdiction?

798. 2:39:37

     That is up to each individual, uh, county or jurisdiction.

799. 2:39:40

     But the county has to pay that.

800. 2:39:41

     That's correct.

801. 2:39:42

     That's an ex- It's not provided by the state.

802. 2:39:44

     No. It's not.

803. 2:39:44

     It's not routinely available.

804. 2:39:46

     No.

805. 2:39:47

     And, and now wh- what do you, what is your, your, your knowledge as to what it, the burden that would be on a jurisdiction that did not have this equipment?

806. 2:39:57

     Then they would have to do what we used to do, and that is to download it. Uh, that takes significant resources, significant amount of time, uh, just to download it, then you have to provide it to, uh, defense counsel through, um, thumb drives or, uh, DVDs.

807. 2:40:15

     Does it seem reasonable or would it be im- uh, uh, essentially an impossibility for people who don't have any of, of these, um, modern improvements to their, um, r- where they re- where they store information to, uh, produce that information i- in a jurisdiction that doesn't have Axon?

808. 2:40:38

     That, that's correct. And some of those, uh, jurisdictions, they don't provide copies. They just invite defense counsel to come in and view the materials, uh, in the, uh, in their offices.

809. 2:40:49

     This bill though doesn't, it requires more than that, does it not?

810. 2:40:53

     That's correct.

811. 2:40:54

     So it, it, you, it, that, that, it doesn't have a situation where some smaller community ...

812. 2:41:01

     There's not a carve out for that, no.

813. 2:41:04

     Okay.

814. 2:41:06

     Representative Fincher, I've got to move on to get to some of these other folks that have drove a long way. Sure. Thank you. I know that you've probably got a hour and a half drive, so if I- I have a 5:00 meeting, uh, committee meeting in Tennessee ... Well, we don't want you to miss that. Sure. So go right on ahead. Okay. Happy birthday to your grandson. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right.

815. 2:41:31

     Randy, I think you were signed up to speak to this one as well. Come on down.

816. 2:41:35

     Yes, sir.

817. 2:41:39

     Man, thank you all for having me again. Randy McGinley, DA down in Cobia Circuit. Um, couple things before I get into sort of the overall take on things that I wanna address is I know lines 27 through 30, and I will echo what Mr. Stewart said, is that, you know, I've met with Chairman Smith on this bill previously, and met with Gacdal multiple times to discuss multiple things. And, and they have made significant changes that address a lot of the concerns that I had. Um, I know lines, I guess the 26 through 30 is, uh, my understanding was that there may be some language that would put that burden on the clerk's office to mail or email that accusation or indictment instead of it being the DA or solicitor's responsibility.

818. 2:42:19

     Um, if that responsibility is taken away from us, I'd be very okay with that.

819. 2:42:24

     Yes. And I, I apologize for not mentioning that earlier. That is an amendment, and we're gonna work on putting that in there. Go ahead. I'm sorry.

820. 2:42:31

     No, you're good. And then lines, I think, basically 48 through 51, it was also my understanding from some conversation with Gacdal that there may be some amendment taking out private person, private entity, nonprofit entity that assists in the performance of law enforcement ser- 'cause I- Walmart and random, and those people can't be law enforcement agencies. I, I mean, you'd be putting someone who was a neighbor when a crime occurred, they had some on video, it'd be presumed that we would know that they have something when we have no idea that they have something. Um, and so I'll tell you is that, uh, the idea of adding private person, private entity, or nonprofit entity to law enforcement i- is a major, major problem I have.

821. 2:43:07

     I'm amendable to that, Chairman.

822. 2:43:08

     No problem. I just... Yeah. Um, one thing I did want to also address on the most recent one is, I guess it's lines 20- 222 through 229, and then also the same language in 278 through 284, which is essentially the, when either the prosecution or the defendant hasn't provided certain expert reports, um, to me, that changes the burden a bit on ex- or it lessens the burden in excluding evidence.

823. 2:43:42

     Um, as you're aware, I think it's 17166, that statute in and of itself requires, um, a showing of bad faith and prejudice from either side to have something excluded. 'Cause the whole point of a trial is the truth. And, uh, I mean, generally speaking, courts don't like to exclude things because that hides what the truth is. Um, and so if we're, specifically for expert reports, basically just saying it's excluded or if there's alternative remedy, th- that's taking away, in my view, the requirement to show bad faith and prejudice.

