Comité Judiciary del Senado, 16 de marzo de 2026
2025-2026 Regular Session · 307 CLOB · 57 min
Esta es una transcripción automática del video de la Asamblea General, hecha por un modelo de reconocimiento de voz. No es un registro oficial y puede entender mal palabras, nombres y números. No se identifica a quienes hablan. El video es el registro: cada marca de tiempo enlaza al momento en que se reproduce.
El video es de la Asamblea General y se reproduce desde su canal de Vimeo. Seleccione cualquier tiempo de abajo para reproducir ese momento. Ver en el canal de Vimeo de la Asamblea General · Agenda
Resumen
Escrito por un modelo de IA (gpt-6.1-sol) a partir de la transcripción. No forma parte del registro, y el video es lo que se dijo.
El comité examinó siete proyectos de ley y recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación de los siete. Los miembros aprobaron medidas sobre taquígrafos judiciales certificados para las declaraciones juradas, procedimientos de presentación de documentos ante los tribunales de sucesiones, viajes interestatales para la explotación infantil, divulgación del historial de inundaciones en la venta de viviendas, beneficios para agentes del orden lesionados, notificación de audiencias sobre solicitudes de órdenes de arresto y fianzas en efectivo para familiares, y correcciones a la legislación estatal. Las medidas sobre presentación de documentos ante los tribunales de sucesiones, divulgación de inundaciones y notificación de órdenes de arresto se aprobaron como versiones sustitutivas del comité. La discusión se centró principalmente en si exigir la notificación personal de los avisos de audiencias sobre órdenes de arresto supondría una carga para las agencias locales del orden público. Después de que el patrocinador y la asesoría jurídica legislativa dijeran que los jueces conservarían la flexibilidad para aprobar otros métodos de entrega, el comité dio curso a ese proyecto de ley sin otra enmienda.
Proyectos de ley tratados (7)
Cada relato abarca el tramo de la reunión que indica. El número del proyecto de ley se dice en ese tramo, salvo cuando era el único proyecto en la agenda de un comité.
HB 1208. Civil practice; require depositions to be taken before certified court reporters
Desde 0:26:39 · turnos 7 a 51
El patrocinador dijo que HB 1208 exigiría que las declaraciones juradas se tomaran ante taquígrafos judiciales certificados y permitiría grabarlas con sonido o con sonido y video. La presidencia dijo que una iniciativa anterior había quedado pendiente mientras las partes interesadas trabajaban para llegar a un acuerdo. Ante la pregunta de si se seguiría proporcionando una transcripción escrita, el patrocinador respondió que sí. No hubo intervenciones de testigos y el comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación.
HB 530. Courts; authorization for electronic filing of pleadings in probate court; provide
Desde 0:28:55 · turnos 53 a 73
El patrocinador presentó una versión sustitutiva revisada de HB 530, que había quedado pendiente en la audiencia anterior para realizar cambios. El patrocinador dijo que la versión sustitutiva trasladaba la fecha de entrada en vigor del 1 de enero de 2028 al 1 de enero de 2029, mantenía el texto relativo a las tarifas al tiempo que eliminaba algunas excepciones y eliminaba la fecha límite después de la cual los abogados ya no podrían presentar documentos en papel. El patrocinador dijo que esto permitiría que la presentación en papel continuara indefinidamente. No hubo preguntas sustantivas ni testimonios del público. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación de la versión sustitutiva.
HB 421. Interstate Sexual Predator Prevention Act; enact
Desde 0:31:28 · turnos 74 a 128
El patrocinador dijo que HB 421 ampliaría el delito de atraer a un menor con fines indecentes para abarcar los viajes desde otro estado con el fin de cometer abuso sexual infantil o actos indecentes que involucren a un menor de 16 años. El patrocinador describió un caso en el que un adulto se puso en contacto con un adolescente por internet y viajó hasta el dormitorio del adolescente, pero los cargos fueron desestimados debido a un vacío en la legislación de Georgia. Un miembro del comité preguntó si seguirían aplicándose las penas reducidas existentes para ciertos casos en los que las personas tienen edades cercanas. La asesoría jurídica legislativa dijo que parecían seguir siendo aplicables y describió los límites de edad existentes. Un testigo de Georgia Baptist Mission Board apoyó el proyecto de ley como una medida de prevención del abuso infantil. Un segundo testigo describió un intento de trata que involucró a su familia, apoyó el proyecto de ley y sugirió añadir una referencia a una definición existente de indecencia. No se propuso ninguna enmienda que adoptara esa sugerencia. Un testigo de Frontline Policy Council dijo que el proyecto de ley ayudaría a las fuerzas del orden a intervenir antes de que se produjera un daño. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación.
