House Judiciary Committee, February 23, 2026

Transcript

833 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:24:57

   Okay. Okay. Okay.

2. 0:25:02

   All right, good morning everybody. Thank y'all for coming. We got a busy calendar, it's gonna take a while to get through.

3. 0:25:17

   I need my gavel.

4. 0:25:22

   All right. Um,

5. 0:25:26

   before we get started, there's several folks we need to recognize. Uh, we have a judge of the week, or maybe judge of the day, Clint Bearden, in the back back there. Good to have you with us. Um, we have a, a attorney of the day, Andrew Hall, is that right? Of the week. Oh, you're stuck.

6. 0:25:51

   Um, and, uh, Trey Kelley, you have some guests here. And let me-

7. 0:25:55

   Yeah, they're here, and Chair Gullett down there doing I think-

8. 0:25:59

   Take a microphone, let me turn you on there

9. 0:26:01

   ... gonna testify before.

10. 0:26:03

    Which, which-

11. 0:26:04

    Ch- Chair Gullett I'm sure will introduce them even more when they get ready for, to present his bill, but, but it is good to have the, the Sheriff of Paulding County and the Chief of Police from, from Hiram here today. Uh, both, Mr. Chairman, who I'm only acquainted through friendship and politics.

12. 0:26:28

    Yeah. Well, I agree with that. All right, I think we, I think we covered everybody. Unless I can't see around the pole here. Um, and I know we have some other officials here, but they'll be testifying, so you mind opening us up?

13. 0:26:45

    Let us pray. Dear Lord, we thank you for this time this morning here in the House Judiciary Committee. Pray for your blessings on all the, uh, the judges, the law enforcement, the people of Georgia here today. Uh, play, pray for your blessings over these proceedings. In your name we pray, amen.

14. 0:26:59

    Amen. Thank you. All right, let's see. First bill is the Fulton County Judgeship.

15. 0:27:08

    Jesus.

16. 0:27:13

    Is 1365. Okay.

17. 0:27:17

    Chairman?

18. 0:27:18

    Judge-

19. 0:27:19

    You ready?

20. 0:27:20

    I am ready, yeah.

21. 0:27:21

    Okay, let me turn you on there. Now I got both mics are lit up now. Go ahead.

22. 0:27:26

    All right, well first of all, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, first I'd like to in- introduce, I'll say, my colleagues for this particular bill. To my very right is Judge Eaton, and to my right is Judge Krause. Uh, they both are in Fulton and in, and in the court. They serve as judges, and I think they're gonna be able to add any type of substantive information behind this. I bring to you House Bill 1365, LC 479009. Um, the signers are effectively the Fulton County delegation, so I'd like to thank the delegation for their support.

23. 0:27:58

    The intent here is to basically move the number of Super- Superior Court judges from 20 to 21. Uh, we know that traditionally, uh, the new judgeships go to the top three circuits. In this case, Fulton was literally fourth by literally decimal points. Uh, not even a whole point, but rather you'd have to go up two to the right side of the decimal point. Uh, the caseload in Fulton is actually high enough to support 26 judges, but in this case, we're just asking for an increase from 20 to 21. Uh, traditionally, as many of you know, the Fulton County cases are more complex, and right now within the index that determines what's in the top three, complexity is not part of that index.

24. 0:28:37

    So hence, there is a need. The cost for this additional position is circa $600,000. Appropriations has been kind enough to indicate to us in a positive manner that they will support this $600,000 increase. I'd like to also note because of the new judge pay that we did last year, many of the Fulton County judges did not opt into that, and that lack of opt-in has actually saved the state circa three quarters of a million dollars. I'd also like to note that the Fulton County Commission is in support of 1365 and the increase from 20 to 21.

25. 0:29:10

    At that point, Mr. Chairman, that is the bill, and happy to stand for questions.

26. 0:29:14

    Okay.

27. 0:29:17

    I see none right now, but I'll give y'all a chance to talk.

28. 0:29:21

    Well, I don't know that we have much to say. I'm Judge Rachel Krause on the Fulton County bench. I don't know that we have much to add to what, uh, our co-sponsor and, uh, host here today has already said. Uh, he has hit many of the high notes. I think the important part is, um, that we are four one-hundredths of a point behind the third position. Uh, a- and so historically, um, we have been on that list since about 2019, on the list of people who would mathematically qualify, uh, for an additional judge, but have not, uh, been able to sort of get over the hurdle and get the support that we need very much, and that we have been able to garner so far.

29. 0:30:00

    And so we're just asking for that additional support, uh, based on what's been outlined by, um, our sponsor.

30. 0:30:07

    Okay.