824. 2:44:14

     Um, and, and I think we shouldn't treat expert witness or expert testimony, reports, summaries, whatever, different than other evidence. Um, and I think the way this is written, it does that. Um, and, and I think I can see some things working in a way that, that would not be a good thing. Um,

825. 2:44:35

     there's also... What I'll tell you is just real quick on, on, on the, um, the shifting of costs, 'cause I, and I know, Chairman, you mentioned that the Constitution in Georgia is for, as what it says about the defendant not paying for cost of prosecution. The discovery statute, as it currently is and has been for a long time, requires us to make things available. And so that's always been that we could then charge for making copies. This is dramatically changing it from making available to furnishing to the defense.

826. 2:45:08

     Now, the reality is most of us do furnish things to the defense, and that's how we do things. But the frustrating thing is, and I promise you a lot of DAs and solicitors have this issue, when we send a Axon link, say it's open for 90 days for you to download and copy it. You know how often we have to resend that link to somebody over and over and over again? I have, and I don't... I'll say this, it's a public defender office case in my circuit, and I, I love my public defenders, so this is just a one-time thing, but we've had to download a murder file onto their hard drive three times now. And these things take an entire day's time to transfer something from our computer to the defen- to the defense's hard drive.

827. 2:45:46

     When I started in 2011, a 300-case caseload in 2011 versus a 300-case caseload nowadays is a completely different world. The amount of data in, in, is overwhelming nowadays. It is just a vastly different world. Video, phone dumps, social media records. Um, I have a case of a, a, and I'm not gonna get into it, it's a pending case, but it's a, a state employee that's arrested and charged with child pornography. And we, I, I just had to purchase a 10 terabyte hard drive just to put one thing from a computer download onto that.

828. 2:46:20

     And, and, and I, again, I, I have Axon as well. I, I'll tell you this, for my circuit, I have 75 total employees in my circuit. Um, we pay between the two counties about $130,000 a year for Axon. I, I'm lucky that I can do that. There's a lot of agencies, a lot of DA's office, solicitor's office that cannot afford that. And shifting the cost is just a totally cha- a total change to how we've been doing things. I, as far as requiring it, I guess I'll put it that way. We send things, we try to go ahead and get everything over the fence as fast as possible.

829. 2:46:50

     You know, we generally, if someone's already opted in, we send discovery before arraignment if they've opted in, or at arraignment when they opt in. Um, with our public defender's office, we work very well with them. I may be in a uni- unique cir- circumstance to where we've already agreed that we're doing reciprocal discovery for misdemeanors for the last 15 years of my circuit, 'cause it just works well. Um, but to me, when we're gonna call this an omni- omnibus bill changing all of discovery, you know, when we change the evidence code, when we change big things like that, this is not, we, we don't rush that. We get everybody to the table and have a ... And I know people don't necessarily like them sometimes, but we have these committees in terms ...

830. 2:47:24

     And I know I've sent a proposal to chairman of a study committee to make this right and do this the right way so we don't have those unintended consequences down the road. I'll use another example that's not addressed in this bill, is one of the biggest issues, 'cause I, I'm in a, again, in this circuit where I've got 75 total employees. I don't have a full case load, but I still try one or two murders, one or two child sex cases a year. So I'm in the courtroom personally handling these big cases. DFCS records are one of the biggest pain in the butt, I'll just say it, things I have to deal with for discovery.

831. 2:47:56

     And that's something that again, it, it, for various reasons, probably good reasons, is not being addressed by this. But why not address all those things at one time and do this as something where we have ev- the attorney general's office, they prosecute cases. You know, people from various size offices involve that discussion and make this something that we study and do right the first time. Um, with that, I'll, I'll answer any questions. Like I said, I've been involved in this a lot. I, you know, there's been a lot of changes that have been made to this, and I appreciate that. Um, so I'll leave it at that.

832. 2:48:25

     All right.

833. 2:48:25

     And I'll answer any questions.

834. 2:48:29

     It is 4:57. We've got some members that need to get to rules. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna come back to this on Thursday. Um, thank y'all for your patience today. We'll stand adjourned till Thursday, and we will let y'all know what time. Be safe traveling to and from.

835. 2:48:50

     Mr. Chairman?

836. 2:48:50

     Will this witness be available l- later on? I will. I'll be here Thursday.

837. 2:48:56

     All right.

838. 2:49:18

     We're adjourned.