House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, February 17, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1164115542 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1164115542#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-17/house-judiciary-non-civil This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:13:08] Just it only addresses how the courts handle someone claiming lawful self-defense. Georgia law already recognizes the right to use force in defense of self or, or others during a deadly threat. However, current procedure places the burden on the citizen ear- early in the process. A person may be arrested, charged, and jailed before a j- a judge evaluates justification. The, uh, stand-your-ground immunity hearing happens late in the prosecution timeline. [0:13:38] The, uh, question of justification is often decided months after charges begin. During that time, a person can face detention, legal costs, and loss of employment, even if the shooting is ultimately ruled justified. The process, the process itself becomes the penalty. The court system is being used to determine justification after prosecution instead of before it. Um, and i- and in the bill, the defensive actions are presumed justified unless the state presents evidence otherwise, and that's in lines 23 to 25. [0:14:09] This aligns self-defense cases with the general presumption of innocence in criminal cases. It, it requires a bare minimum of probable cause before a accused can be arrested, and that's in lines 81 to 82. And then the, uh, the, um... It allows the, uh, legal prosecution for anyone who has to use a threat of deadly force to match a l- likewise a de- a deadly threat, and that's lines also 81 to 82. [0:14:40] It allows the defendant to request a immunity hearing early in the process, and that's in lines 84 to 86. It lets a judge determine justification before, before a full prosecution proceeds. It prevents unnecessary criminal trials when legal self-defense is evident. And what this bill does not do is it does not change when deadly force is lawful. It does not create new defenses. It d- it does not prevent prosecution where evidence of wrongdoing exist. It does not allow the use of force against a known law enforcement officer or, or, or a known law enforcement performing a lawful duties. [0:15:17] Um, this legislation ensures courts e- evaluate justification at the front end rather than at the back end. It protects judicial resources from avoidable prosecutions, protects the citizen from being punished prior to a determination of wrongdoing, and it clarifies procedure without altering substantive criminal law. I mean, th- this bill is about procedure, not expanding g- uh, gun laws. It restores proper order, determines j- justification first and then prosecutes second. Um, but then I'll be glad to answer any questions. [0:15:48] And also, I know we have, uh, Sh- Sheriff Long who's gonna testify on this bill, but a big reason I'm carrying this is a case that just happened, um, where a man who got attacked by his stepfather opened... Well, attacked him, hit him, opened fire. He was fighting for his life, ran into his truck, got his gun, um, and now he... They're trying to prosecute him, saying, saying it was not self-defense. Um, and so I, I think we need to make sure we're protecting the law we already have in place and making sure we're not just accusing them, um, and, and that you look at him as innocent until proven guilty. [0:16:24] Okay. Um, number six. Representative Panitch. [0:16:28] Hi, Representative. I have a couple questions. Um, why did you... Why is there an exception that the force is not protected if it's in a public place? It looks like you cut that out. A per- So line 26, "A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection A if," and then go down to line 35, "the force used or threatened occurred in a location readily accessible to the public or a place of accommodation." To me, that means if somebody comes into my home, I... [0:17:04] And tries to harm me, uh, just comes into my home and shouldn't be there, I have the right to defend myself, but if someone comes at me at a Walmart, I don't have the right to defend myself. [0:17:19] Do you mind if I have, uh, Alex Dorr come up and help explain further? [0:17:23] Sure. [0:17:28] Okay. [0:17:28] And just so I don't have any, you know, blurring, I'm gonna have to mute one- [0:17:33] Yeah [0:17:33] ... I don't know. [0:17:34] Yep. [0:17:34] So just pull that one close to you. [0:17:37] This chair falls down to the next people coming up behind me. I'm Alex Dorr with Georgia Gun Owners. Uh, we approached Representative Clark with this bill. Uh, we've entered this a couple years in a row now, but, uh, Representative Clark really had a passion for this one, especially after talking to the sheriff behind us. I could go into my testimony on behalf of this bill. I will answer your question, though. It's very simple. The proceeding section one has a conjoiner and. [0:18:08] Um, I'm on... I'm sorry, I'm on page two, line 33. [0:18:15] This has to do if there's an unfortunate, and I have to stress an unfortunate, situation where a police officer enters the wrong home. And if you are caught off guard as a homeowner in your own home, and you do what you think is reasonable to protect your family because you're not a criminal, there's no reason for anyone else to be in your home in the middle of the night, and you act to defend yourself, well, that's not a public place. That's your home. So conjoining section one and two on these lines would say if that horrible situation happens, the homeowner cannot be charged for assaulting, for shooting... [0:18:57] I'm not gonna say the words. Um, the homeowner is exempted from charges of murder if they are surprised by someone who's not supposed to be in their home, even if they're not there to be a criminal. I hope that makes sense. I'm dancing very carefully on the words here. [0:19:16] Okay. Um, I, I have another question for the... I don't know if, uh, the chair wants me to ask it now for another question for the author. Go ahead. Okay. Lines 37 to 40, [0:19:35] you struck, "Was the aggressor..." So this is somebody who cannot use self-defense. Number- line 37, "Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so, and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force." Um, [0:19:59] so to me, that's... I could prompt somebody, I could, I could bait somebody essentially to, um... I could bait someone and they take out a gun because they feel like they're at risk. That gives me the opportunity to then shoot them in self-defense. Is that what you're saying? No. No, ma'am. The, the code section here in, um, 13-3-21 clearly states that you have to be a person acting in reasonable defense. [0:20:31] This code section does not allow you to be the aggressor and use it as a criminal defense. See, I think that's what it does do, unless I'm misreading it. It's, it does allow the initial aggressor to be, to claim self-defense. I'm sorry. I will get you the, the verbiage here where that's not allowed. [0:20:56] I also believe that's conforming language that the, uh, legislative council probably put in there to do with another code section they're probably updating. I think the, uh, the combat by agreement, I haven't had that, uh, happen too often. [0:21:13] Well, it's, "Was the aggressor or engaged in a combat by agreement." So maybe you just want to keep out the engaged in combat by agreement. I'm not saying I'm okay with the bill, but I'm saying whereas the aggressor definitely is struck and makes it look like if you're the aggressor, you can, you can now claim self-defense. [0:21:37] I apologize. I'm just reading real quick. [0:21:57] I'm sorry, I don't have the other code section relating to you cannot be the aggressor. Ob- obviously, that would be, uh, not what we're trying to do. We're not trying to create hotheads or road rage incidences where someone's gonna be able to force that to happen, but this is for the situations where you're found to be the one aggressed against. Thank you. [0:22:21] Okay. I see no other questions. All right. Thank you both, gentlemen. May I... I'm sorry, may I say a- a little bit about- Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Again, I'm Alex Door with Georgia Gun Owners. Uh, we represent hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners across the state of Georgia, and this is a bill that we really see a need for, especially after, like, the Mark McCloskey or the Kyle Rittenhouse situation that happened here in America, where the district attorneys no longer have to provi- provide evidence that you are guilty of a crime. [0:22:55] In Georgia currently, our self de- self-defense law says that what you do is, um... It's called the reasonable man doctrine, where you're allowed to take reasonable steps to defend yourself. The problem is, is that all it takes is for a district attorney to say, "That wasn't reasonable," and now you have to go to court and fi- hire a defense attorney to prove what you did was reasonable. The district attorney is not the one that has to provide evidence that what you did was wrong. [0:23:26] So we're just trying to change that a district attorney has to bring forward evidence to prove that what you did was not lawful. Uh, that would certainly slow down district attorneys from wanting to throw out charges very quickly. Uh, but secondly, we're trying to give a pretrial immunity hearing. Right now in Georgia, we have those, but they don't happen until way down the legal process. Could be 18 months after charges before you can go before a judge and say, "What I did was in self-defense," and a judge can say with a clear preponderance of evidence, "Yes, it was. [0:23:57] You can go home." We have hundreds or thousands of people sitting in jail cells across Georgia who are waiting for that self-defense hearing, and they're going broke. We're, we're gonna hear testimony from a man who sold his house, sold his business, all to hire lawyers, uh, to try and prove his innocence. But if he had a self-defense immunity hearing day one, this char- these charges would have never happened. So 18 other states in America have this pretrial immunity hearing, and they put the burden of proof upon the district attorney before they try and lock you up for years before you can have your day in court. [0:24:34] So we're not adding anything new to the law. We're just simply moving when the tr- immunity hearing happens, and we're trying to ask the district attorneys provide evidence of wrongdoing. And lastly, there has to be reasonable... I'm sorry, justified and reasonable cause, suspicion, in order to be arrested at the scene of the crime. Um, just showing up and seeing a couple of gentlemen or a couple of guys, there's guns, someone's, you know, an ambulance coming for somebody else, to arrest everybody at the scene and sort it out in the jail later is wrong. [0:25:07] Um, you should be allowed to remain free unless there is reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed. So we thank this committee for hearing this bill, and I certainly thank Representative Clark for entering this bill on, on behalf of the law-abiding citizens of Georgia. [0:25:24] Okay, number five. Is that Representative Kendrick? [0:25:27] Thank you. Um, I guess anybody can answer this question. So on line 30, is there a specific reason why we're not making this passage or the, the exemption to using the, uh, defense of self-defense, n- not making it broader? Like, why are we focusing specifically on law enforcement officers? [0:25:48] May I? May I? This would actually go back to kind of what she said about you can't antagonize somebody and then, and then, uh, have a self-defen- self-defense. This is relating to police officers. You can't ever say that because a police officer had his gun out to arrest me 'cause I was combative or, uh, belligerent or using deadly force, just because a police officer has a firearm does not, that's not a defense for you to then go and fire on a police officer. [0:26:22] That's all this section here, uh, from 28 down to 33 does, is you cannot use stand-your-ground law as a defense for shooting a police officer. [0:26:33] No, I, I understand that. I understand what the passage does. What I'm asking is, is there a reason why i- we are only saying that the law enforcement officer has, is, is, um... You can't use that as a, uh, a def- a self-defense for only law enforcement officers. Like, why is it not... Why doesn't... Why don't we expand it, um, you know, to other categories of people? Why is it only law enforcement officers? [0:27:00] I would suspect that there's other code sections that would cover other, uh, defense when you can invoke this as a self-defense, but this is just relating to, uh, the law enforcement. It's, it's not, you can't use that as an excuse. [0:27:13] Okay, so you're saying that this is under the code section for law enforcement officers, so there might be a similar provision- [0:27:21] For others [0:27:21] ... but another... Yeah, for others. Is that what you're saying? Okay. [0:27:23] That's what I believe to be the case, yes. [0:27:32] Number eight. [0:27:34] Oh, was that the right one? Oh, I think I was supposed to be seven. I don't know. Anyway. I don't know. Anyway, um, so I'm, [0:27:46] I'm trying to understand if, um, a federal law en- law enforcement agency came in and perhaps they used their weapon the wrong way, does this give... I can't defend myself? I mean, we watched a gentleman get shot in, in the back several times recently, so, and he didn't pull his firearm, interestingly. He was legally carrying. So I'm just curious, how would this apply if that happened in Georgia? [0:28:21] You wanna do that one? You wanna make it... Uh, I actually don't see a correlation. Um, I think I know what you're trying to talk about, but if someone breaks the law in Georgia and kills someone, murders them, then yes, a district attorney