31. 0:30:08

    It covered it quite well. I would simply add that, uh, the last time we received, the circuit received an additional judge was in 2009, and the population-

32. 0:30:16

    Wow

33. 0:30:17

    ... increased 26% since then

34. 0:30:20

    And so we would appreciate your support. Thank you.

35. 0:30:22

    Okay.

36. 0:30:23

    I'd also like to just add briefly, thank you very much. There are about 100 jurors sitting down the hill- ... waiting for us. So we really appreciate the accommodation. I promise it's not an accommodation for us, it's an accommodation for those Fulton County jurors.

37. 0:30:37

    Okay. Well, my biggest concern was whether we had appropriations settled for, and it sounds like you've already taken care of that. Or-

38. 0:30:44

    Well, no- no- nothing's ever confirmed, but we feel confident in that. Uh, I don't wanna stay on a recording-

39. 0:30:49

    I understand that

40. 0:30:50

    ... a 100%. Why don't we just say it's trending very well-

41. 0:30:54

    O-

42. 0:30:54

    ... Mr. Chairman?

43. 0:30:55

    Okay. Glad to hear that. Maybe this will push it along. All right, anybody have any questions? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? Oh, wait a minute. Wait, wait, hang on, hang on. Who's got 14?

44. 0:31:09

    I'm just... I'm... If the chairman's ready for a motion-

45. 0:31:11

    Yes

46. 0:31:11

    ... I move to pass.

47. 0:31:12

    Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

48. 0:31:14

    Move to pass.

49. 0:31:16

    All right, motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye.

50. 0:31:21

    Aye.

51. 0:31:21

    Any opposed? All right, you're good.

52. 0:31:23

    Thank you.

53. 0:31:23

    Thank you.

54. 0:31:23

    Thank you so much.

55. 0:31:27

    All right. I'm sorry. Sweet. Yeah, I know.

56. 0:32:01

    And she's gotten some amendments on her vote, and she gave them to me, and they can be read out.

57. 0:32:05

    Okay, and they've been passed out?

58. 0:32:07

    No, I don't have them.

59. 0:32:08

    Oh.

60. 0:32:09

    They, they got them. They were here. We can do it.

61. 0:32:11

    Okay. All right.

62. 0:32:12

    Thanks.

63. 0:32:13

    Oh, here you go.

64. 0:32:13

    We can...

65. 0:32:17

    Approving.

66. 0:32:19

    Okay. Yeah, that's one of those seats that's about to bust out the bottom there. Be careful. Okay, so, uh, we've got both mics lit up, and this is House Bill 1221.

67. 0:32:32

    Yeah.

68. 0:32:32

    If you would, tell us about your bill.

69. 0:32:33

    Sure. Thank you very much, Chairman. So yes, as you said, House Bill 1221. It's LC, uh, 0416S. Um, so at its core, this is a consumer protection bill. Um, what it does is it protects consumers by disincentivizing unnecessary litigation in the HOA context, homeowners' association context. And it also disincentivizes the collection of excessive attorney's fees, uh, by the HOA against a homeowner. Uh, so I have Bob Schwartz here. He is an attorney, he is my constituent, and he is the one that brought to my attention the need for this legislation.

70. 0:33:06

    Um, I will let you tell-- I will let him tell you about the case that he has been working on, that I think really exposes the gaps in our current law. And I believe that you will agree, once you have heard from him, uh, that the current law as it stands leads to some very unfavorable and very unfair results. Um, so take it away, Bob.

71. 0:33:24

    Uh, I'd like to thank everybody for giving me this opportunity to speak. I'll try to keep it short. I know you got a long agenda.

72. 0:33:29

    No.

73. 0:33:30

    My name is Robert Schwartz. I'm an attorney, uh, and I'm speaking in favor of this bill. Um, it come... My, my interest comes from a case where I represented a homeowner in Cherokee County who had a situation with his homeowners association. Bought this property at the beginning of 2019. Uh, payments at that time were $70 a month. He arranged for them to be, uh, deducted directly by auto-pay from his checking account, and it went on fine.

74. 0:34:00

    For four years, never missed a payment. The HOA changed management associations, and that management association didn't know auto-pay. They didn't do auto-pay, they didn't know about it. So his fees went unpaid for about 10 months, uh, and then they sued him. He got served with them the following January, so by that time, they were 12 months behind. Uh, he came to consult me. First thing we did was call the lawyer on the other side. We ex- They told us what happened, and my client went right on down and he wrote them a check, paid all the delinquent fees, and the late charges, any interest and fees.

75. 0:34:39

    But the attorney's fees were 1,920 bucks. We offered to split them 50/50. The HOA said no.

76. 0:34:46

    Hm.