HB 618. Property; require any seller of real property to make certain disclosures regarding flood damage to such real property
Desde 0:39:29 · turnos 129 a 149
La presidencia dijo que la versión sustitutiva de HB 618 coincidía con la versión que el comité había aprobado el año anterior y que no había sido sometida a votación en el pleno. El patrocinador dijo que el proyecto de ley exigiría a los vendedores de propiedades residenciales informar si la propiedad se había inundado. El patrocinador también dijo que Georgia Realtors ya incluía ese requisito de divulgación en sus contratos. No se hicieron preguntas sustantivas. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación de la versión sustitutiva.
HB 1128. State Board of Workers' Compensation; notice of eligibility for compensation to an injured employee to his or her legal guardian; provide
Desde 0:42:12 · turnos 150 a 170
El patrocinador dijo que HB 1128, presentado en nombre del gobernador, daría a ciertos agentes del orden con lesiones cerebrales orgánicas, o a sus tutores legales, otra oportunidad de solicitar beneficios estatales de indemnización después de haber dejado pasar el plazo original. El patrocinador dijo que el período de solicitud sería del 1 de julio al 1 de agosto de 2026 y que creía que solo un solicitante reuniría los requisitos. El patrocinador también dijo que el proyecto de ley exigiría notificar a los tutores legales sobre los beneficios de indemnización, con lo que se subsanaría una deficiencia en los requisitos de notificación existentes. La presidencia apoyó el cambio y describió una experiencia anterior en la que un agente lesionado y otras personas no sabían que había beneficios disponibles. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación.
HB 1131. Criminal procedure; personal service of process for notice of a warrant application hearing; provide
Desde 0:45:38 · turnos 171 a 228
El patrocinador dijo que HB 1131 exigiría la notificación personal de los avisos de audiencias sobre solicitudes de órdenes de arresto para evitar que se emitieran órdenes contra personas que nunca recibieron el aviso. El patrocinador dijo que la versión sustitutiva también eximía del límite de tres fianzas en efectivo por año a las personas que depositaran fianzas en efectivo para familiares directos. Un testigo de Fulton County Marshal's Office coincidió en que los avisos no recibidos o enviados a destinatarios equivocados eran un problema, pero dijo que la notificación personal obligatoria añadiría una carga sin financiamiento a una agencia que ya tenía exceso de trabajo. El testigo propuso enviar primero los avisos por correo y luego exigir la notificación personal si el destinatario no comparecía, y advirtió que la notificación personal inmediata también podría retrasar las audiencias. El patrocinador dijo que un representante de Georgia Sheriffs' Association había informado que muchas oficinas de los sheriffs ya entregaban personalmente estos avisos sin objeciones. Un miembro del comité preguntó sobre la posibilidad de permitir primero el envío por correo. El patrocinador y la asesoría jurídica legislativa dijeron que el texto que permitía cualquier medio aprobado por el juez daba esa flexibilidad a los tribunales. Tras esa explicación, el miembro decidió no proponer una enmienda. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación de la versión sustitutiva.
HB 1268. Official Code of Georgia Annotated; revise, modernize and correct errors or omissions
Desde 0:53:34 · turnos 229 a 259
Un copatrocinador del proyecto de ley presentó HB 1268 como la medida anual de revisión del código y describió correcciones de mayúsculas, puntuación y conjunciones faltantes. La presidencia dijo que el proyecto de ley provenía de la asesoría jurídica legislativa y que su intención era no realizar cambios sustantivos de política, lo que confirmó quien lo presentó. No hubo preguntas sustantivas ni testimonios del público después de la presentación. El comité recomendó por unanimidad la aprobación.
Transcripción
264 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.
- 0:25:12
Judiciary hearing. Is everybody going to sit on that side? Republican. You have a Republican primary. You can sit to my left, though, if you'd like.
- 0:25:20
I don't want to do that.
- 0:25:21
Oh, okay. We had a very exciting day on the floor today. I want to congratulate Senator McNeel for your successful passage of your bill. Thank you. We now know that animals at our zoos will not be harassed, and they will not be stressed out. And if they are, they'll go to jail. Well, the person who does it will go to jail, and they'll be locked up just like the animals, I guess, because of you, Steven. It's kind of sad.
- 0:25:53
Leader Gooch, would you like to open us up in a word of prayer?
- 0:25:58
Let's pray. Dear Lord, thank you, God, for another great day. God, thank you for our freedom in this country. We pray for our troops in, in the Middle East, that they'll come back home safely to their folks. And God be with this committee as we make decisions that's good for the citizens of Georgia. In these things, I pray. Amen.