can step in if they have reasonable cause. If they have reasonable, um, suspicion, not suspicion, but if they have clear evidence, they can file charges and go through the entire process as well. [0:28:52] But if at the same time they can have an immunity hearing and they can present it. The immunity hearing isn't the be all and end all. A judge can look at it, and it says only with clear preponderance of evidence that a judge can say, "You are immune. This was self-defense." Um, but if a judge says, "No, that's not very clear evidence. It's your word against theirs. We're gonna go to trial," you can still go before trial, and then there you have the ultimate, uh, scales of justice, uh, with a jury. [0:29:20] Okay, but you understand clear and convincing and a preponderance of the evidence are two different standards. [0:29:25] Very, very, very much so. [0:29:26] You've just combined them, maybe. [0:29:27] No, no. In a, in an immunity hearing, a clear preponderance of evidence for a judge would be video evidence. It would be 30 eyewitnesses. It would be, you know, happened in, in, you know, in front of the police officer. That is a clear preponderance of evidence that a judge could say, "What you did was acting in self-defense. We're not going forward. We don't need to go forward." And then when it comes to the j- if, if we don't have any of that clear evidence, then it goes before the jury, evidence is presented, the criminal trial happens, and then the jury votes on it. [0:30:03] My, my only point is you're combining two standards of review. It's preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing, and you've said clear preponderance. So perhaps a lawyer might be a better person to answer some of these questions. Thank you. [0:30:18] Okay. Members, I'm gonna ask that we move along. Uh, we've got a lot of bills on here, so, you know, if you wanna save it for discussion, then maybe it'd be a question that we could parse through within discussion, so thank you. All right. Thank you for being with us. [0:30:33] Thank you. [0:30:34] Uh, next up, and, uh, if you wanna scoot over, you can, Representative Clark, but Sheriff Long. [0:30:43] Good to have you with us, Sheriff. [0:30:45] Good evening. [0:30:52] I'm Gary Long. I'm sheriff in Butts County. I'm gonna see a room full of people. I don't want people mad at me, so I'm gonna try to make this as short and as sweet as I can. But as sheriff, my job is to put the criminals in jail, but also, uh, I've always told my community I'm gonna stand on the side of right, uh, and I'm gonna fight for them, and that's why I'm here today. In a brief, as brief as I can make it, it's, uh, July of 2024. A young couple's getting married, and during this, uh, there's some family members that get intoxicated. [0:31:25] They end up, uh, one of the family members ends up groping some of the wedding party. The, uh- The, the bride goes up, tries to get him to leave. Actually calls her aunt, says, "You need to come and get him." The... He ends up tackling the bride. Uh, the new groom sees this, he runs over and tries to get the uncle off of him. And in the process of doing that, uh, the, the uncle gets a busted nose. So the, the... [0:31:55] His wife finally comes and gets him, and they leave. They, they get him, and they leave, and it's over. About 20 minutes pass, a vehicle pulls down the driveway, and now the groom's new father-in-law exits the vehicle in a, in a rage. He comes running down the hill, and he punches his new son-in-law in the face, knocks him to the ground, almost knocking him out. And the son-in-law says, "It's me. What are you doing?" He says, "I'm gonna cut you." He gets back in the car, and he leaves. [0:32:27] So round two is over, right? So about 30, 40 minutes go by. The Mustang that the father-in-law was in pulls up, followed by a truck. There's six people, uh, six or seven people of the wedding party down. They're staying at this place. It's a wedding venue, and they, they had their campers and stuff there. And as those vehicles come to a stop, somebody from one of those vehicles starts firing rounds at the wedding party. The, uh, groom, who was a licensed, at the time, licensed carrier, he runs to his truck to retrieve his firearm, and in the process of doing that, he is struck through the hand. [0:33:05] He gets hit, uh, into the palma area or right palma area of his hand. It comes out the back of his arm. His truck's shot. Uh, a tractor beside the truck is shot. As these shots are firing, he grabs his pistol. His wife, newly wife, is laying down kinda under the truck. He grabs his pistol, and when he turns around, his father-in-law is charging him, and he opens fire on, on his father-in-law, uh, causing his death. So, uh, the GBI and my office worked this case. [0:33:39] We gave it to the gran- uh, gave it to the district attorney. The district attorney then presented that case to a grand jury, and the grand jury said, uh, "Self-defense," and no build the case. Uh, it was a done deal. This district attorney has now, uh, announced he's running for judge. The deceased family is, uh, pretty vocal about the, what the grand, what the grand jury decided. Uh, without any new evidence, the district attorney's taken that case back to the, um, to a grand jury, and he received an indictment for murder. [0:34:17] If anybody's spent time in the courtroom, we can indict anybody for anything, I can assure you, 'cause it's one-sided. Here's the biggest problem I have with this case, is one, the immunity hearing. In, in my circuit, he's probably talking eight to 10 months before he could have an immunity hearing. They had to sell their house. A newly married couple with two small kids. He adopted these two ch- two girls. Uh, they sold their house. She sold her business. They're spending every penny they have, uh, in legal fees. They're in their late 20s, and they are financially crippled for h- how long do we... [0:34:53] I mean, the, pretty much everything they've had, they have, uh, spent that money. I believe that, uh, the immunity hearing, you know, if you're in Fulton County, DeKalb County, and maybe Clayton County, because the dockets are so backed up, you might not see a immunity hearing for years. Here's what I have seen in 30 years of doing this, and this is a fact, and there's cases I could relate to this out of, that I've witnessed. What we see is people get charged when they acted in self-defense. They sit in jail for a year, year and a half, and then the district attorney, it gets time to come to an immunity hearing, and the district attorney, uh, then offers a plea. [0:35:34] And most of the time these people don't have the money. They have a public defender at best, and they offer him a plea, 10 do one, with time served, and you'll go home today. And these people, I believe, a, a lot of these people that it's truly a self-defense case now becomes a statistic in the state of Georgia as a convicted felon because they are bankrupt trying to defend themselves when they legally acted in self-defense. So the immunity part of this, I think if we get it up front, there's still gonna be a, a fee they have to pay, but at least we're not draining them out over the next year and a half, because their job's not waiting a year and a half. [0:36:09] Uh, families, the, the mortgage ain't gonna stop for a year and a half. Their bills still come. And if it... Look, if it's, if it's murder, they're gonna be charged with murder. It's not about letting murderers go, but it's about protecting those that's protecting themselves or others. Got a question number six. [0:36:28] So to me, 'cause I, this sounds like a bond issue. If he's... Is he in custody- [0:36:33] Well, the- [0:36:33] ... after this 18 months, or is he out? [0:36:35] Well, no, he's out now. And if I, if I may say, I think that in our... And we're a small town, and our judge did set a reasonable bond in the amount of $100,000, but in our county and in our circuit, usually if you're charged with murder, your bond is a million dollars cash only. That's, that's the norm. But now he is out of jail. [0:36:55] Okay. [0:36:55] Uh, he, he, he sat in jail about probably three and a half, four weeks before he could get to a bond hearing. [0:37:02] So what you've described essentially could be the same for any person charged with any felony in the entire state. People... I, I'm a criminal defense lawyer. People sell their houses in order to pay lawyers. [0:37:13] You're right. [0:37:14] They drain their 401Ks. I understand how devastating it is to a family to have somebody charged, especially when they think they're not guilty. [0:37:21] Sure. [0:37:22] But what you've described is this very complicated fact pattern, and trying to change a law essentially to, to help one person. And as sympathetic as I am to a person who is claiming self-defense, I- This bill goes all over the place, and it's... And which is not you, but to the author, it goes all over the place. It now allows the aggressor to avoid-- I'm sorry, it allows the aggressor to claim self-defense because that part was struck off this bill. [0:37:56] And I mean, to me, this sounds like a one terrible case, uh, but this to me is not the resolution for it. Thank you. Sorry. [0:38:08] Thank you. [0:38:10] Thank the gentlelady's made clear her intention on how she gonna vote on this one. Uh, Chairman Crowe. [0:38:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, yeah, obviously, this is my community as well. Sheriff Long is our sheriff in, in Butts County, and, um, he and I have known each other a long, long time. Um, but to your point, I think that, yes, this is-- he's using that case as an illustration, but I think it's highlighted an issue that we have. This is, this has shown us a problem that we have with the current code section. Um, lines thirty-seven through forty, I have some questions about that as well. I, I, I don't, I don't know exactly what we're trying to do with that portion of it. [0:38:51] Um, but the part that I'm really concerned about is the timing of the immunity hearing to make sure that folks who have defended themselves and have used their right to self-defense, um, don't get stuck i- in jail without a chance to get in front of a judge. Um, I think that this is a, a unique case, but I don't think it's wholly unique in the state. I think there are other times that this could happen as well. And so, uh, that's the part I would want us to focus on, and then if we can get some clarity on thirty-seven through forty, that would be great too. [0:39:25] Okay. Thank you. Sheriff, don't see any other questions. Thank you for what you do. Thanks for making the trek up here. [0:39:31] Thank you. [0:39:31] Hopefully, hopefully you hit that Peach Pass lane going home. [0:39:34] I'm gonna try. Thank you. [0:39:38] All right. I see no other questions. Or, uh, excuse me, rather. I don't think we have anybody else signed up unless you came in late and wanna speak now. All right. No other takers. Uh, discussion from members of the committee. Number four. [0:40:00] Yes. Thank you to the chair. Um, pardon my early absence. Um, I did want to-- did have a few questions about, uh, certain aspects of the bill, and I'll just, uh, address it to the author. Um, so my first question is, um- [0:40:17] Representative, it's discussion time. I'm sorry you came in late, but we've got a lot going on, so I understand. [0:40:25] Um, so shifting back. So I guess my first question for the body would be, um, we're-- if we're looking at lines twenty-two through twenty-five, um... [0:40:43] Shifting over, I wanna go to twenty-eight. Shift down. Uh, from twenty-eight through thirty-three, um, if, if I-- if we can contemplate, you know, what that means for law enforcement. 'Cause in my experience, um, we have certain guardrails there to prevent use of force and bad actors and getting to a point where you don't have people turning into bad apples. [0:41:13] Um, my concern with twenty-eight through thirty-three is it makes it seem-- it makes it as though people can't defend themselves when, um, law enforcement is acting inappropriately. But more importantly, it looks like it is removing the self-imposed guar- guardrails, um, that officers have, um, that for me it looks like it could result in more violence between the citizens and, um, the citizens and the, uh, law enforcement. [0:41:51] So if anybody wants to chime in on, on what a solution could be for that section, please feel free. [0:42:04] Number six. [0:42:06] Thank you. So my-- I, I agree with Chairman Crowe. I agree that immunity hearings should not take that long to get to trial. Why couldn't we write a bill that says immunity hearings have to take place within a certain amount of time? Just like we do with indictments. You have to have ninety days to indict or, uh, the person is entitled to a bond. So what-- Why couldn't we just do that without changing all of these other areas? We can solve your problem, um, without undoing the entire self-defense code, and I think this is the only self-defense section in the, in the criminal code. [0:42:46] So I, I know one of the witnesses mentioned that there's more, but there-- as far as I know, this is the only one. [0:42:57] Number three. [0:43:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm reading over this just somewhat perplexed as to, um, at least for me, uh, why on lines thirty-five to thirty-six, um, that a person can't use, uh, cannot use the self-defense justification, um, if this occurs in public. Um, you know, it-- to me, just, uh... I don't know why that part is included in there. [0:43:31] Um, so it, it, it would be nice to just kind of know that, um, you know, 'cause I, I certainly remember, uh, where people have taken action to defend themselves by force, uh, in public when sometimes, uh, um... law enforcement may not necessarily be present, so I am kind of wondering why that's in there. That's all. [0:43:55] Okay, number 14. Chair- [0:43:57] Yeah, I was just, uh, uh, I'm not sure, I don't