77. 0:34:46

    And so the lawsuit went on. This is in, uh, February of 2020, and the pandemic comes along, and by the time we get to trial, three years has gone by, and for some reason, uh, they've piled up $2,900 worth of additional attorney's fees in the three years while we're waiting for trial. So now they're looking for 4,800 bucks. We have a trial, a bench trial. Judge knocks off some of the attorney's fees as having been unreasonable, and my guy's sitting there, uh, with a huge thing.

78. 0:35:21

    He offers to pay it in voluntary monthly payments. The HOA says no, they don't trust him. They put a garnishment in place. It's all right. He makes enough money. He lives with the garnishment. Seven months later, it's paid in full. And we get a letter on January 9th of 2024 that says the judgment is paid in full. And then the letter says, "We're only gonna charge you $2,799 of additional post-judgment fees." And my guy says, we say, "No way." So now, from January of 2024, they keep sending letters.

79. 0:36:02

    By July of 2025, it's another $1,800. And we s- we haven't gone to trial, they haven't sued him, but they're demanding $3,800, some of which is post-judgment, and some of which is post-payment of the judgment. And so what we want is this. If my guy had received a certified letter at the very beginning of this that said, you know...

80. 0:36:28

    Your payments aren't being made, and we wanna start collecting the debt. He has the opportunity to go in and pay it, which is the, what he did as soon as he found out. Uh, certified letters are required for foreclosures in Georgia. It would obviate the need for a legal proceeding, um- And, and- And it- ... and if he'd had a reasonable opportunity to cure, 10 days, 20 days, 30 days, he, he could've beaten that at all, and this thing would've been gone. No lawsuit, not all these extra expenses, uh- So I think, you know, this bill that we proposed is very simple.

81. 0:37:03

    Uh, what it does is it provides notice, uh, to the homeowner, uh, that they haven't been paying their homeowner association fees, that, that there's missed payments. Um, it gives them a reasonable time to be able to cure that before attorney's fees kick in. Uh, and to the extent there is litigation, um, it has the, the reasonable attorney's fees must be listed, and there has to be a judgment that says that they are in fact reasonable before they can be paid. Um, so again, it's just in the policy per- from the policy perspective, it's to disincentivize frivolous actions, more litigation than necessary, and to keep attorney's fees down.

82. 0:37:38

    Um, and then I just, you know, the scope of this is, I wanna put it in perspective. I mean, once these kind of legal proceedings start against a homeowner, um, there can be a lien put up against their property. So the risk to the homeowner is significant if legal proceedings are started. So being able to disincentivize them, I think, has multiple public policy interests. We have been working very closely, uh, with the homeowner association lobby. Um, they are not opposed to this bill. I don't know if Rob's here to speak on the bill. Um, but we do have some tweaks based on those conversations that at the appropriate time we would love to present to the committee.

83. 0:38:11

    Okay. All right. I have a few people that have questions, but before I do that, I neglected to, uh, check on one of our members of the committee. Mary Margaret Oliver, are you there?

84. 0:38:27

    Muted, okay . All right. We'll just make sure that there's, she can hear us, too. I feel like this is a good time to mention she's a co-sponsor of the bill. Uh-huh. There you go. All right. Uh, I think 13 was first. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schwartz, thank you for being here with us, uh, today. I can tell you're passionate about the issue. Um, and if there's some changes I think that could be offered, it may get to my, my question.

85. 0:38:59

    One, on line 17, we say a reasonable amount of time to pay such outstanding fines and delinquent fees. I appreciate the reasonableness language for attorney's fees, but I almost wonder should we define the amount of time that the- Yeah ... lot owner would have? And if we do, what do you consider reasonable? Okay. Uh- And then I'll have a follow-up, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think 30 days. I think, uh, the lobbyist told us that 30 days is part of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act federal, which they have to abide by, and I think that's more than enough.

86. 0:39:39

    Thank you for the- I didn't wanna put a number in 'cause I didn't know how to, you know... But yes, 30. Thank you. And then second, my other just concern and question is, is there are times when as it's ongoing because of a delinquency that exists, the lot owner could be still incurring attorney's fees to the homeowners association. So how do we capture the fact that maybe on Monday they owe $1,000, but by Wednesday they owe $1,500?

87. 0:40:16

    How do we capture that? Well, they don't owe it. It's being asked for. They owe it when the judge awards an- Maybe let's say incurred, the homeowners association incurred, um- And look, and to the extent there's reasonable- I'd, I'd say when the, when the work is being done, it's incurred. Then at trial if you don't settle this thing, the judge is duty-bound to make a reasonableness determination which, which, I mean, that's right in the... I've got plenty of case law on that. Um, so I would leave that up to the judge.