- 0:26:15
You can tell you're our majority leader. You brought it back serious again, got us back on topic, so-
- 0:26:20
Got to get serious.
- 0:26:21
Got to get serious. All right. Let's get on our aggressive agenda. If you want to be heard on a bill, please come sign up. If you didn't sign up, we have a sign-up sheet up here. We are going to start by sucking up to some of the chairmen, including Chairman Gunter, if you'll please come down. House Bill 1208. This is something that came through our committee last year. Not this is that bill. I think it was a different bill. In trying to deal with some issues around, um, how our laws are written with court reporters.
- 0:26:54
And my understanding is you've worked with all the interested parties and have everybody, uh, now on the same page with this bill. And we are working off of LC492659S.
- 0:27:09
Correct.
- 0:27:09
Is that right?
- 0:27:10
That's correct.
- 0:27:10
So the floor is yours.
- 0:27:11
All right. Thank you. Uh, a very simple bill that, um, modernizes the code a bit. Uh, requires that depositions shall be taken before a certified court reporter, and that, uh, they can take it by sound or sound and visual means. And that's, that's basically the bill.
- 0:27:31
And again, we had a lot of talk last year, and we ended up holding the bill last year so we could get our court reporters all on the same page, and it sounds like you've done that. Nobody signed up to speak on the bill. Any questions for the author? Senator Cowsert.
- 0:27:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I know the answer, but I just want to make certain. At the conclusion of the deposition, will the court reporter still provide a written transcript?
- 0:27:52
Yes.
- 0:27:53
Okay.
- 0:27:53
Yes.
- 0:27:53
I thought that was the case, but-
- 0:27:55
Yeah, it is
- 0:27:55
... so this just allows them to take it down, whatever method is acceptable.
- 0:27:59
Exactly.
- 0:28:00
But you still get to see it for, to prepare for trial.
- 0:28:02
Yeah. And still have to pay for it, too.
- 0:28:04
Uh, understood.
- 0:28:06
Any other questions?
- 0:28:09
Make a motion.
- 0:28:10
We have a motion from Leader, former Leader Gooch.
- 0:28:14
Second.
- 0:28:15
Motion do pass. And we have a second from Leader Hatchett or someone down there.
- 0:28:21
Yep.
- 0:28:21
Any discussion? All those in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous. Who's carrying this bill in the Senate?
- 0:28:28
Who would you like to carry it in the Senate?
- 0:28:32
Um-
- 0:28:33
I don't know
- 0:28:33
... Senator Gooch has interest in it.
- 0:28:35
I'll take it.
- 0:28:35
Okay. Leader Hatchett really has interest in it.
- 0:28:37
He normally carries what I-
- 0:28:38
Right
- 0:28:38
... what I bring.
- 0:28:39
I got to be practicing for it.
- 0:28:40
I'm trying to give you some practice.
- 0:28:42
I'm not going to law school.
- 0:28:43
Well.
- 0:28:43
I'm too old to get to that.
- 0:28:44
Well.
- 0:28:45
Five years past oral forum. I- Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:28:47
All right. Thank you.
- 0:28:48
Thank you, committee. I appreciate it.
- 0:28:49
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We'll see you soon.
- 0:28:52
All right.
- 0:28:52
All right. Let's go back on the top of the agenda. House Bill 530, a holdover from our last... Come on up, Chairman Leverett. From our last hearing. You were working on some changes. We started kind of doing this on the fly, and we instead decided to give you some time to get a substitute together. I believe you've done that and also shared that with members of the committee, including Chairman Cowsert, to make sure everybody was on board. And I have LC492794S. Is that what you have?
- 0:29:19
That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:29:21
All right. Do you want to tell us about the changes?
- 0:29:23
So the changes are basically, uh, in addition to the changes that, that Chairman Cowsert requested, uh, we also did change the effective date. We just decided to push it on back. So on line 12 and in line 17, we changed January 1, 2028 to January 1, 2029. Um, and then the s- uh, substantive changes to deal with the, uh, concern that Chairman Cowsert had are mainly on page two, uh, in really lines 29 through 32.
- 0:29:55
We've moved that phrase from, it was, was originally later on in the bill 'cause we had some additional exceptions. But now, uh, making this change kind of alleviated the need for those, some of those exceptions, so we preserved that language about fees. Um, and on page
- 0:30:16
four, I believe, we deleted what was old paragraph 6B at the top of that page and, um, but, but that's where we preserved some of those lines on the, that I just referred to in the, in, on page two. And then there was a section D2 that basically said the, sort of the, uh, the, the attorneys had sort of a, a, a grace period where they could continue to file by paper, but that terminated at a certain time. We've taken that out, so that continues in perpetuity, I guess, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:30:48
All right. Any questions from the committee?