know if you were actually in here when we discussed that part earlier. Um, because that is, if you look on line 33, the last word in there is "and", so it's only if that, uh, occurred in a place accessible to the public or a place of public accommodation when it's a, uh, force against a law enforcement officer. Those, those two are combined, so we, we cleared that up earlier. [0:44:26] Number four. Okay, she waives. All right. See no other. Uh, mind's blanking. Uh, representative, do you want to have the last word in summary? [0:44:41] So, I mean, having that immunity clause up front, I think this would be huge, um, for those who are innocent. And of course, I mean, if somebody did claim self-defense, it was not self-defense, then I want them to pay the price. But I think this'll help clean up a lot of backlog, protect the innocent, just like in this case that we just, that we just heard in Butts County on that, and I think it makes sense. [0:45:01] Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, [0:45:06] guess at this time I'll entertain a motion. Move to pass, second. Any amendments? Number six. [0:45:15] Go ahead. [0:45:16] Uh, I move to amend, and I'm, I'll need help with the language to strike all the new changes, but move to amend that, uh, there should be an, that an immunity hearing should be held within 90 days. [0:45:27] Okay. [0:45:29] Second. [0:45:31] I got a move and a second. Any discussion on the amendment or questions from- [0:45:37] No [0:45:37] ... members of the committee? [0:45:41] Changes? [0:45:42] Yes. [0:45:44] Which one was that? [0:45:45] Change. None of these other ones are working. Um, so undo all of the other changes in here, strike all of that, revert that back to the original code, but just add a [0:46:00] change that an immunity hearing be held within 90 days. [0:46:04] Yes. [0:46:04] Where would that be, how is that in relation to this code? [0:46:09] That's a good question. [0:46:10] Like, where are we, where, where are we adding that part back? [0:46:16] Um, line 84. I guess we can put that back in. Such claim shall be only be overcome by clear and convincing... Oh, no, that changes the standard again. [0:46:27] Just put [0:46:30] Uh, the- [0:46:31] So- [0:46:31] It was a motion due pass, but I, I would, I would ask if somebody's willing to table this so we can get the right language without doing this on the fly with an entire room full of people with other hearings. [0:46:42] Okay. We're gonna take up the amendment first. Number five, were you gonna add something to the amendment or discussion, Representative Kendrick? [0:46:48] Except for amendment. [0:46:49] Okay. I'll await your turn. All right. You've heard... I'll get to you. I got you blanking over there. All right. Um, you've heard the Panitch amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of the Panitch amendment say aye. All those opposed, same sign. Amendment fails. Representative Kendrick. [0:47:12] Okay, she waives it. All right. Any other amendments? Seeing, uh, number eight, Representative Roberts. [0:47:20] Oh, I can. [0:47:22] All right. Seeing none, uh, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1226 LC 394863 say aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. Let's have it. Uh, if you'll get us rules committee form, I'll sign that and get it to you. Thank you. [0:47:44] Thank you, Chairman. [0:47:46] All right. Number five, is there anything you want to add? [0:47:50] I do have a, a procedural question. What subcommittee did this go through in June? [0:47:54] It doesn't. It doesn't have to go through subcommittee. The chairman can call up any bill at any time. At this late juncture, we're going through full committee. So thank you for the inquiry. Okay. Next we will have House Bill 984, Representative or Chairman Camp. [0:48:15] If seats are clear and just quietly y'all can come and fill in these seats. I'd ask that the ladies be given preference, and those that are of age. [0:48:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Uh, there are... [0:48:41] There are several detectives in the hall, Mr. Chairman. Um, um, if someone could let them know that they might be needed momentarily. Um, they couldn't find room initially. Thank you so much for hearing this. Um, I have HB 984, LC481723, S as in Sam. This bill is the brainchild of a very tragic event that happened in Griffin, Georgia. Um, Karen Mathiak, Representative Mathiak and I were called to the Griffin Police Department to discuss a situation where a child had been found who had been profoundly abused, and the detectives can give some more information on that. [0:49:19] But it came to light that this child had been in one location, and their welfare was being investigated, and the parents moved to another county. And once again, a mandate report, mandated reporter at that school reported that they felt this child was being abused. The parents, um, learned they were being investigated, and they moved to another county. So this bill basically says, and I'm thankful for the assistance of, um- the, um, PAC, and pl- and I appreciate the juvenile court judges, and I appreciate DFCS for weighing in on this, but this bill says that if a child or, on the second part of the bill, a disabled adult or an elderly person who has a guardian goes from a known address when a person's wellbeing is being investigated, their safety and wellbeing, then, um, the investigating body, the law enforcement official, can contact a superior court judge and say, "We are concerned about the wellbeing and safety of this individual." And if the judge thinks there's merit, can issue a court order for that body to work with whatever jurisdiction it needs to to locate this individual to make sure they are safe. [0:50:36] And I am open for any questions. Any questions from members of the committee? Number 13, Representative Byrd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. Certainly there are a lot of children that are being picked up, um, and that are a big concern through DFCS and others. So what I wanna be sure I understand that a child has been abused and someone has, um, called someone that h- that child has been abused, someone from DFCS or investigator goes and sees that ch- child and realize it is, so the family then picks the child up and moves to the next county and the next county. [0:51:18] Would that- That is a correct synopsis of what happened in this case, and unfortunately, um, the right hand doesn't always talk to the left hand, and so changing jurisdictions for a child who is abused, um, and typically it's gonna be someone who oftentimes a mandated reporter is gonna report them. And when the investigation begins, the individuals who might be the abusers want to avoid an investigation, and they simply change locations. Unfortunately, in this situation for the child that was in Griffin, by the chi- by the time the child was located, it was a very, very sad and tragic situation. [0:51:56] Speaking with, um, Commissioner Brose and Deputy Director, um, Quick, they said unfortunately this is not an isolated incident, and when I speak to law enforcement agencies across the state, they're agreeing with me. Um, the fact that the juvenile court judges and PAC was so willing to help me craft this bill and make sure it covered what it needed to cover, um, is because it did have a basis. And ago- a- again, uh, it's gonna go before a superior court judge who would make the determination if the investigation moving forward is warranted. [0:52:31] This is not gonna add to the $85 million deficit in our budget in any way over at DFCS, is it? Well, quite honestly, if it added another $85 million more on and there were children protected, I'd be willing to pay that cost. [0:52:49] I don't think you can put a price on a life. But more importantly, this is primarily gonna be law enforcement looking into these cases. If children need to be taken into custody because they are unsafe, then I think we as a state have a responsibility, Mr. Chairman. [0:53:11] Okay. Was there ever contemplated any form of affidavit that should be filled out to accomplish these purposes? Was there anything that was discussed in the drafting of this bill that would actually allow for some direction to law enforcement on what to fill out to apply for such a order? That was not a subject of our discussion between the juvenile court justices that worked with me on this, and also PAC. [0:53:41] Um, I'm sure we've got Mr. Skandalis and, uh, and Mr. Smith back there if they'd like to speak on behalf of that question. Number six. Thank you. I think this is a great bill, and it's necessary. My question is procedural. Uh, who... So right now, so would you be open to also having magistrate courts, uh, be able to issue this order? Um, because a lot of times warrants are signed, other warrants are signed by magistrate judges, and I don't know that a law enforcement officer would have direct access to a superior court judge. [0:54:19] I mean, maybe they do. It's not the area I'm usually in, so I wanna make sure as many people as could write this order are able to write this order. Well, I d- I didn't specifically list this. My understanding, and again, if s- if phone-a-friend is an applicable thing here, um, it would... If there's an open investigation and it's a child safety, um, and law enforcement is investigating, my assertion, not assumption, but assertion, would be that the district attorney's office would also be involved in some mechanism which would go to superior court. [0:54:53] Thank you. Thank you. See no other questions. Thank you. You can slide over there, Chairman. [0:55:02] Slide over is? Joseph D'Angelo with, uh- Sorry ... Frontline. [0:55:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joseph D'Angelo, Director of the Church Ambassador Network with Frontline Policy Council. Uh, we are in favor of this bill. It is narrowly drawn, constitutionally sound, and ju- because of the judicial supervision, we are in favor. We, um, simply ensuring that children and elders cannot be hidden from those working to protect them is a viable and, and good thing. Uh, Romans 13:4 calls each of you ministers of God for the good of the people, uh, and this is a bill that does good for the people. So we, uh, endorse the bill and we ask that you vote in favor. [0:55:48] Thank you. I see no questions. [0:55:54] Okay. Um, I understand there were some, uh, law enforcement officers here that wanna testify to this, if you'll come on down. If y'all signed up and I'm just blind, I apologize. But if you'll just introduce yourself. Come on down. [0:56:13] I'm Sergeant Spears. I work with City of Griffin Police Department. [0:56:19] I'm Sergeant Ruiz with City of Griffin Police Department. [0:56:28] Um, we're here on behalf of a case, um, that kinda started this bill. I believe, uh, we first came in contact with our, um, child victim in May of 2023. Um, during our investigation it was determined, um, that the child that we were, uh, assisting was a 10-year-old child. When we first came in contact with him we thought he was probably four or five. That's how severe the neglect and abuse case was. Um, through our investigation it was determined that this child had been through several counties, um, within the state of Georgia, all of them with, um, DFCS being involved in this child's life. [0:57:07] Um, however, as the child was moved from either being, um, in foster care itself or with its adoptive family, um, there was never a communication between all of the different counties within those DFCS cases. So as he moved, his first case was closed, and he pretty much started as a clean slate in a new county. New issues came up. He moved and the same thing happened. [0:57:35] Eventually when we got this case, um, the words to describe when we made contact with him, was emaciated. Um, he was... I've never seen anything like it, and if there was intervention or if someone would've known before to stay on top of, um, his care and his safety, I don't think he would've gotten to that point, um, because he's gonna have, you know, lifelong scars and injuries that could've been prevented if we would've known or someone would've known. [0:58:09] But because he moved from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and his slate was clean, it just went unnoticed, and he was removed from s- the school system who could've reported. But because he was no longer in school, um, no one checked in on him. And if his neighbor wouldn't have come across him that day, I'm sure we'd be talking about a homicide. [0:58:34] Unfortunately. [0:58:35] Yeah. Thank you. So i- in, in investigating this and as far as getting, uh, getting it ultimately to, um, Chairman Camp for a bill, because each DFCS, uh, most DFCS have a county, um, and it's not centralized really at the, at the h- top, it's local counties, did you find that when DFCS, when, when someone moves, they can't get ahold of someone, they just close the case? Is, is that what you're saying? I mean, that's what happened here, but is that, is that normal? [0:59:06] So what was happening was, um, he was originally out of Walton County. Um, so when he was, when he moved to Henry County or he was placed in Henry County with his what would be adoptive parents, um, DFCS referrals were coming out in Henry County. But because he was out of Walton County, Walton County was what we were told- [0:59:27] His main caseworker agency [0:59:29] ... his caseworker, so they were gonna be the ones who handled it. So everything in Henry County fell off because he had come from Walton County. So there was no checks and balances, though we had multiple DFCS referrals from school officials saying something's wrong with this child. Someone should- [0:59:46] But, but Walton County didn't follow up, well, the, the caseworker there didn't follow through on it because they had went to, uh, your county and that was no longer- [0:59:54] Henry County [0:59:54] ... Henry County. [0:59:54] He ended up in Spalding, where