88. 0:40:47

    If they're, if they're paying their lawyer, if they're writing a check to their lawyer and wanna be reimbursed, uh, let them tell, let them explain to the judge why it was not unreasonable for them to do that. Uh- So let me direct you to lines 20 through 23 of the bill. Um, you know, there are absolutely situations where the incurrence of attorney's fees is reasonable and are, is appropriate. And when that is the situation, the judge will have an opportunity to assess the attorney's fees and make a determination of what's reasonable and not to be paid. And what I'm just trying to figure out and, and make sure is that we're not, you know, tilting the scale to say that something is reasonable at the, just at the time when they send the letter and then the property owner doesn't.

89. 0:41:29

    And I hate the homeowners association, I'll just, I'll just be clear. But we allow them to exist under law, and so I'm trying to operate inside of it myself, is that, you know, you don't have the judge stating, "Well, look, this is what they were notified of, and this should be part of the reasonable standard," is what they were notified of. 'Cause you could get the letter, call the attorney on the letter, talk to him for an hour, and run up a, another $350 worth of fees. And that's what I'm just trying to, to balance here. So part of the tweaks that we've worked out with the homeowners association is to make sure it's clear in the law that the initial letter should not come from an attorney.

90. 0:42:04

    The initial letter comes from the association or its agent. The idea being this is a form boilerplate level that would not incur any attorney's fees at that point. They have an opportunity to cure as the homeowner. Then if they don't do so, then, then probably you have to get your attorneys involved, and then there's probably incurrence of fees because the FDCPA is, is, is triggered. Um, so this is an initial stage, hopefully before we get the lawyers involved. So like in the case of Bob's client, they had no idea they weren't paying fees at all, or they're missing payments at all, s- excuse me.

91. 0:42:34

    A simple letter would've allowed them the opportunity to cure, and they never would've incurred any of those attorney's fees that they're facing now. My concern is that-

92. 0:42:42

    Attorney's fees that churn their fee, and the ho- homeowners association doesn't wanna have to sit there helpless with a stubborn litigant who makes them run up attorney's fee.

93. 0:42:54

    Mr. Hart

94. 0:42:54

    Yeah

95. 0:42:55

    ... appreciate you.

96. 0:42:55

    So I, I, I think we came up with a compromise that works. I was, I'm about, I was glad that the HOA represent- representative took the time to speak with us. He made suggestions that we incorporated.

97. 0:43:07

    Yes.

98. 0:43:07

    He's a pretty good one.

99. 0:43:10

    All right, Representative Hong.

100. 0:43:13

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, thank you, Representative, and Mr. Schwartz, for bringing the bill. Um, I may have missed it, so with your client's situation, they did not receive notice for the fees, the, um-

101. 0:43:24

     That's correct

102. 0:43:24

     ... any type of, at all? They didn't even get their-

103. 0:43:27

     They did-

104. 0:43:27

     ... annual notice or-

105. 0:43:29

     They did-

106. 0:43:29

     ... monthly notice?

107. 0:43:30

     I'm not saying the notice wasn't sent out, but they didn't receive it.

108. 0:43:34

     Okay.

109. 0:43:34

     I have no idea whether it was sent out.

110. 0:43:36

     Okay.

111. 0:43:37

     The, the, they billed 90 bucks for doing it.

112. 0:43:39

     Okay.

113. 0:43:40

     But it wasn't, but it wasn't sent certified, and, uh, my client-

114. 0:43:45

     Your client just did not receive it

115. 0:43:47

     ... he claims not to have received it

116. 0:43:48

     ... despite it being sent

117. 0:43:48

     And they claim to have written it. The person who wrote it and sent it out wasn't there at the hearing either.

118. 0:43:53

     Okay. And, um, and I have the same concerns. I, I mean, I think, uh, I have dealt with a lot of clients with where the fees may be small, but the attorney fees end up being so much that they, the homeowner ends up not being able to pay, um, despite the fact that they may be able to pay the fees incurred, but not the attorney fees. And so, but if they meet all of this, and attorney fees are however much because they stayed on the phone for hours dealing with trying to make this work, we're still allowing those attorney fees to the reasonableness.

119. 0:44:29

     Is that kind of where we're at-

120. 0:44:31

     Yes

121. 0:44:31

     ... with this bill? That's exactly right.

122. 0:44:33

     And, and I wanted to add one thing. Um, Georgia law understands this. Nobody... MasterCard gets, uh, g- gets a percentage of attorney's fees, but in something like this, they're suing for small amounts, and you can't expect an HOA lawyer to be happy to get 15% of the $300 that he's suing to get. So the law as it is now is not unreasonable.