- 0:30:52
Need a motion.
- 0:30:53
Nobody signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?
- 0:30:55
Move do pass.
- 0:30:57
Motion to pass by committee substitute from Chairman Cowsert.
- 0:30:59
Second.
- 0:30:59
A second from Senator Gooch. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous, and who's carrying this one?
- 0:31:09
I don't want COVID
- 0:31:10
Mr. Chairman, I believe you are
- 0:31:12
Me? Okay. All right.
- 0:31:14
You've been conscripted.
- 0:31:15
Now I'll have to go read it, so. All right. Thank you. Appreciate your work on this.
- 0:31:20
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:31:21
Thank you.
- 0:31:21
Thank you, members of the committee.
- 0:31:24
Yeah. All right, Chairwoman Taylor, come on up. House Bill 421. Simple bill, but something that we're trying to... I know an issue you've worked on trying to clean up in our code, working off of LC48178. So the floor is yours.
- 0:31:44
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This bill amends Code Section 16-6-5 relating to enticing a child for indecent purposes. It's been... This bill has been in the works for a while. It came to my attention several years ago by a detective who worked the case. It's a result of an unfortunate incident. A predator from another state contacted a young teenager. They communicated online for several weeks. The men- man then came to town, um, where he proceeded to make advances to the teenager.
- 0:32:15
The father actually heard some noise, found the man in the boy's bedroom. Though his intentions were obvious, no act had been committed yet. Law enforcement came. The man was charged and arrested, uh, but it was discovered that Georgia had no law for traveling from another state for this, uh, purpose. Um, some of our other surrounding states, like Florida, does have it. The judge actually dismissed the charges. The man was let go. He went on to commit the same crime in other states.
- 0:32:46
The detective who worked this case is now my sheriff, and he actually has testified against this person in other states. To correct this matter, it's very, very simple. In Section One, a person commits the offense of enticing a child for indecent purposes when he or she solicits, entices, or takes any child under the age of 16 to any place whatsoever, and I'm adding, or travels from another state for the purpose of child molestation or indecent acts. It's a very simple addition of five little words.
- 0:33:17
Um, Mr. Chairman, if there are, uh... It's a simple fix. If there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
- 0:33:24
All right. Appreciate your sheriff. He called me about this issue as well, and I told him you had it handled, and you got it handled-
- 0:33:30
Thank you
- 0:33:30
... in the House and brought it over here to us. Any questions, uh, for the author of the bill? All right. Nobody signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?
- 0:33:41
Motion to pass.
- 0:33:42
Motion to pass from s- Chairman Watson. Is there a second?
- 0:33:44
Second.
- 0:33:45
Second from Senator Gooch. Any discussion?
- 0:33:49
Steve, you want to say-
- 0:33:50
I'm sorry. I didn't s- I was looking at the wrong sign-up sheet.
- 0:33:53
He gets, he gets paid by the minute.
- 0:33:54
Mm. Come on up, Mike. Sorry. We do have three people signed up to speak. I apologize. Mike Griffin, Georgia Baptist Mission Board.
- 0:34:05
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to be with y'all today. And, um, one of the areas that I cover, uh, with the Georgia Baptist Mission Board, not just public affairs and religious freedom, but also child protection policy. And, um, we definitely support House Bill 421, and I appreciate, uh, Representative Darlene Taylor. We're both Thomasvillians, I guess you could call us that.
- 0:34:30
Mm-hmm.
- 0:34:30
Born and raised down there, and I appreciate her for her stand on this issue. Um, I've done about, I think it's 18 classes I've taught over the last three years in our conferences with Georgia Baptist on child sex abuse prevention, and this is so very important. It's, uh, as I said in the, um, House committee, it's a no-brainer. I mean, this is something that we've got to do, we've got to be concerned about. I work with, uh, Greg Love with Ministry Save. Georgia Baptist, I partner with them on dealing with child sex abuse issues and making sure that we do all that we can to prevent it.
- 0:35:07
And so I would appreciate this committee's support for this legislation. I'm also reminded constantly of Luke 17:2, where Jesus said that, "It'd be better that a millstone be tied about our neck and cast into the deepest part of the sea than to cause one of these little ones to stumble." So I really appreciate, um, Mr. Chairman, your support and this committee's support, and for our representative here, Darlene Taylor. Thank you.
- 0:35:33
And thank you, Mike. Appreciate all you continue to do through Georgia Baptist-
- 0:35:36
Yes
- 0:35:36
... up here as well. Any questions? There was... Was your question for-
- 0:35:40
Yeah
- 0:35:40
... Mr. Griffin?