we're at. [0:59:56] Gotcha. [0:59:57] And then once we had our case in Spalding, it was an issue to even get documentation to follow this child back from birth, if that makes sense, because he had been in the state's s- care since birth. [1:00:10] Mm-hmm. [1:00:11] Um, so it was... We never could get a solid case file for him. [1:00:15] One last question. You might not know. A few y- uh, I don't know, before COVID maybe, there was a bill. Someone had, was abusing their child. They removed them from school, and I think the initial bill was, um, if you're removed from school then, um, DFCS does a, a, uh, a health check, safety check on, on the c- child. That wasn't a great idea initially. It did, it did get changed to if you are accused of something, if there's a DFCS investigation and you were removed from school, then I think that's what we ended up passing, was that then the investigation happens, so there's already some sort of prerequisite there for the, the ca- you know, the h- the health safety check. [1:00:53] Um, it just wasn't someone pulling their kid out of school. Do you know if the kid was pulled out of school prior to the investigations or in the middle of the investigations and that just didn't work either? [1:01:03] He was, from what we found in our investigation, he was pulled from the schools during, um, investigations in Henry County, but it was at the time of COVID. So the family moved, COVID came, a lot of kids were doing home schooling and that kind of thing, so when they moved to Spalding he never registered in another school. He lived in our county for some time and never had school, never been registered. But our DFCS office had no knowledge of him. Henry County from my, our knowledge and our investigation had never come to Spalding County to follow up, so he kind of fell through the cracks. [1:01:36] Wow. [1:01:36] He, he pretty much was non-existent at that point. [1:01:40] Right. Thank you. [1:01:41] Mm-hmm. [1:01:44] Interesting comment. So who failed to follow up? [1:01:50] I can't really, I'm not gonna pin it on one particular, um, area. I'm just gonna say I think the issue is there's not one centralized- maybe system within one agency to where when these families move all over the state or United States, for example, you, you, you can't just put a name in, a family name in, and see that, oh, yes, this family has been in this county, they've just moved here and having the same issues, let's work together and see what they were. It was like each county is open and shut, basically. [1:02:21] Like, we can't just access every backstory except within our county. And then our county would reach out to Henry County, but then they still had issues because Henry County was closed to just Henry County. [1:02:34] So it was DFCS that failed to follow up? [1:02:38] I would, um, I would think that would be the main agency that probably would have had the better option to have followed up. [1:02:45] To intervene. [1:02:45] Yeah, or intervene. [1:02:48] Number four. [1:02:50] Yeah, thank you to the chair. Um, and just piggyback it off of something that he just, uh, referenced, but I'm also told, I know we've had outside this body there've been questions about D- DFCS follow up. And so absent, it's, with the exception of this particular case, is it your experience that if there's a process of follow up, no matter what count- what county you are, you said I think it started in Walton, wouldn't it be appropriate for them to, the Walton, to contact the Henry, and then it won't have to, like, be, it won't have to be transferred, it's just, like, the process, and then they receive that information there. [1:03:24] Like, it shouldn't be closed. I'm trying to understand, and I haven't worked a D- one of these cases in a long time, but isn't that how it's supposed to happen? You can't just close a case. [1:03:32] I would think that makes the most sense, um, not to just let it fall through the cracks, 'cause that's basically what happened. As he moved, kind of like what you're saying, is as he moved, it just- [1:03:42] The case file's supposed to shift with- [1:03:44] Yeah [1:03:44] ... not- [1:03:45] It, it kind of stopped right there. [1:03:48] Okay. [1:03:51] Okay. Number 14. [1:03:52] Yes. Sorry. I think r- related to DFCS, a lot of times the caseworker, my, in my experience, stays with the child no matter where that child goes. And so I, I imagine from the investigation it's no different. So if I had a foster kid or, or my child, whatever, got placed somewhere else, that foster, that caseworker of the foster child would then go to Savannah f- you know, once a month to touch base with the child. I think the investigations are the same way, uh, for better or worse. Sounds like worse definitely in this situation. [1:04:24] I think, too, for a little more clarification, where it kind of fell through was, so this child was in the system, was in foster care, but then his adoption was finalized. So I, I believe, like, through DFCS, depending on what stage the child is in within the care of DFCS, depends on if the caseworker changes, I believe. So when he was in foster care, he did have the same caseworker, but once his adoption was finalized, that one was done, and then the new allegations came, but then they moved counties, and then it was just more of an alleged abuse investigation, if that makes sense, or neglect. [1:05:03] That's how the case workers were changed. [1:05:08] Okay. Thank you, and appreciate Chairman Gullett. Uh, he, he is a gentleman that has had to deal with this agency, especially through foster care. So thank you, Chairman Gullett, for your perspective. See no other, uh, questions. Thank y'all for making the trip up here. Appreciate what y'all do. [1:05:26] Thank you. [1:05:26] Good luck on your future, uh, endeavors. We're gonna take a bathroom break right now, and we'll come back. We'll take a, uh, 10-minute break. Thank you. [1:18:25] All right, we'll come back to order. [1:18:30] One of those members outside, they'll trickle in. All right, go ahead, Representative Camp. [1:18:38] Appreciate you hearing this bill. Um, just express from what the wonderful investigators in Griffin went through, um, with this individual, that's one piece of it. On page two, section two, it also talks about, um, disabled adults and elderly persons, um, with guardians. If they are moved from a known address to an unknown address and their welfare and safety is being investigated, um, then it would allow for that as well. And, uh, I appreciate you hearing this bill. [1:19:08] I mentioned if we had not included the disabled and the elderly individuals, then it probably would've gone through my committee. But I'm really glad for the opportunity to go through this committee, because I appreciate the robust discussion and the questions. So if there are any further questions, I'm happy to answer them. [1:19:24] Seeing none. Thank you. We'll be in contact next week when we bring the bill back to full committee. [1:19:29] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:19:31] Thank you. All right. See, next up we have House Bill 675, Representative Brent Cox. [1:19:42] And real quick, there was a question outside that, um, concerning what ERS stands for, and it is my understanding that, uh, there's language provided from an outside source. But do wanna just maintain or ask the bill author this, this is the same language we had voted out last year? [1:20:08] Yes, sir. [1:20:09] Okay. [1:20:11] N- nothing's changed once we cleaned it up. [1:20:14] Okay. Go ahead. [1:20:16] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this is, uh, LC481580ERS, which is House Bill 675. Um, and this is also the bill, as we just mentioned, that was passed last year out of full committee and, uh, did not actually come to the chamber floor. Um, the bill basically, uh, is similar to what's already in federal law. It's created in Georgia law, which is anyone that is promoting, uh, propaganda from foreign terrorists- And also possibly even doing fundraising and sending it back to foreign terrorist groups that are, uh, allocated, uh, from enemies of the state. [1:21:00] Um, it's allowing a, uh, the district attorneys in the state of Georgia to be able to have the authority to prosecute under a criminal law which is a felony. So, in a nutshell, that's what this bill does, and we're just giving the state of Georgia the same authority that's similar to what the federal government does already. [1:21:23] Okay. Number eight. [1:21:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, so m- can you give me an example of how propaganda and terrorist groups are sending funding? Uh, like, where does that come from? Do you have examples of where that's happening? [1:21:44] Y- yeah. Well, for instance, so let's just start in Nigeria. Currently, um, there's a terrorist group where tens of thousands of Christians, and actually Muslims, have been killed by this particular terrorist group. [1:21:57] Mm-hmm. [1:21:57] It's also happened in Congo and other places in the world. So there's roughly 55, um, terrorist groups, I guess, listed as FTO for the federal government, and there is money that will come into the United States. Currently, the federal government, I think, has prosecuted close to 2 to 3,000... They've had 2 to 3,000 cases since 9/11. I think that's a rough estimate. And it's a similar process that we would do in the s- that we would do in the state of Georgia. [1:22:28] In the southeastern United States, obviously I would, you would... I don't think it's an exact pro rata of what those numbers are, but whether it's in South Carolina, Alabama, or wherever, anyone that comes into the state could be receiving funds that could help them promote terrorist propaganda within our state. [1:22:47] One more follow-up question, Mr. Chair. Um, so, um, I just had a brain drain. Where'd it go? Sorry. I haven't had enough caffeine today. Oh, I know. So if we already have a federal law, this one seems a little broader than the fer- federal law in my read, but do we know if local prosecutors have the resources to actually add this to their case law? [1:23:19] 'Cause I'm watching their budgets be stretched and things. And so if the federal law is already there, I'm just i- trying to understand why we might need to do it on a state level. [1:23:31] I would say the reason we wanna do it on the state level is in the event that the federal is slower to the gate than maybe we would be in the state of Georgia, 'cause we wanna make sure that as a state, that we are doing everything we can to keep, uh, terrorist organo- organizations and anyone that's promoting those organizations, um, for the court system. [1:23:56] Number five. [1:23:58] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question about line 22 and 23 under the executive order. Um, so the specific executive order, um, as of March 6, 2025. So two questions. Am I to assume that, um, this bill would only allow prosecutions for groups that are listed under that executive order or under the USC section? [1:24:24] Y- yes, that's how this would be defined as what those, um, terrorist organizations are. And, and they're referred to as FTOs, obviously, I guess, foreign terrorist organizations. But, um, at, roughly, I think currently there's about 55 that are on that list. [1:24:41] Um, probably too late to ask it now, but do you have a list of those current- [1:24:47] Um- [1:24:47] ... organizations? [1:24:48] I do. I can get it to you afterwards. But yeah, there's a, there is a list. [1:24:55] Okay. Thank you. [1:24:58] Number three. [1:25:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative, just curious, um, I think because when you, uh, had worked on this last time, did you also... You still worked on this with, uh, the attorney general? [1:25:14] Yes, sir. [1:25:15] Okay. Uh, and with respect to line 53, um, in terms of looking at a person engaged in, um, I know that it, is this exclusive only to the FTO or is this, um, is this attempting to tie, uh, what could be actually a domestic group to that FTO? [1:25:37] Th- this is specific to the FTOs. Um, however, I would say that if there's, um, domestic, if some of the FTOs happen to be here in the States that are domestic, then I think that that probably would tie those together. Um, but it's specific to the foreign terrorist organizations. [1:25:58] Okay. Just a small follow-up. Uh, is, so if, so this would not be, for instance, if these activities were being conducted, um, on college campuses, and they were not, uh, they were not designated prior as on that list as a foreign terrorist organization, but they were still actively participating in this, then this law would actually not apply to them? [1:26:24] I would have to let, um, the courtroom make that decision on what they would view as applying and not applying. [1:26:31] Okay. A- I'm, I'm sorry. And, and that's fine. I, my worry on this, um, is that, you know, just per se, if you, if you take, for instance, in terms of a person being able to organize, that if, you know, I get it that if, hey, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, must be a duck. But what in the case, if this is not exclusive to FTOs, and if you get students who are organizing, let's say they're, you know, pro-2A, they're- carrying guns, you know, people in, in fear of their lives. [1:27:03] You know, you might cast a pretty broad net, you know? You may not necessarily be c- talking about, you know, an, uh, any type of, of rebel faction that's relative to, uh, any foreign terrorist. You could be talking about, you know, Turning Point strategies, or the Proud Boys, or anyone else who's supposedly causing fear. So just something that is, uh, concerning. Um, I, I intend... I see what it's trying to do, but it might cast a very broad net, and particularly in a state, um, that has always valued, uh, civil rights when protesting. [1:27:39] Um, we wouldn't want to have, let's see, today's Martin Luther King Jr. uh, being considered a