123. 0:44:57

     And what are, um... And if I can have just one more question. What, what is, um, what have you been seeing as a reasonable attorney fees for, or to a point where they're, they've gotten to a point where litigation may happen?

124. 0:45:11

     What I'm seeing as reasonable, what I'm seeing as reasonable attorney's fees is however long it takes at 300 bucks an hour. Um, and-

125. 0:45:19

     Is, is the average 300 an hour?

126. 0:45:21

     I've seen-

127. 0:45:21

     It's unreasonable.

128. 0:45:24

     Yeah. Unreasonable is, uh, Griffin-Bell charging $1,800 an hour to send this letter. But we're not seeing that.

129. 0:45:31

     Negative work, um, doing work-

130. 0:45:33

     Negative work

131. 0:45:33

     ... post-judgment. Um-

132. 0:45:35

     Post-judgment work.

133. 0:45:36

     Mm-hmm.

134. 0:45:37

     Uh, unnecessary work. Uh, in, in my case, they were trying to bill for time spent preparing exhibits to prove things we had admitted in our answer-

135. 0:45:47

     Right

136. 0:45:47

     ... and in discovery.

137. 0:45:48

     Gotcha.

138. 0:45:48

     And the judge knocked that off. He said, "That's ridiculous. You shouldn't be charging for that."

139. 0:45:52

     Thank you.

140. 0:45:53

     You know.

141. 0:45:55

     Vice Chair.

142. 0:45:55

     I hope that we succeed today.

143. 0:45:57

     Thanks for bringing this bill. Um, one, I'll, I'll save my thoughts on HOAs, but, uh, you know, I know they do a lot of thankless work, and, and, uh, I think due process and communication is something y'all are promoting, and we could use a lot of that. On line 15, certified mail, due to issues with the Postal Service and all that, uh, would it be friendly to add, "Or statutory overnight delivery"? Would that be okay, so they can do FedEx or UPS?

144. 0:46:22

     Oh, yeah, of course. Of course.

145. 0:46:24

     Um-

146. 0:46:24

     I'm not used to being seated addressing a panel. Of course, in court they don't allow that.

147. 0:46:28

     We'll, we'll, uh, we'll-

148. 0:46:29

     I appreciate it

149. 0:46:30

     ... we'll move for that if, if, if it's not added in. Thank you.

150. 0:46:33

     Yeah.

151. 0:46:35

     All right. That's all the questions I see.

152. 0:46:39

     Oh.

153. 0:46:40

     Oh.

154. 0:46:41

     That's all I-

155. 0:46:41

     Representative Holcomb.

156. 0:46:43

     Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I'm looking at the rest of the statute, and it says that liens include any fees or assessments that are borne by the owners, and then in C, it already provides, um, certified mail or statutory overnight delivery for the HOA to then address any of these liens. And then in B3, it provides for the cost of collection, including court costs, the expenses required for the produc- protection and preservation of the lot, and reasonable attorney's fees actually incurred.

157. 0:47:19

     So how does this interrelate to what's already within-

158. 0:47:24

     Interesting

159. 0:47:24

     ... the statute?

160. 0:47:25

     We've received those notices. They've ne- uh, the B and C notices that you talked about, they've never come by certified mail. They're just a general first-class letter. That was one of the problems we had here to begin with. But also, the difference, the lien is provided in the, in the covenants to begin with, but it's an inchoate lien. It doesn't become choate until they send this letter and file something in Superior Court. W- when it becomes choate, now it, uh, judgments and five phases that come behind it are f- are, uh, subordinate to it, and that's why, that's why the requirement is up there for, um, for certified or overnight and, uh, and an opportunity to respond.

161. 0:48:13

     Uh, and yet in practice, I'm not seeing those certified letters. I never have. In fact, the letters come to me instead of my client. After the judgment, and I'm no longer specifically representing him, they're sending these additional collection letters to me and not CC'ing my client. I think-

162. 0:48:28

     This isn't my area of the law, but wouldn't that be an affirmative defense that they're not complying with the statute?

163. 0:48:34

     And it will be if the subor- if these post-judgment fees come in front of the Cherokee County judge. At, at this point, you know, they were not an issue, they were not an issue at the time Okay. But you, I mean, the point is well taken. I wish they'd comply with it. Okay. Thank you.

164. 0:48:59

     Representative Reeves. Anytime things get so bad we have to fix state law to take care of somebody's, uh, problem, uh, I like to get the names out there. Who was the HOA? Who were the management companies responsible? The homeowner's association, and the law firm was, uh, Luther, Larkin, and I forget the third name. They are notorious for this. I have another client who is also being sued for post-judgment... Not being sued. She's getting letters for post-judgment fees. I've gone all the way up to Alpharetta to speak with them, the lawyers in person, and they insist that every single thing is justified.