- 0:35:42
Five, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
- 0:35:43
Okay, go ahead.
- 0:35:44
It's actually for Mr. Walker.
- 0:35:46
For Mr. Walker.
- 0:35:47
Mm-hmm.
- 0:35:47
Okay, go ahead.
- 0:35:48
Okay.
- 0:35:48
Thank you.
- 0:35:49
Um, a little de- sidebar conversation over here. We were wondering if the existing Romeo and Juliet provisions in the code were probably encapsulated in this already.
- 0:36:04
It, it appears that they are, uh, Senator. There, uh, is a provision in code section 16-6-5, uh, if the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of enticing a child for indecent purposes is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and so forth.
- 0:36:30
Thank you. Just wanted to confirm.
- 0:36:33
All right. We do have a couple other... Sorry, I was looking at the wrong sign-up sheet. Um, Brooke Mills, come on down.
- 0:36:48
Thanks for being here with us.
- 0:36:50
Good evening. My name is Brooke Mills, and I really appreciate this bill coming, uh, um, coming to this chamber. Um, at age six, during a Hanukkah celebration, um, in the Jewish community, there was an attempt to, uh, um, to, to human traffic my brother and, a- um, and I. My, my brother was only s- six at the, at the time, by a known, inter- u- um, interstate se- um, sexual offender. So I, I really wel- welcome and appreciate this bill that comes to the foray to be able to address this, this very much needed issue.
- 0:37:21
Um, I do wanna point out, now I might be on the wrong LC. I'm working 48178.
- 0:37:27
That's right.
- 0:37:29
But on lines, on line 11, it may help, this is just a suggestion by me, that if we, for definitions of indecency, if we link to, um, OCGA 16-6-8A, which is,
- 0:37:46
um, which defines indecency as an act of sexual intercourse, a lewd exposure of the sexual organs, a lewd appearance in the state of partial or complete nudity, or a lewd caress or indecent fondling of the body of another person.
- 0:38:03
Thank you, Ms. Mills. Thank you for being willing to share the story from your family, and I appreciate you being willing to share that as we move this bill.
- 0:38:11
Of course. And I appreciate y'all.
- 0:38:13
All right.
- 0:38:13
God bless.
- 0:38:13
Thank you. Thank you. All right, Tripp Ri- Richardson with Frontline Policy.
- 0:38:21
You can close us out.
- 0:38:28
Thank you, Chairman, and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson with Frontline Policy Council. Uh, as we have previously supported this legislation, we are glad to once again stand in support of HB 421. I'll keep it short. Protecting children from exploitation is a priority, and legislation like this strengthens the tools law enforcement has to intervene before harm can even occur. We are grateful to Representative Darlene Taylor for bringing this bill forward. We respectfully ask for your favorable consideration. Thank you.
- 0:38:55
All right. Thank you, Mr. Richardson. All right. That's everyone that signed up to speak on the bill. We have a motion to pass, and we have a second. We're back to the underlying motion. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is... Senator Watson, are you for it? All right. It is unanimous. And who do you have carrying this one?
- 0:39:16
I believe you are.
- 0:39:17
Okay. All right. That's my quota for the day, though, but yeah, happy to do it. I appreciate your work on this.
- 0:39:21
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee.
- 0:39:23
All right. Thank you.
- 0:39:26
All right, Representative Campbell, House Bill 618.
- 0:39:33
Come on down. And this is another one that we worked on last year, and a lot of people don't realize when a bill moves... We did a substitute last year in this committee working with our friends of the Realtors, and then it did not, um, get called up for a floor vote, so it reverted back to its original form. So what you have here today is the substitute that we passed out last year, and if the committee wants to take the same approach, this will be the exact same one we passed out last year, LC 492815S.
- 0:40:07
So the floor is yours.
- 0:40:09
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Thank y'all. Uh, I'm Joe Campbell, District 171 from the very southwest corner of Georgia.
- 0:40:19
Mm-hmm.
- 0:40:20
Below Albany to the Florida line, and a lot, a lot of peanuts and a lot of cows. So anyway, I- I'm here to ask y'all for your favorable consideration to pass HB 618 today. This is the third hearing on this bill, and it is identical to the version, version which passed out in the 2025 session. This bill simply requires that a person who sells a residential property must disclose if that property has been flooded.
- 0:40:51
The Georgia Realtors already have this disclosure requirement on their contracts. So I would ask for a mo- motion to pass if there are no questions. Thank you.
- 0:41:02
Mr. Ledford, were you wanting to say anything?
- 0:41:04
I, I am here to assist with any questions. This is the exact same version y'all passed out last year, so...