FTO just simply for making a point, uh, to justify what their, their cause might be. [1:27:51] Thank you. The, the FTOs are very specific based on what the federal government has dictated those to be. And as I said earlier, there's roughly 55 of those. Um, I understand what your concern is from the domestic side, but it's very specific to, uh, foreign terrorist organizations. Thank you. [1:28:15] Just a little clarification, not dictated, designated. [1:28:18] Designated, my... Thank you, Chairman. That's why you're chairman. [1:28:23] Number 11. [1:28:26] Representative, isn't that, isn't true that the, um, FTOs are designated on the State Department's website? [1:28:32] Yes, it is. [1:28:33] Thank you. [1:28:35] Number five. [1:28:37] Um, to, to, to this point about FTOs, um, I wanna make sure that we're clear about, um, those actually being designated FTOs. So back to my point about lines 22 and 23. So if you look at, um... Yeah, where did I go? On lines 46 and 47, it says, "To violate this subsection, a person shall have knowledge that the organization is a designated foreign terrorist organization." So the part that concerns me is the part after that that says, "Or that the organization has engaged in or engages in acts of terrorism." So if we're only targeting FTOs, that additional or that the organization has engaged in or engages in acts of terrorism broadens the scope of what your bill is trying to do, because if we're only trying to focus on those FTOs that, that are designated in the USC code and the executive order as of March 6, we can't then say it's the designated foreign terrorist organizations, or that the organization has engaged in or engages in acts of terrorism, because that broadens it outside of the scope of FTOs. [1:29:48] This is similar to what we already do as, as federal law, and whether it's the foreign terrorist organization and they're aware, and it's, uh, aware of what that FTO is doing, or that they're actually engaging in terrorism, um, once again, I'm gonna leave that up to the, the courtroom to make that decision. What FTO is in definition here, I think it's pretty well spelled out. So my belief would be that, um, anyone that's trying to... [1:30:23] And I'm gonna go back to Nigeria. Anyone that's frankly murdering and martyrs of Christians and destroying their lives, and then trying to bring that propaganda into the United States through individuals that want to promote that, uh, that's what this bill is here for, is to protect us from what's happening in other places. [1:30:45] Can I have a follow-up clarifying question? So my point then is why do we then have a definition of a designated foreign terrorist organization if your objective is to have this attached to anybody who's doing anything that seems like terrorism? Why have the definition of a FTO in there if we're not using the definition because we're broadening it? [1:31:07] Well, acts of terrorism are, I mean, are acts of terrorism. I think that we understand what that entails in the United States. My belief is that if there's a foreign terrorist group that's engaging in terrorism in the United States, or there's individuals that are promoting that propaganda in the United States, it's, it's, it's terroristic at, at the core. So, and it's being influenced form foreign entities that are listed on, on the state website. [1:31:38] I think that that's pretty self-explanatory what this is. [1:31:45] Number 14. [1:31:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, just w- with respect to the issue that y- y- you were discussing with Representative Kendrick, I th- th- the way I read that sentence i- in the context of the broader statute is the statute does require that to constitute a violation, the organization that has been aided or assisted or to, to, to which, uh, material support or resources has been provided has to be on the list or else you don't have a crime. I think what that sentence that, uh, 45 through 47 is saying is it, it, it doesn't matter if the defendant knew for a fact that they were actually on the list. [1:32:27] The defendant could either know they're on the list or just know they're engaged in acts of terrorism, and it would still constitute a violation. But the-- But to even get to that point, you've got to at least have an entity that's on that designated foreign list. [1:32:41] Correct. [1:32:41] So I just think it's the state of the mind of the person who's accused of violating the statute. They don't necessarily have to know there's a thing called a designated foreign terrorist organization, and, and 8 U.S.C. Section 1189 is the mechanism by which that's designated. And they don't have to know that they're listed in the executive order as long as they actually are, and they at least knew that the agents, that that entity was engaged in perpetrating acts of terrorism. [1:33:05] That's, that's the way I read it, so I think it, it makes sense, and it's still, it would not be a crime if they're not on the list. If they're on the list, then you still have to show knowledge by the defendant that they either were on the list or they were engaged in acts of terrorism. But that's, uh, I may be reversed on appeal, Mr. Chairman, but that's, that's Judge Leverett's reading of it anyway. Well, I'm not gonna be the one to appeal it, Judge Leverett. Okay. We're gonna move on and have testimony from those who've signed up. Thank you. You can slide over there, Representative. [1:33:35] All right, let's see. First up we have Rosario, and I apologize, I can't read the writing, Talisios from Common Cause of Georgia. Going once. Gonna have to get one. Going, going twice. Let's check. You wanna check real- Yeah. [1:34:06] Well, let's go with Common Cause of Georgia. [1:34:19] Okay. All right. Let's see. Anybody else signed up to speak to this? Anybody came in that didn't get to sign up? Okay. Number six. Motion to pass. Well, got a motion to pass and a second. Any discussion further? [1:34:45] All right, seeing none, no amendments. All right, got a move to pass and a second. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 675 LC 481580ERS say, "Aye." All those opposed same sign. Ayes have it. You're on the rules. [1:35:18] Okay. Next up we have House Bill 35, Representative Jordan Ridley. [1:35:27] Okay. [1:35:30] Might be scared to come on in. [1:35:36] While he's coming around, I'm gonna recognize our Judge of the Week, have Judge Terry Massey with Ocmulgee Circuit. Good to have you with us, your Honor. Uh, and then, uh, I know Randy McGinley was here, uh, from PAC, so give him a shout-out if he's working online. And then our GACDL Lawyer of the Week is actually Ms. Jill Travis. Think she's outside. Uh, former member of Legislative Council here. [1:36:07] And then we have, uh, Ms. Erin Gerstenzang, who's here as well with GACDL, so good to see both... or have both of y'all with us. Okay, without further ado, go ahead, Representative. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, I bring today, uh, House Bill 35-LC 481354. This bill has passed out of this committee twice now and been caught up on crossover, so that's why we're trying to do it a little earlier, 'cause see, it's House Bill 35, so it was filed pretty early last year. But it's just a pay increase for special prosecutors. [1:36:38] Um, I worked with some of the, uh, the amounts with PAC when we created the bill two years ago. But currently special prosecutors in the state have a pretty low hourly rate. We're just raising it to $250 an hour, and currently they cannot hire staff. We're putting up to $110 an hour for staffers to let PAC decide what amount for each type of staffer up to $110 an hour, and we're adjusting it with inflation. Seems pretty simple. All right. No questions from [1:37:12] members of the committee. All right. Do pass, Chair. I've got one gentleman, the birthday man's signed up to speak. Uh, come on down. [1:37:29] He's been doing this long enough. All right. Nobody else was signed up to speak for or against this. All right, got a move to pass. Any amendments? Seeing none. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor say, "Aye." All those opposed same sign. Congratulations, you're back up to rules. [1:37:56] Okay. [1:38:01] Moving on, I'm going to go to House Bill 1131, Vice Chair Hall. Thank you, Chairman. Um, I have House Bill 1131. It's LC 481685. Essentially what this does is, um, for those with application for warrants, um, I'm changing the service mechanism to personal service so that, um, those who have an application for a warrant filed against them, they are personally served so that they know that there is an application for a warrant, um, served against them, and that they have the right notice to appear for a hearing to defend themselves. [1:38:48] I have, um, s- I, I know last, at the subcommittee there were some concerns with, uh, the overload of the sheriff's department and the marshal's department. So, um, we are, I've spoken with the sheriff's, um, association, and so we're gonna continue to work on possibly doing a fee for the personal service, um, to try to make sure that the sheriff's office [1:39:16] offices are compensated for this. Um, and so I've, I've notified them that that, that that is something that we'll continue to work on, and, and they were agreeable with what we have here today. I'll answer any questions. [1:39:31] Okay. See no ques- oh, there is one. Number three. [1:39:37] Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chair Lady. Um, I guess I'm attempting to look at this and un- understand the value, value of having the personal service. Um, you know, certainly, you know, if you're an attorney, you don't wanna have to, a client who's actually been thrown in jail on something that they have never gotten any, uh, due process, wasn't served, and they weren't before the court. Um, only question is, is that, you know, would this... M- my only concern is that this might actually, uh, while you have a, a, oh, while you actually have someone who's coming to the court, an applicant who comes before a judge, and that applicant, um, you know, maybe even in testimony before the judge, who himself an arresting officer, might find that the, um, you know, that the applicant themselves is actually kind of committed a crime, and can at that time be able to, um, you know, be able to issue an arrest warrant, or at least, at least charge the, the person before them. [1:40:43] Um, I know in other jurisdictions, sometimes they'll have a, um, maybe a notice of summons to be sent out as an, as an extra. The only thing I look at is that if you... Do you find that if you have a require personal service only, then a time where you have, uh, one who is legally able to actually find probable cause, um, that they may not be able to act on it in that time, um, and therefore it's, it's postponing this, uh, you know. [1:41:19] That's my question. Okay. [1:41:22] I have no I'm s- I'm glad that I'm not the only one. I'm not really understanding. [1:41:27] Right. [1:41:27] So this is... So, um... [1:41:31] Yeah, I'll, I'll simplify it. I, I'm sorry. [1:41:33] S- yeah. [1:41:34] Okay. Um, here's my... I should probably state my worry first, okay? My worry is that, um, if you actually have a warrant application hearing where there is a, a very serious situation, not necessarily domestic violence, right? 'Cause that, you know, this was, um, you know, that would be going straight towards a warrant. But where it is a highly, uh, volatile situation that the person actually is going before a judge oftentimes because the officer has already left the scene, okay? [1:42:04] And they're coming in the, to the magistrate, for instance. They're, f- they wanna actually have this on record, um, to hold the other party responsible. They try their best to actually provide a notice, uh, by giving a, a, their best idea in terms of what are the last known address that that person is. Okay? Um, the person doesn't have an address. The case is then kicked out. Here you got somebody who's actually before you, um, that could have, could have particularly, they, they could have been, um, uh, they could be an offender. [1:42:41] But that judge is just, just gonna send them back out onto the street. Then, you know, what's good of likelihood that you would actually be able to have an opportunity to hear this again, when really what is probably be better served is just to have them, um, instead of doing a personal service, which can be, um, you know, can be, uh, long and drawn out, uh, particularly in terms of tr- trying to try to get that person. Maybe if you just have, like, maybe a second summons, you know? [1:43:12] Like, a second, and another opportunity to, to try to get them into court instead of just saying, "Hey, if you don't have it via personal service, we automatically kick it out." [1:43:21] Um, I was a little confused in one part of your question, so maybe- [1:43:26] Can you ask again? [1:43:27] I'm gonna, I'm gonna, I'm going to repeat your question and see if, um, I understand it. So you are, your concern is essentially if we do personal service, and the alleged offender is not personally served, and they do not show up to court, then you have an of- alleged offender out there. Is that, is that what your worry is? [1:43:51] That is what my worry is. [1:43:53] Okay. [1:43:53] I, I... Thank you for explaining it in very, in a lot less words. I'm an English major. Count it against my heart. [1:43:58] Sure, okay. And so obviously, this is one, one process of having a warrant issued against an alleged offender. Oftentimes, when somebody has taken this process, they've already gone to law enforcement. There's been an investigation, and law enforcement decides not to pursue the case, or, um, or, or, or yeah, to pursue a case to bring it to a judge for a warrant. [1:44:28] So therefore, this is basically a, a plan B type of, um, process where an individual can say, "Well, I still want it to go before a judge." And so therefore they go ahead and file