165. 0:49:36

     By now they're asking her for... She paid the judgment in full, got delinquent again, paid a second judgment in full, and now they're coming after her again for post-judgment fees that are in excess of $3,000. Were management companies part of the problem here? I do not know. With this client, I think the management company was not a problem. It was, it was just the fact that they switched and the auto-pay stopped. These generations don't balance their checkbook. They look at an app in the morning and see whether there's money.

166. 0:50:09

     All right. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. I don't see any more questions. Uh, what's the will of the committee? Second. All right. Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Yeah. Yes, Chairman. We do have a series of amendments that we agreed with via HOA lobbyist. Okay. Uh, you, everybody should have that before them. Do you have anything in addition to that?

167. 0:50:42

     No, I- Which way do you wanna take them both? Mine would be about the 20th reading of the 517. Let's just go ahead and take that. On line 17, Mr. Chairman, I vote I would strike from A through time

168. 0:51:06

     and replace with 30

169. 0:51:11

     days from receipt of the certified mail required in subparagraph one of this code section two. Or excuse me, you don't need the two at the end, it's already there. So it would read, "Lot owners with 30 days from receipt of the certified mail required in subparagraph one of this code section."

170. 0:51:41

     Receipt of instead of certified mail. 14. Got it. All right, so 30 days from receipt of the notice required. You like that better, Michael? Sounds good. That would be my amendment that I would offer, Mr. Chairman. Okay. I'll offer that in the form of a motion. All right, I have a motion for an amendment. Is there a second? Second. All right, we got a second on that. Um, any further discussion on that?

171. 0:52:14

     Hmm. Yeah, I'll, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just go one at a time. All right. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, that'll be the first amendment.

172. 0:52:30

     And Vice Chair, you have... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On line 15 after certified mail, I move to add or statutory overnight delivery.

173. 0:52:45

     See that it comes...

174. 0:52:50

     Where does that go? After certified mail. Oh, after certified mail.

175. 0:52:59

     All right. Do I hear a second? Second. Any discussion? Got-

176. 0:53:06

     While we're doing this, and I'll offer to the, the author an amendment, do we wanna have a conversation about using an electronic mail address that has been provided to the homeowners association, if it has been? Like we accept service for our legal proceedings, Mr. Schwartz, or to the author, do y'all have thoughts on- In addition to as opposed to lieu of? In add- in addition to. Okay.

177. 0:53:34

     I think they could probably already do that if they want to in addition to. I don't know if I wanna put it as another requirement. I was gonna allow it to be in lieu of. I, I would go with the authors on that, 'cause I think there's probably some experience on that. Okay. Then I'll, I'll put, I'll- Sometimes the home- I have a client right now, she's 84, she's computer illiter- illiterate. If she doesn't receive a phone call or a piece of letter in the mail, she doesn't know it's happening. And, uh, they're out there. You know, in everybody's district there's somebody who's 80 years old, owns a home, you know, and doesn't know what email notice is.

178. 0:54:12

     I was bringing it up for discussion, Mr. Chairman, and I've been thoroughly educated.

179. 0:54:18

     Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of- Some amendments from the homeowners association. To this amendment? Uh, no, to the original- I'm taking them one at a time. Oh. So all right. Excuse me. All those in favor of this amendment say aye. Any opposed? Okay, we got that one.

180. 0:54:45

     And I don't see anything else, so go ahead and start with yours. Thank you, Chairman. So beginning at line 14

181. 0:54:53

     Uh, and, and Mr. Perry does have a copy of this. Uh, but at line 14 it would say, "Before an association may collect or be awarded attorney's fees, it shall provide," and then continuing on to line 15, "an initial written notice by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery, uh, to the lot owner from the association or its agent identifying any outstanding fines or delinquent fees."

182. 0:55:27

     And then on line 19 where it says, "An itemized list of attorney's fees claimed," the addition of, "comma, if any."

183. 0:55:36

     All right. Basically, you're using the wording here.

184. 0:55:39

     Yes.

185. 0:55:40

     Okay. Is there any addition to it?

186. 0:55:42

     Uh, well, um ...

187. 0:55:45

     You might have to change 17.

188. 0:55:46

     17.

189. 0:55:47

     That's all right.

190. 0:55:47

     Yeah.

191. 0:55:48

     Correct.

192. 0:55:50

     Have to take it out.

193. 0:55:56

     And then if you just wanna delete lines 20 through 23. Uh, just d- don't look at lines 20 ... I made changes on there, but don't incorporate those changes on lines 20 through 23.

194. 0:56:07

     So just strike that off?

195. 0:56:08

     Mm-hmm. I mean, it should stay in the bill, but the changes that I've made there, do not incorporate.