- 0:41:11
All right. Any questions for the author or Mr. Ledford?
- 0:41:17
All right. What's the pleasure of the committee?
- 0:41:20
Move to pass.
- 0:41:21
Motion to pass by committee substitute from Senator Parent, a second from Senator Gooch. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who is... I can't remember who carried this one last year.
- 0:41:36
Steven McNeel.
- 0:41:37
Oh.
- 0:41:38
He didn't carry it last year.
- 0:41:39
No. You know, it didn't work out last year. They're trying somebody different. Who was- Who'd you a- Who'd you ask last year? It wasn't me, was it? I don't remember. Oh, Ben Watson. Oh, we'll see if the freshman can do better. Yeah. He does really well with bills, and he's really smooth on the floor, so...
- 0:41:56
Undefeated.
- 0:41:57
Yeah, undefeated, one for one. Watson, you know, he's been batting for a while, so the average is a little more, you know. All right.
- 0:42:04
Thank you.
- 0:42:05
Thank you.
- 0:42:09
All right, Leader Seabaugh, come on up. House Bill 1128.
- 0:42:18
We are working off LC481688EC, and this is the version that passed the House. Isn't that correct?
- 0:42:27
Correct.
- 0:42:27
All right. The floor is yours.
- 0:42:28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, bringing this bill on behalf of Governor Kemp, uh, this proposal honors our commitment to Georgia's law enforcement officers who have been seriously injured in the line of duty. In limited circumstances, officers who sustained an organic brain damage, uh, injury while protecting the public were unable to meet their original application deadline for state indemnification benefits. This legislation would create a one-time nai- narrowly tailored opportunity for affected officers or their legal guardians to reapply for indemnification benefits.
- 0:43:04
This legislation would reopen the application window for a short period beginning July 1st, 2026 and ending August 1st, 2026, allowing eligible individuals to submit applications with appropriate documentation. Currently, I believe we only have one, uh, one applicant that this would apply to. Importantly, this issue is unlikely to, uh, reoccur, um- Because the State, uh, Board of Workers' Comp now requires that the employing law enforcement agency, uh, to notify the injured officer's legal guardians of their benefit, including information regarding the Georgia State Indemnification Fund.
- 0:43:44
This bill takes the further step requiring those entities to notify legal guardians of ah, indemnification as well, closing the gap in this, uh, error that we made. So that is the bill. I'm happy to take any questions.
- 0:43:58
Do you remember who carried the bill that required that notice of the fund?
- 0:44:03
You did, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:44:04
Oh, I was waiting to... I was waiting for the compliment, but I, you know, you had to-
- 0:44:06
Well, we do appreciate that.
- 0:44:07
What do you do, you know? No, thank you for doing this. An important issue, and I know that was one of the issues that I worked on with my bill, is so many people didn't even know about these options, including law enforcement officers that were injured in the line of duty. Like in my situation, there was a fundraiser to raise money to help pay the full salary of an officer that was shot in the line of duty, and we were trying to say, "There's gotta be somewhere to get access to money." And it turns out there was, and nobody knew about it.
- 0:44:32
That's right.
- 0:44:32
At least the officers didn't know about it at the time. And so, um, that was all we tried to do with that first bill, and I appreciate this as another great step to help, um, those that are really on the front lines fighting for us, going towards the harms we all run from. And the least we can do is support them when they're injured, so I appreciate your work on this. Any questions from the committee?
- 0:44:56
All right, what's the pleasure that... You have a motion. Motion to pass. Motion to pass. 1268-LC. From Senator Gooch to second from Senator Ha- Leader Hatchett. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Is Leader Hatchett carrying it, I'm assuming, or?
- 0:45:16
I believe Kay Kir- Senator Kirkpatrick is carrying it.
- 0:45:18
Okay, Senator Kirkpatrick. Okay.
- 0:45:20
We're gonna give Senator Hatchett worry.
- 0:45:22
Yeah, he's really busy.
- 0:45:24
Mm-hmm. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- 0:45:26
Thank you. Appreciate y'all. Thank you.
- 0:45:31
All right, Rep- or Leader Hong, come on down. We have House Bill 1131, working off of LC481822S.
- 0:45:46
That's correct.
- 0:45:47
And the floor is yours.
- 0:45:48
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. Um, there are two different issues that, uh, we're dealing with on, in this bill. Uh, first one is regarding applications for, um, warrant. Um, so those notices, we're changing it to personal service. Oftentimes people file, uh, warrant applications and the hearing notices are not received, and so people don't show up and they have a criminal warrant that's issued against them. So we wanna make sure that that is served, um, with personal service.