an application for a warrant and have the other person served to appear to court so that a judge can decide, um, to whether or not a warrant should be issued. Um, uh, I think either way, if you are personally served or, or, and again, on line 15, or by any means approved by the judge or other officer which is reasonably calculate. [1:45:09] So we, we still have the language that is currently in there, and it's an or, um, and the alleged offender decides not to show up despite notice, then- usually a warrant is issued or there may be a second notice. That's up to the judge. So, um, I, I understand your concern, however, I, I think those are... That concern is, um, not warranted based on the language that I'm, I'm just, I'm adding. [1:45:40] I wanna make sure that the alleged, um, offender who should show up and who will show up if there is an application for a warrant issued against them, has due process rights. That this is about due process and making sure that you know somebody filed a, a application for a warrant against you and you have the right to defend yourself. [1:46:04] Thank you for clarifying it, and understand that my questions on it are just that, um, I support it. [1:46:10] Thank you. [1:46:13] Okay. Uh, number 11. [1:46:16] I was just gonna say that isn't it true that this, having personal service is kind of a guarantee that this was done due process, this is the person in question? [1:46:27] Uh, then that's, that's correct, and- [1:46:30] Thank you. [1:46:34] Isn't it also true that in Georgia you can't be divorced without being served personally, or very limited exceptions? You, a TPO can't be entered against you, a protective order can't be entered against you without personal service. And so to allow somebody to be arrested, which is an even bigger infringement on their liberty, really needs the same guardrails like personal service. [1:46:59] Absolutely. [1:47:00] Thank you. [1:47:00] Why I brought the bill. Thank you. [1:47:02] Okay. [1:47:03] See no other questions. Um, anybody signed up to speak on this? [1:47:15] Okay. Anybody come in that didn't get to sign up on this one? Okay. [1:47:22] Move to second, due pass. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1131, and what was LC on that one? [1:47:36] It's- [1:47:38] LC number 48, 1685. Say, "I." All those opposed same sign. Congratulations, you are on to rule. [1:47:49] Okay. Next we have House Bill 1075, Representative Chastain. The gentleman from Blue Ridge. [1:48:00] On the mountains. [1:48:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to be back with you in the committee again here Thursday. [1:48:14] Had the opportunity this summer to, to ride around a little bit with my, with my sheriff up in Fannin County, but was able to attend a couple of the, uh, GBI, uh, meetings they had over the summer and early fall, and, and met Special Agent Hilton, who was here last Thursday, and also Special Agent, uh, Adam Jones, who's here with us again today. So I'm glad that he's back with me, and several of the, the GBI folks are here today, so appreciate all of them being here. Uh, that's where this bill, this bill came from. This bill, uh, makes pimping a felony on the first offense, uh, in Georgia if this, if the person has a prior conviction of human trafficking. [1:48:52] Uh, the last paragraph on the second page is really the only what we're, we're attempting to change or add, add to the current, uh, statute. Uh, a person convicted of, on line 28, a person convicted of violating code section 16-6-11, which is the pimping, uh, code section, who has a prior conviction of the offense of trafficking of persons for labor or sexual servitude in violation of Code Section 16-5-46, which is the human trafficking code, uh, in Georgia, shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by the term of imprisonment of not less than one year or no more than 10 years. [1:49:28] And that's really the bill, Mr. Chairman. [1:49:30] Okay. Any questions from members of the committee? All right, if you wanna slide over. [1:49:36] Yes, sir. [1:49:37] Uh, we have, uh, Ms. Kamela Zolfaghari. Come on down. [1:49:49] Thank you. My name is Kamela Zolfaghari. I'm Vice President of Government Affairs for Street Grace. Prior to this, I was Fulton County's human trafficking prosecutor, and then Attorney General Sam Olens human trafficking prosecutor. Um, this really is an issue. The two of the cases I have prosecuted human trafficking, those traffickers after serving their time are out and have been caught pandering. Two that I know of, this particular case that GBI has dealt with and another one that we dealt with in Fulton County. [1:50:21] I actually think this could likely be a more important issue or more frequent issue going forward with the changes to law last year due to the rule of Lyn- Lenni- Lennity from last year. It will be less likely that somebody with a human trafficking conviction will also be convicted of pimping, and so I think we do really need this. I will say Georgia's actually falling behind our neighboring states in that pimping and pandering is a felony in almost all of our surrounding states all of the time, and I think that is what it needs to be. [1:50:56] But this is a very, very important step forward. We got real survivors with real faces and names who have been harmed because after getting out that trafficking, he continued to act, continued to commercially sexually exploit, and we have misdemeanor charges that do nothing. [1:51:19] Okay. See no questions from members of the committee. [1:51:23] Thank you. [1:51:23] All right. Next we have Sir Hunt Blackwell. [1:51:28] Or do I need to draw that out with well? I, I... [1:51:34] And to the gentleman from Dartmouth, uh, I do know there's, uh, two pronunciations of well. [1:51:41] Two- [1:51:43] Go ahead, Miss Sarah. [1:51:45] One of those pronunciations is the Southern version, right? All right, good afternoon, Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Sarah Hunt Blackwell, senior policy counsel with ACLU of Georgia. Um, first I'd just like to thank you for your time this afternoon, and thank the sponsor for this bill, and the intent of this bill. Um, however, I am here to, uh, testify in opposition to HB 1075, because it contradicts current Ge- Georgia law and imposes a felony penalty enhancement for individuals convicted of pimping when they have a prior conviction of trafficking, for trafficking of per- persons for labor or sexual servitude. [1:52:18] Excuse me. The criminal penalty for a conviction of pimping is clearly identified in the Georgia code, as we've already, um, discussed. First time conviction is punished as a misdemeanor of high and aggravated nature, and subsequent convictions are punished as felonies. HB 1075 completely bypasses the lesser criminal penalty for a first time conviction of pimping, and automatically enhances it to felony status if the offender has a prior conviction of trafficking. You're not saying that this is not an issue, however Georgia code defines sexual servitude and pimping very differently, and the distinctions make clear why the former is a felony and the latter is a high and aggravated misdemeanor. [1:52:59] Sexual servitude automatically receives a higher penalty because, as defined in the code, it must involve coercion or deception, sexually explicit conduct that is induced against someone who is younger than 18 or has a developmental disability. None of these factors are required under the definition of pimping under Georgia code. So to put it simply, trafficking for sexual servitude is a much more serious crime than pimping, and Georgia law recognizes that fact. A prior conviction for trafficking should not warrant an enhanced penalty for pimping on a first offense. [1:53:32] We already have the measures in place to charge for felony if there are multiple convictions for pimping. For these reasons, we urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you, and I yield for questions. [1:53:44] See no questions. Thank you for being with us today. [1:53:47] Thank you. [1:53:49] Okay, I don't have anybody else signed up unless I just dropped it. Agents, y'all want, have anything y'all wanna add? [1:54:00] Come on down. [1:54:04] Good afternoon. I'm Special Agent Adam Jones with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Uh, through some of the investigations that we talked about, there's just a small, almost like a loophole that's being used, uh, by traffickers with prior convictions because pimping is just, it's not thought of as aggravated as it is, but there's a lot more to it, and I think that this would resolve that. [1:54:30] Okay. See no questions. Thank y'all very much. Give our regards to Director Hosey. [1:54:35] Yes, sir. Thank you. [1:54:36] Okay. See no other questions. All right. Representative, you have anything you wanna add? Okay. All right, we got a move, do pass in a second. Any discussion from members of the committee? All right, any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1075, LC 4816 35 say aye. [1:55:07] All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations, you're on the rules. Get me the form and I'll sign it. [1:55:11] Appreciate it. Thank y'all. [1:55:14] Okay. And next we have House Bill 1142, Representative Hagan. [1:55:28] Look, here she comes. [1:55:35] Brand-new son. [1:55:38] You also wanna add an amendment for- [1:55:40] Please. [1:55:51] Go ahead. [1:55:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There, um, has been a substit- a few substitutes, so I wanna make sure we're all working from LC620399S. That's ... [1:56:19] 0399S is the... [1:56:26] 04. [1:56:28] Okay. Let's go with the most recent one that y'all have, because I know what the changes were. Okay, my apologies. We'll go with 0407S. [1:56:42] And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for... [1:56:48] There was one this morning, and then Chairman was kind enough to let me do another one just before the meeting started. So I apologize for the confusion. It is 0407S. [1:57:01] Right. The 401- [1:57:03] Who does not have a copy of the substitute? [1:57:06] Give it to him. [1:57:08] The substitute. [1:57:10] 0407 has the latest. That's the most recent one. [1:57:13] Whoops. [1:57:18] 0 back. [1:57:21] 0407S. [1:57:26] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it is a sad fact that Georgia needs this legislation, but it does Last year, over 160 people in Georgia lost their lives to domestic violence. Thousands more were intimidated, threatened, harassed, and abused every day in their homes and in their close relationships. Where they ought to feel safe and loved, they instead often feel afraid and without hope. [1:57:59] I've spoken to many of you in h- in here and in this building that support this legislation. Some are concerned parents and grandparents, and some are survivors of domestic violence who work right here with us under the Gold Dome. And honestly, there were a few that came to speak to me about it that I had no idea that this had been a issue that they had suffered through and, and survived. Um, but, but they've spoken to me about it. And I've also spoken with multiple directors of domestic violence and sexual assault centers who do support this legislation and feel confident it will save lives. [1:58:34] Um, and I do wanna mention that Tennessee did create the first domestic violence registry in the nation last year. It just went online January 1st of this year, and it was created after a woman named Savannah Puckett was killed by her ex-boyfriend, who had a history of domestic violence with, a- against multiple women, and he did plead guilty to Savannah's murder. Uh, she was the inspiration for the Tennessee legislation, and I did wanna make sure I mentioned her today. [1:59:07] So this [1:59:12] legislation creates within the GBI a searchable registry of recidivist domestic violence offenders. In this legislation, we're very careful to specify what information shall and shall not be included, and the goal there was to make sure that we provide relevant information to a person that's using the registry, while also protecting the privacy of the offender and family members of the offender. [1:59:44] So upon the second conviction for domestic violence, an offender would be placed on the registry. And then, uh, this offender would automatically be removed from the registry, uh, five years after the second conviction, and 10 years after the third and subsequent convictions. And it applies only to convictions, not arrests. I wanna make sure that, that we're very clear about that. [2:00:16] And it also only applies to offenders that are convicted of a second or subseque- subsequent offense after January 1st of 2027, so going forward with a second or subsequent offense. There are a few exceptions to this two-conviction rule. Um, those would be a plea of nolo for a domestic violence offense, a first offender plea for a domestic viol- violence offense, and also a domestic violence offense discharged after pretrial diversion programs. [2:00:53] So that, that's what it does. And I understand that there are some amendments that need to be made, and but, Madam Chair, that's the bill, and I'd be happy to answer any questions about it if there are any. [2:01:07] Thank you, Chair Lady. We have a few questions. Um, Chairman Leverett? [2:01:12] Thank you, Madam Chairman. Um, so Chairman Hagan, my reading of this is the, the nolos and the first offenders and the pretrial diversion aren't exceptions. They count. So if you plead nolo or if you enter a pretrial diversion program, that's one conviction. [2:01:29] For the purposes of this legislation. [2:01:31] For the statute, yes. [2:01:31] For the purposes of the registry, that's right. [2:01:33] Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. [2:01:37] Uh, Representative Neal? [2:01:41] Thank you to the Chair. Uh, thank you to the author, um, for the bill. And I'm not sure, I'm not... Unless you kinda walk through the changes, I'm just gonna