196. 0:56:12

     All right. The, the changes you have that's listed here is on lines 14, 15 ...

197. 0:56:20

     And 19.

198. 0:56:21

     And 19.

199. 0:56:23

     19.

200. 0:56:26

     May collect or be awarded attorney's fees on 14.

201. 0:56:33

     Okay. Did you wanna leave reasonable in there?

202. 0:56:35

     I do not.

203. 0:56:37

     Okay.

204. 0:56:41

     Representative Hall.

205. 0:56:42

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So all we're doing to make sure that I understand is, is just the initial notice, and so if this lingers on for years and years and years, you don't get a second one, that will just be decided at trial. It's just the initial estimate or incurred fees, correct? Okay.

206. 0:57:00

     Yes.

207. 0:57:02

     Okay.

208. 0:57:06

     Are you ready for the motion?

209. 0:57:08

     Yes, sir.

210. 0:57:08

     All right. So, Mr. Chairman, I would move to make the following amendments to LC 62-04- 0416S as already amended. On line 14, after the word association, I would insert the word may and strike the word can. And then but after the word collect, I would insert or be awarded and then strike the word reasonable. On line 15, I would add before the word written the words an initial, and then we've already added or statutory overnight delivery after certified mail, but after the word owner and before the word identifying, would add from the association or its agent.

211. 0:57:59

     And then on line 19, after the word claimed at the end of that line and before the period, I would add comma, if any. And I believe that's everything.

212. 0:58:10

     Okay.

213. 0:58:11

     For those of us following at home, playing our home version of the game, I believe those are all the changes.

214. 0:58:17

     All right.

215. 0:58:17

     Second.

216. 0:58:19

     All right, got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Now on to the bill. Any further discussion on the bill as amended? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, you got your bill.

217. 0:58:39

     Thank you very much. Thank you.

218. 0:58:41

     And thank you to everybody that asked questions.

219. 0:58:44

     And that didn't ask questions.

220. 0:58:48

     The hard core standing up.

221. 0:58:52

     Yeah, my age, you don't bother me.

222. 0:59:13

     All right. I'll at this time call House Bill 1348.

223. 0:59:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

224. 0:59:19

     Thanks.

225. 0:59:21

     Hope you want the third floor.

226. 0:59:22

     Oh. Yeah, it doesn't work. 17, you on it?

227. 0:59:27

     Well ...

228. 0:59:28

     I'm not hearing you. Hang on. It di- it cut off.

229. 0:59:31

     Okay. It might have been user error.

230. 0:59:32

     Now, now I got you. Go ahead.

231. 0:59:34

     Okay. All right. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I bring to you House Bill 1348. Should be working off of LC number 26, LC 4940 or 2655. Uh, just a little background for those in the committee that don't necessarily know too much about this part of our, uh, code section. Uh, receivership is actually a court ordered process where an independent neutral takes control of a business to protect its assets during a legal dispute, and the receiver actually manages the property and income to ensure debts are paid and the business's value is preserved.

232. 1:00:14

     Uh, right now, situation that confronts us in the law is that, uh, now receivers have no incentive to wrap up that process and can basically milk that business just to make their own profit. This bill would make it so that the receiver actually becomes incentivized in the business's efficiency. Uh, they would be incentivized to close the receivership as quickly as possible because sitting on the asset and billing hourly would eventually hit the 5% ceiling that is proposed here in this bill, and at which point they would be working for free if they exceeded that.

233. 1:00:52

     Uh, this I think would keep in line with our, uh, recent push over the last few years to make Georgia the number one state to do business by keep bus- keeping businesses running and not tied up in endless litigation. That, Mr. Chairman, is the summary of the bill, and I'm sure there may be some- Nine new details everybody wants to get into.

234. 1:01:13

     I, I can say from personal experience as a judge, uh, that was probably the worst case I ever had when I granted a receivership and had to keep up with it. So I appreciate what you're putting in here, and hopefully it'll bring some of those to an end like, like they should.

235. 1:01:30

     Yes, sir. Uh, for those of the nerds on different legal sitcoms, uh, there was a couple episodes in LA Law back in the day where, uh, they had a receiver that was appointed and, uh, it didn't go as it should've.

236. 1:01:46

     There's a movie out too called I Love You Much or something like that, with a lady that preyed on these people. Anyway, it was... A- again, nerds, we're, we're talking.

237. 1:01:59

     I Care A Lot, that's it.

238. 1:02:00

     Yeah, I Care A Lot. That, ooh. Okay. Uh, Representative Evans.