- 0:46:20
And the second part of it is page four, um, line 88 and 89 has to deal with cash bonds. Currently, individuals can only post three cash bonds a year, and so we're exempting individuals who are posting cash bonds for immediate family members. Can I take that?
- 0:46:40
And 88 and 89 was added in substitute, that was not part of your original bill. Is that right?
- 0:46:44
That's correct.
- 0:46:45
Okay. We do have someone signed up to speak, but before we get there, any questions for the author?
- 0:46:54
All right, thank you.
- 0:46:55
Thank you.
- 0:46:55
We have one person signed up to speak. It's Lieutenant Buck with the Fulton County Marshal's Office. Hey.
- 0:47:03
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
- 0:47:05
Good evening.
- 0:47:05
I apologize for taking up y'all's valuable time.
- 0:47:08
You're good. We're flying anyway. You slow down, so it's okay.
- 0:47:11
Mike, uh, I'll t- I'll just, I'll just come straight out with this. I'm, uh, Lieutenant Buck with the Fulton County Marshal's Department. We, uh, we serve the, uh, Magistrate Court of Fulton County, which is, which serves the largest, uh, jurisdiction as far as population in the State of Georgia. So we're gonna get the lion's share of, we're gonna bear the lion's share of the responsibility for the service of these, personal service of these notices. And so it'd simply put an additional burden on us, an additional unfunded burden on us, uh, when we're already an over-tasked agency.
- 0:47:43
What I would... Now, I'm not, I'm not here to say no. I actually respect, uh, Representative Hong's, uh, i- initiative and intentions because the, uh, w- the evil she's trying to remedy is very definitely a real evil. A notice is sent by mail to the, uh, to the respondent against whom the warrant application is taken, and the, a- and either it's a bad address, an old address, or perhaps in a rare edge case, the, uh, the applicant even connives to have it sent to the wrong address so as to effectively get a, uh, a, a groundless warrant issued against a person that he or she has a, uh, um, has a grievance against.
- 0:48:21
Okay, my position is this. Rather than going forward exactly as it is, what I would propose is rather than require personal service straight off, allow an attempted service by mail straight off, followed by a, uh, followed, in a case of non-appearance of the respondent, by a mandate for personal service. Uh, this would reduce the amount of, uh, the burden on local law enforcement agencies, whether it's, uh, one with a huge jurisdiction like us or a s- or the smaller, uh, agencies in the more rural parts of the state.
- 0:48:55
Uh, an argument has been made that this would result in cases being continued because person didn't r- didn't respond in accordance with the, uh, uh, a mailed notice. And, uh, a- and I can see that happening, but I'm gonna tell you that if we are, if we're required to perfect p- perfect personal service straight off, we're gonna not be able to get those achieved every time within the, uh, within the time frame set by the court. Still cause resets anyway. Uh, and with that, I think I've, I've said my piece.
- 0:49:27
If anyone, ready to answer any questions.
- 0:49:29
Any questions for Lieutenant Buck? All right, thank you.
- 0:49:34
Thank you.
- 0:49:35
Do you wanna close this out, Leader Hong?
- 0:49:37
Yes, thank you, Chairman. Um, wanted to let the committee know that Mike Mitchell from Georgia Sheriff's Association had reached out to me about this issue, and had said that a lot of the sheriff's offices are already serving pre-warrant hearing notices, and so that they do not have an issue with this. This is about due process. Um, we, we wanna make sure, we have civil lawsuits that are being personally served when we have people who are getting criminal warrants taken out against them that are not being personally served, so I think this is an important measure.
- 0:50:12
Thank you.
- 0:50:12
All right. Any other questions, or any questions from the committee?
- 0:50:18
Mr. Chairman.
- 0:50:19
All right.
- 0:50:22
Questions.
- 0:50:22
Senator Bearden?
- 0:50:23
Yeah. I understand the, uh, this-
- 0:50:25
Well, let's put your mic on. What's your mic number? 12?
- 0:50:29
Close, but 13.
- 0:50:30
13. Go ahead.
- 0:50:32
Am I on?
- 0:50:32
You're on. Well, now you are. Don't touch it.
- 0:50:36
Had to mend, okay. Oh, yes, sir. Um, I understand the lieutenant's issue that he's discussing, and honestly, I wouldn't mind having that first attempt by mail service, but I just wasn't sure exactly where that would go. I guess my question would be towards, uh, legislative council on that,
- 0:50:58
pertaining thereto by mail service first then by personal service, or that's just, that's not gonna fly. I know that that was a general concept.