tell you what I see, and you advise as to what the substitute changes are. So you referenced Tennessee. Um, and Tennessee, how they different from Georgia is they define domestic violence as a standalone, and then they also define domestic assault victim as a standalone. So when trying to capture a certain group, they can capture that group. [2:02:13] And because Georgia has, ours is like, you know, in addition to whatever the crime plus family violence, whatever the crime plus family violence, my fear is us grabbing too many people that don't necessarily fit. And so that's why I didn't know if your new substitute addressed that or not. [2:02:32] It, it does, but I think we may need some clarification on that there. Um- [2:02:38] Okay. [2:02:39] We have here family violence and dating violence. [2:02:41] Right. [2:02:42] And, um, I, I think that might be something that is gonna come up here- [2:02:47] Okay [2:02:48] ... in discussion. Yes, ma'am. [2:02:50] Okay. Okay. Thank you. [2:02:56] Number 14. Is that Chairman Gullett? [2:02:58] Thank you. Um, thank you for the bill. I know you and I have talked a little bit about it. Uh, do you ever get in touch with the Georgia families? [2:03:05] No, I haven't been able to talk to them yet. [2:03:06] Okay. Thank you. [2:03:19] Chairman, how can this cover family violence and domestic violence? [2:03:24] It, it, on line 38, where I think this might be the best place for where it's covered, line 38, it specifies, uh, the code sections for family violence and for dating violence as who the victim in this case would be. [2:03:44] I think it's laying the simps. [2:03:47] Yeah. Okay. Whatever it is, I'm, I'm wor- I've got my notes on the old sub. So what, 30, which one? [2:03:55] Six. [2:03:55] 36. Yeah. [2:03:57] So somebody gets in a fight, and I'll throw this hypothetical out there, somebody gets in a fight at the family reunion or at Thanksgiving over a bad call on touchdown out playing touch football, uh, in the backyard. Let's just say these cousins don't like each other, and the cousin that was the alleged victim goes and files, uh, charges against them, uh, and then a conviction for a simple battery comes about because of this. [2:04:29] Would you anticipate them having to register? [2:04:32] I wouldn't. I wouldn't. If there's something we need to clear up to make sure that that's not what we're discussing, I'll be happy to. Um, what... [2:04:43] Well, I, I... Is that something that would be considered domestic violence? I- [2:04:48] Yeah. [2:04:49] That would be? As family violence. Well, what I ... I mean, I certainly don't think that's our intent here. [2:05:01] Okay. [2:05:02] No, not in any way. [2:05:03] Okay. I was just... [2:05:06] But it's a good question. [2:05:07] Having some practice in this area, there's a lot of code sections that are affected by this. [2:05:13] Mm-hmm. [2:05:13] Uh, but Chairman Crowe, you had a question? [2:05:17] Well, I, I don't know if it's a question or maybe just a, a point added on to yours. The, um, 1913-1 is pretty broad, and all of those crimes, uh, that are defined under there that could fall under Family Violence Act, um, the people who are subject to that are brother, sister, anybody who has lived in the same home in the past. So I mean, it's a real wide-ranging group of people. And I don't know-- I know what your intent is, and I'm extremely supportive of that. Uh, I just think that, that we may need to tighten up the definition just a tad, because that one is pretty broad, um, and could get somebody, if you have two brothers or, you know, fraternity brothers that used to live together in college, you know what I mean? [2:06:00] And, and there's, and there's no-- It doesn't appear to be any, uh, time between the two. So if you got convicted of that in college and then something else happened thirty years later, then you could go on a registry. So, um, that's, that's my only concern with that. I, and I don't unfortunately have an answer. Maybe you said somebody had some amendments. I'm hoping somebody else might. But- [2:06:22] Mm-hmm [2:06:22] ... um, that, that is something that I think would be, to the Chairman's point, a little bit, uh, unintended consequence. [2:06:29] And, and that definitely would not be a consequence we would want. That, that is definitely not the intent of this bill. So I, I would love for us to find a definition that would exclude that. What, what I have here as far as the current definition of family violence in the code is between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, step-parents and step-children, foster parents and foster children, and I think this might be where, where the sticking point may be, or other persons living or formerly living in the same household. [2:07:13] But, but yeah. [2:07:19] You want to go? [2:07:20] You can go. [2:07:23] Okay. Representative Panitch. [2:07:24] The only problem with that is that you have-- and people who are unmarried living together, and I think you want those people who are in a romantic relationship who there's violence between to have to be on the registry. What you don't want are just, um, related people not in a romantic relationship. I think-- Or not having been in a romantic relationship. [2:07:48] Um, well, it-- In the definition of family violence, it would include spouses. It would-- The, the parent, the person in the parent role and the person in the, the child role, however they might be related as defined in the code. What, what we don't want to include i-is an example like the Chairman gave, where you've got family members who happen to be related, even if they happen to have been living in the same household at some point and have an altercation. [2:08:18] That, that- [2:08:21] Do you want it to make it then a romantic relationship or a dating relationship? So-- Because that to me is what the essence of the domestic violence is. It's power and control. It's the entire cycle. [2:08:33] I think that is the essence of what we're trying to get to here. But there may be some people who are here to speak to the bill who have m- a lot of experience dealing with, um, these situations in their professional life that may have some insight into it. [2:08:50] Yes. [2:08:50] That we- [2:08:51] I like this bill. I just want it to be- [2:08:52] No, no [2:08:53] ... stronger. [2:08:53] Agreed. I, I-- My whole intent here is to protect people. I know that we're mainly looking at women here, but men are also i-in abusive relationships too from time to time. And I-- we're looking for a tool or a resource that could help them when they're deciding who they may want to be in a romantic relationship with to look and see if they're dealing with a person who's had multiple- domestic violence commit convictions. That's the intent. [2:09:24] So however we can clean that up and make and, and preserve that intent, I am definitely open to that. [2:09:30] Mm-hmm. Okay. Number four, Representative Neal. [2:09:36] Yes. Uh, so some of the things I was reviewing before coming here is, um, looking at, one, what Tennessee is doing with their definitions. Um, but I know some of those recommending something like that would rever- reverberate throughout the whole, uh, uh, our, our Georgia code 'cause it's gonna affect so much. But in order to accomplish a goal, I feel like a new definition will need to be established, whether it's a intimate partner violence, something. Um, because if absent of that, I feel like there's gonna be a lot of unintentional consequences. [2:10:13] Okay. See no other, uh, questions from members of the committee. Uh, at this time we're gonna take testimony. Chairwoman, if you wanna slide over. Uh, let's see. I have, uh, Betty Dale Williams. [2:10:32] Come on down. There are two of you. Come on down. [2:10:38] Good afternoon. Um, I'm Betty Williams. I'm the director of the Refuge Domestic Violence Shelter in Vidalia, Georgia. Um, I support this bill. I s- um, serve five counties in Southeast Georgia. I've been working in this field for 23 years. I think this, uh, registry is much needed. Um, simply, uh, Representative Hagan, when she said that about, um, it's not just women, but men too, they can go on this registry when they're thinking about getting in a relationship. [2:11:13] And if... What I like about this bill is there's two convictions. So with a conviction, I feel like there's been enough evidence put forth, you know, that there was a conviction because we know with TPOs, you know, that's, that's very much different from this conviction. And so she or he can make a decision after going on this registry to say, "Oh, he's had three convictions of domestic violence. [2:11:46] Do I want to get in this relationship with him and, or her?" And it really could, even if it saved one life, that's one life that we have saved with this bill. I would love to see it go forth. Uh, I would love for Georgia to be the second state to pass such a bill, and I wanna thank Representative Hagan for bringing it forth. [2:12:10] Absolutely. I'm Michelle Gertman, and I run three domestic violence shelters in South Georgia. I run, uh, Valdosta, which is a domestic violence and sexual assault center, and then I'm in Waycross where I have the first family justice center up and going, and I run a domestic violence shelter, and then I've been running, uh, Camden House St. Mary's since last May. And so, uh, I have 16 counties in, uh, the great state of Georgia, and I wanna tell you a little bit, a few reasons why you should pass this bill. Because 70,000 victims made a crisis call last year to a shelter, 292,000 victims slept in a shelter bed last year. [2:12:46] 16- almost 16,000 victims did not receive help because shelters are full, and 163 lives were lost last year due to domestic violence. And you'll hear from a survivor today that I got to meet very briefly that s- I said, "Why is this bill important to you?" And she said, "Because I don't want it to happen to anyone else." And I think that's what we have to get to, whether the definition needs to be changed or where we need to get to, but I want you to know that sisters and mothers fight, and mothers and husbands fight, and boyfriends and girlfriends fight from, from the, the cradle to the grave, and we see all the above. [2:13:21] It's no respect of persons, and it's no respect of age, and so we see that all the time. And I stand before you today saying we are deeply, uh, uh, we're deeply, um, honored to be here, but we want to protect the victims' rights. And I think that, um, having someone that's been arrested twice, I think it protects... Or not arrested, I said that. Convicted twice, uh, protects someone that may be, uh, arrested and convicted, um, like a victim, 'cause we know that victims are also arrested for domestic violence, and they can be wrongly convicted as a perpetrator. [2:13:55] So I think with it being a, a two-time conviction, that is very rare and far between that that is gonna happen twice to one person to be wrongly convicted two times on the same charge. So I do think that House Bill 1142 establishes the domestic violence registry, and it helps us maintain that offender and know who they are. Just like a sex offender registry, you wanna know who's living. I don't-- I have, uh, seven kids, six girls. Don't you wanna know if they are dating someone that has been, uh, accused or convicted of domestic violence? [2:14:27] I would wanna know that. I think survivors wanna know that when they get back into a relationship. So I think it's very important that you take this bill in consideration. Whether you have to change some of the language on it, it's worth having for Georgia to have a first-time registry in domestic violence. After 31 years, to know that we're finally gonna have somewhere that we can go and look as a, as an advocate trying to file a TPO or as a shelter understanding that, uh, we have a, uh, someone that's been convicted, I think that's very important. When many women we serve eventually start rebuilding their lives, um, if someone they encounter has a documented history to repeat violence, that information would be helpful. [2:15:06] Victims deserve awareness. Shelters deserve awareness. Communities deserve awareness. Uh, and transparency saves lives, and I think a registry is transparency, and I think that will help. Thank you. [2:15:25] Okay. See no questions. Thank y'all for- [2:15:28] Thank you [2:15:28] ... traveling all the way up here. [2:15:29] Okay, thank you. [2:15:31] But you didn't bring no onions. [2:15:38] All right. Let's see. Next up we have GACDL, uh, Maisie Lynn, Jill. [2:15:53] Don't have their phone, hmm. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Sure. Do you wanna go? Yeah. [2:15:59] Uh, my name's Maisie Lynn. [2:16:01] Burton. [2:16:01] I'm the executive director at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I'm joined today by Jill Travis, who is, you've already announced, Star Lawyer of the Week, former legislative counsel here at the General Assembly. Um, and, uh, my apologies to the bill sponsor. We had the original version, um, we didn't have any intention of speaking to today, so it wasn't until we got to the room with the sub that we had a couple things to raise for the committee. Um, while we understand the hope here, and even appreciate why you would want to consider a first offender adjudication as a conviction in this context, um, [2:16:45] to simply consider it a conviction so that the second time someone is then... Really, the first time they're truly convicted, but the second time they're charged, if there's, if it goes all the way through, then they would be eligible for the registry. We understand that concept completely. What we struggle with, though, is the addition in this sub at lines 50 through 52, [2:17:10] which would then take that first offender conviction and list it on the website. Um, so granted, I, we, like I said, we understand the case count. We understand the recidivist nature of that first offender adjudication building, the second conviction building upon that first offender adjudication. But the point of a first offender adjud- adjudication in, under our law is to be protective of that person in many different venues. And so then putting that out on this registry would upend the other protections that that first offender adjudication was meant to provide in spaces that have nothing to do with domestic violence: employment, housing, all kinds of other places, um, that you as, you have decided are important for people to have that protection for. [2:18:00] It was not included in the, um, original version of the bill. We would simply ask that that con- be reconsidered. Um, [2:18:11] maintaining it as a basis for this registry, but not as something that you post publicly. Um, [2:18:21] when someone is placed... When, um... Did you want me... Do you have any questions about that part, or should I just keep going about the other issues that we wanted to raise? [2:18:33] Sure. What would you recommend in lieu of that? [2:18:38] Well, we would simply recommend that you not post that person. You're, you're, you're going to be, um, under the registry, the, the conviction that actually be, the eligible conviction, in this case, let's say if a person had- [2:18:49] So only list the second. [2:18:51] Yes. [2:18:51] Okay, perfect. That's all I need. [2:18:53] That's what I would say. Because that would be public record anyway. [2:18:59] Thank you. [2:18:59] Sure. [2:19:03] Um. [2:19:08] Another question. Number 14. [2:19:10] Sorry. [2:19:10] Was that Chairman Leverett? [2:19:12] Oh, I keep cutting you off, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So yeah, just to clarify, you do not oppose the consideration of a first, a, a conviction as to which first offender treatment was utilized, or a pretrial diversion wa- was subject to diversion. Your concern is just taking what is, what has traditionally been something that is not subject to, you know, a public scrutiny or is not part of the public record, and making it such through this registry? [2:19:41] Correct. [2:19:41] Okay. So- [2:19:43] I'm, I'm hesitating only a little bit because it's h- it's, um... [2:19:50] I don't like... I don't love registries, let me just say that. [2:19:54] Okay. [2:19:54] Um, I, I appreciate the reason for this. Um, I mean, I'm a single woman who dates. I, I, I understand the policy behind it. It's very protective. We, we aren't here to s- It's a great policy move, and I understand all the protections. It's hard as an organization to want people to have to register. [2:20:11] More registries, I understand. [2:20:12] But we're not anti, we're not anti-protection. Just we're... So that's why we're just bringing, right, these sort of technical issues related to the first offender adjudication. [2:20:19] O- one of the follow-up, if I may, Mr. Chairman. Just, a- as, as you apparently do not like the registries generally, I assume you probably have some substantive knowledge of them. Do most registries of this nature utilize charges as, that were a subject of a pretrial diversion, uh, arrangement or first offender treatment? Do they usually count for these kinds of things? [2:20:43] First offender is treated in some circumstances as a, as, as a basis in, like, for SORB, but not pretrial diversion. That's the one that causes me a l- more pause to include that, because there are many instances where it, it's easier to go to pretrial diversion than to fight all the charges. And so therefore it's a default. Um, now certainly the fact that somebody's gone and gotten into this situation a second time doesn't speak well, but you know, that's, the pretrial diversion is more pausing than the first offender treatment, for sure. [2:21:21] It, and I- I'm assuming, uh, one, one other follow-up, that it, it would, I assume, be feasible to have the registry and not necessarily provide specifics about the convictions. Um, and that might be a goal of the legislation, is to provide more information and detail. But I assume that would be an alternative to say, "Well, he's on the registry because he's, you know, he satisfies the conditions for the registry." Um, so anyway, I just, uh, I don't know if you have a position on that or... [2:21:57] I was just trying to compare the, the... What is included on the registry also changed between the two versions. I just wanted to see if potentially that was one of the changes, but I don't believe so. I mean, what did change was that in the first version, you only were going to post the eligible, in this case, second. [2:22:18] Oh, I see. [2:22:19] It's in the sub that you've gone, that it's gone back and added the pretrial- [2:22:22] Pretrial [2:22:23] ... the first offender and pretrial d- diversion adjudication. They were not in the original version. [2:22:28] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chairman. [2:22:30] Um, and SORB is what Ms. Travis referred to as the Sex Offender Registry Review Board. So the first offender adjudications are usually a pretrial diversion. [2:22:43] Um, there is not a mechanism, um, contemplated here regarding how someone would be removed from the registry if they were to successfully appeal, um, their conviction and have it overturned. So, um, we have, we have provided some, um, language to the, um, to the chairmen, maybe to the chairman, certainly to the vice chair, um, sorry if I didn't, sir, but, um, for you, for you to consider in that case, simply because otherwise the mechanisms, um, contemplate time after conviction. [2:23:26] And if in that time the courts decided your conviction was not good, um, we were just asking for a way for you to become off the registry. [2:23:36] Okay. Vice Chairman Hong. [2:23:38] A little. [2:23:40] You- [2:23:40] And s- and then the sub- [2:23:42] Could you... Something about that? [2:23:44] Yeah. Yeah. [2:23:44] Okay. Um, in addition, another thing that changed in the sub from the first begins at line 81 and goes through the end of section three, [2:23:59] and this has to do with, um, the notice that someone would be under respecting their first encounter with the court system on a first, um, domestic violence case. So in the original version, um, you... This would not apply to any conviction that occurred prior to January 1st of 2027, and we believe that this is the most constitutionally sound way to do this, because the change that happens in the sub wherein it applies to all second or subsequent offenses, and the language that had to change, changed throughout, like I said, 81 to 86 to make that happen, means that someone who has a first conviction or first offender adjudication or pretrial diversion, um, adjudication I'll call it, between now and then wouldn't know that this was possible next time. [2:24:52] It's just an, it's, it's due pr- It's, it's a substantive due process issue to only apply it to the second and subsequent once you make the bill effective. We're just suggesting that in order to avoid that problem, you just stick with the language that you had in the first version, which, um, launches everything on January 1st, 2027. So you're on notice from the very first time. [2:25:25] Vice Chairman Hong. [2:25:27] Do you have, um... Thank you, and thank you for those points. Um, do you have any suggestions as far as what we had discussed on the definition of domestic violence or family violence? Can you talk a little bit on that, the line 36? [2:25:47] We know we need a vote for that. [2:25:51] Just for clarification, unless those cousins were living in the same household, I don't think my scenario quite holds up. [2:25:59] Yeah. [2:25:59] Still could be a cruelty to children, uh, situation. [2:26:07] All sudden relationship that are existing. [2:26:11] Well, I think the dating, the actual dating violence definition, the dating relationship- [2:26:20] Let's do this [2:26:21] ... yeah. [2:26:22] Let's do this. We have a hard stop at 4:45. [2:26:29] I have time for one more bill potentially. So let's do this. There's a lot of stuff. I think everybody's in support of your aim. So let's do this. We're gonna get everybody together. I'm gonna assign Vice Chair Hong to get us a substitute together, because I know she's got some language too, but we've found that we could tighten some things up. So Chairman Hagan, I'm gonna ask that you work with all interested partners and come up with a sub. [2:27:00] Uh, we have a couple more meetings this week that hopefully we can get you on. So thank you. And it's good to have Mr. Hagan with us today. I saw him come in. [2:27:12] Okay. [2:27:14] Him and the long-haired friends of Jesus he's hanging out with, so. Uh, all right. Thank you, members, on that. Next, [2:27:27] we will go ahead and... Remember, I just comment that we'll have, uh, one more bill heard. I'll apologize to the others that have had to wait. We've just run out of time [2:27:38] Uh, House Bill 421, Representative Taylor. Chairwoman Taylor. [2:27:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the committee hearing this bill. Um, we're working off of the Sub LC481756S. Uh, this is a bill that has to do with those that are enticing children for indecent purposes. Um, it doesn't matter where they do it, this is putting, um, a penalty in it. And it also is adding that if, um, a parent, a guardian, or someone that's in charge or has custody of a child does this, uh, solicitation or knows about it or allows it would also be, um, punishable also. [2:28:35] Um, it's much more succinct than what I brought before. We've worked with y'all on it. We've come up with some wording and, um, this is very clearly tightened up right now. Okay. And Chairwoman, I, I do, uh, understand you had some concerns even with the sub about, uh, crossing state lines. Right. Uh, a- and of course, there are two conflicting opinions. Hold on, we'll get the sub out to everybody, make sure you have it. [2:29:09] Just remind us of the LC number you're working off of, Chairwoman Taylor. It's LC481756S. Okay. Does anyone have a copy of that? Yeah. This version of it does, um- Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Who does not have a copy of it? Okay. We'll make some more. Okay. All right. I got one over here. Okay. Go ahead, Chairwoman. Um, it, it actually has, um, it does the same thing. [2:29:39] It doesn't specifically say where. It can happen any place, so it made it a little bit, um, wider and broader. It didn't have to come from another state. It could be around the corner, across the county line, or from another state if they participate in this. And with the issues we have online, things like this are happening much more often, and this addresses it. And it also did add that if, um, again, a person that's in charge of a child participates, allows it to happen, uh, they're gonna be punished also. [2:30:09] Okay. All right. And the reason for the substitute from the time that it was in subcommittee until now, members, is there was a conflict, uh, with language, and we clarified that, so... I appreciate the help of those on the committee that has helped to finalize this. Okay. [2:30:36] Any questions from members of the committee? [2:30:44] I see none. Uh- Move to pass. All right, got a move, they passed a second. I do have someone signed up for it with Frontline, and then I'll come to Pat. [2:30:56] Um, and then, [2:30:59] let's see. [2:31:04] Uh, Tripp Richardson on Frontline. [2:31:17] Say that again. No worries. [2:31:23] How you doing? [2:31:26] Tripp, you can go ahead. Okay. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson, and I'm here with Frontline Policy in support of the original language of HB 421. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh, the original language of this bill tried to solve a problem in current law, where a predator can travel from a- another state into Georgia with the specific intent to molest a child, and Georgia has no state-level criminal offense for the act of travel itself. Federal law exists, but federal law prosecution requires federal resources and federal, uh, prioritization. [2:32:03] That language gave Georgia's own law enforcement and prosecutors independent authority to act. When a predator crosses a state line to reach a Georgia child, that journey would become a felony under Georgia law. The threat is not hypothetical. Since 2014, Georgia's ICAC task force has arrested over 178 individuals in undercover operations targeting men who have traveled to meet children they had groomed online. Nationally, 2023 saw a 300% rise in child incitement cases. [2:32:38] These predators plan, they travel, they deliberate. The original language of HB 421 meets that deliberateness with a deliberate legal consequence. The bill also protected parents. It specifically criminalized traveling into Georgia to solicit a parent's consent to abuse their child, targeting mani- the manipulation of the family itself. Now, the concern in regard to the substitute language presented today for HB 421 is that individuals who would have otherwise been charged with child molestation under code Section 16-2-20 as a party to a crime will now receive a lesser sentence or plea to this lesser charge. [2:33:20] So this language in the sub is in fact reducing punishment for those that want to harm our children in such a way, and I don't believe that's the intent of this legislator. We respectfully urge this committee's support of HB 421's original language. Thank you. So you don't support the current version? No, sir. And why is that? [2:33:46] We're only prepared to answer questions today. Um, just we support the original version of the language. [2:33:53] Okay. Thank you. [2:33:54] Yeah. [2:33:54] Thank you, guys. [2:34:00] We're gonna stay on the dais for five minutes. [2:37:33] Okay. Uh, at this point, what we're gonna do is we are going to adjourn. I've spoken with some interested, uh, participants and those concerned with the substitute. So what we're gonna do is we will adjourn and bring this back to full committee on Thursday. Thank you. We're adjourned.