- 0:51:06
Let me ask this question. I don't know if you can answer this, or maybe Mr. Walker. The way the law is written, is there anything that prohibits a court from having that policy where you attempt to mail first before we do personal services? It's not something that, based on how this is written-
- 0:51:21
That's correct, and that's been discussed-
- 0:51:23
... a judge could do that
- 0:51:23
... um, in, I, I know he's, he's showed up to the House committee meeting. So the way that the language is written, it's personal service or by any means approved by the judge or other officer. And so if, uh, I personally think that that's just gonna overburden the court when you're having a hearing and then realize they're not coming to court, and then now they have to do a personal service and set another hearing for it. Um, however, if, if it's approved by the judge and want, and they decide that they wanna go ahead and do mail service first, and then, and have that procedure, that this doesn't prevent it.
- 0:52:03
You wanna ask more questions, Senator Bearden? Or Mr. Walker, do you have any thoughts?
- 0:52:13
I'm waiting on Mr. Walker's thoughts.
- 0:52:15
He just gave you that.
- 0:52:19
Uh, I, yes, I concur with Representative, uh, the characterization by any means approved by the judge should be flexible enough to contemplate, you know, the court provides for that. If you wanted to expressly include it, I would be happy to suggest some language, um, but I don't know that it would be necessary.
- 0:52:43
I trust him 100%, so, uh, we'll hold off on any amendment.
- 0:52:46
You trust him, but you don't trust us. Yeah.
- 0:52:50
Above this table here, I trust him 100%.
- 0:52:52
I understand. That's a good answer. All right, any other questions from the committee? Senator Cowsert?
- 0:52:59
I'd like to make a motion do pass.
- 0:53:00
A motion do pass by committee substitute from Senator-
- 0:53:04
LC48-1822s
- 0:53:06
... from Senator Cowsert, second from Senator Gooch. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who's carrying this one?
- 0:53:19
Uh, Whit Randy Robertson.
- 0:53:21
Okay.
- 0:53:22
Thank you.
- 0:53:22
Good deal. Thank you.
- 0:53:27
All right, the last bill on the agenda is Whit Burchett's bill, House Bill 1268. Are you presenting it?
- 0:53:38
I'll, I'll
- 0:53:38
Come on down.
- 0:53:40
Mm-hmm.
- 0:53:40
Come on down.
- 0:53:41
I cosigned on it, and it's, it's one of those kind of high-voltage bills I'm known for, Mr. Chairman-
- 0:53:46
Yeah
- 0:53:46
... cleanup bills.
- 0:53:46
You gotta go through every change. This is the annual code revision bill, LC394848.
- 0:53:54
So I, I, you know, this, uh, uh, I'm sure, first of all, that many of you will be delighted that in Section B8 of just Code Section 611, we've inserted the word and after the word state. I know, uh, Chairman Hatchett mentioned how much he was just so glad we finally solved that issue.
- 0:54:10
It's been a lot of calls.
- 0:54:11
And that, of course, we did some mailers on that in the district. Um, so that's the kind of thing. It's capitalization, punctuation, inserting conjunctions where they're missing, the, the sort of real exciting things that, um, code revision bills are known for.
- 0:54:26
So this is not supposed to be a substantive bill. There's no policy changes.
- 0:54:30
Uh-uh.
- 0:54:30
But it's cleanup of our code.
- 0:54:33
Yes, sir.
- 0:54:34
It comes from legislative council. Any questions from the committee?
- 0:54:42
And I believe Whit Burchett missed a meeting of the Code Revision Commission, and that's why he is now chairman of it, and that's why he's-
- 0:54:48
Uh-huh
- 0:54:48
... lead sponsor.
- 0:54:49
I, I know. I remember when he was named chairman. All right, what's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to pass from Leader Hatchett, second from Chairman Cowsert. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who's carrying this one?
- 0:55:08
I, I'm afraid I do not know. I'll try to find out and communicate that to your office.
- 0:55:11
Does anybody wanna take it?
- 0:55:14
I can take that.
- 0:55:15
Leader Hatchett, it's now a governor's bill.
- 0:55:19
Volunteer.
- 0:55:21
All right.
- 0:55:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much-
- 0:55:23
Thank you
- 0:55:24
... Leader Hatchett, for stepping in that breach voluntarily, completely of your own free will.
- 0:55:28
It's called making eye contact with the chairman. Something you should not do. Others avoided, especially Watson on the end. All right. That is our agenda, believe it or not.
- 0:55:40
Amazing.
- 0:55:40
So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven house bills moved out today.
- 0:55:47
Pretty good work, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:55:47
It's good. So some of us have to appear in front of House Judiciary tomorrow and the next day, so hopefully we'll be just as fast and efficient. All right. With that, we are adjourned. Thank you.