239. 1:02:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, I certainly agree there are times when these things get out of hand. My... I, I have one concern and I'm not sure how to address it in the language, but I just wanted to share it to see if it's the author's concern, if he has any ideas, is that the receivers are in large part, um, I mean they're appointed by a judge, and the judge always has the ability to reign them in. I do worry a little bit if the receiver, perhaps the estate that they're taking in is not worth that much and they're meant to go out and try to find assets or sometimes they bring litigation to bring money back in that the company should've been pursuing, for example, but that's not always gonna be successful, but they're doing it at the direction of the court and, and in the best interest of the company, but...

240. 1:02:58

     A- and it's gonna take the time that it takes whether they recover any money or not, or whether they started with any money, 'cause not all these always start with money. So I'm a little bit afraid that w- we're gonna set up a situation where nobody would... But there might be companies that need receivers to come in and go out and try to marshal assets, and this, I wouldn't wanna take it, I guess, if, if that was the case. Um, and so I'm just wondering if there's any way we can put in some more discretion for a judge to address those situations.

241. 1:03:26

     Sure. A- and I appreciate the, uh, concern addressed by, um, the gentle lady. I, I would say that that would be something as simple, and I'm coloring a little bit here with a creative argument, but I could see that, uh, the receiver could actually go to the court to authorize that expense to go out and find these assets. I, I think this, what you see here is, is this is tied to the compensation of the receiver themselves for the services rendered. Uh, we just talked earlier about, uh, with the HOA legislation about how much they're billing per hour.

242. 1:04:02

     That is the aim of this legislation. So I could foresee that if the investigation in finding these assets required more, uh, than what they had originally anticipated, then they could go to that same judge who appointed them to have that compensation authorized to bring, to find and locate those assets.

243. 1:04:25

     To try to accomplish that, would you be open to some language at the end of line 43 after the, that, that, that very end of line 43, comma, unless ordered by the court, unless otherwise ordered by the court, or something like that?

244. 1:04:40

     I, I would be acceptable.

245. 1:04:42

     Okay.

246. 1:04:42

     Uh, acceptable to that amendment.

247. 1:04:46

     Thank you.

248. 1:04:55

     All right. That's all the questions I see. Um, let's see. I haven't checked the list here.

249. 1:05:02

     Nobody.

250. 1:05:03

     Nobody's on this one? All right.

251. 1:05:07

     The blue pile.

252. 1:05:08

     All right. Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Representative Evans?

253. 1:05:17

     And if it's accepted as a friendly amendment, then, um-

254. 1:05:20

     It is

255. 1:05:21

     ... just unless otherwise ordered by the court at the end of line 43.

256. 1:05:24

     Okay.

257. 1:05:25

     Yeah.

258. 1:05:26

     Second to the amendment?

259. 1:05:28

     Second.

260. 1:05:29

     Second to the amendment. Any further discussion on that? All those in favor of the amendment, uh, say aye.

261. 1:05:35

     Aye.

262. 1:05:36

     Any opposed? All right, we have that amendment on there. Any further discussion about the bill as amended? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye.

263. 1:05:47

     Aye.

264. 1:05:48

     Any opposed? Okay, bill's gone.

265. 1:05:51

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman-

266. 1:05:52

     Yes, sir

267. 1:05:52

     ... members of the committee.

268. 1:06:13

     All right. Chairman Leverett, you wanna go?

269. 1:06:17

     Uh, yes.

270. 1:06:17

     Let's see.

271. 1:06:35

     Go ahead.

272. 1:06:36

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is House Bill 1364. Um, I guess I would call this the Jumanji Bill because we're sort of going back to the beginning of the game, uh, with respect to foreclosure of interests of another real popular, uh, device, uh, timeshares. We talked about HOAs, let's talk about timeshares as long as we're in that warm and fuzzy area. Um, so, a, a, a legislative initiative which, uh, the chairman started I think back in 2022 would have expanded the legal options available to a timeshare owners association

273. 1:07:14

     For collecting fees and assessments, it added a power of sale type foreclosure, which is sort of like you have with security deeds, uh, non-judicial foreclosure. And then in 2023, in House Bill 182, that was Chairman Reeves, we added a trustee foreclosure procedure, which I think we thought would be, um, you know, less, less complex and a little more efficient. And it's turned out the, as they say, the, you know, the, the, uh, sil- the, or the silence has been deafening. No one's really using these methods apparently.

274. 1:07:46

     They just haven't been as useful as it was thought, and so we're, we're sort of just taking them back. Uh, this, this bill would not necessarily repeal them because they would still be, have been effective to the extent they were used in the, the time that they were effective. But starting in, I think, July 1 of this year, tho- those two methods would go away and we just go back to the old way, which is what everyone is still doing, uh, which is you, if you have a lien like this, you foreclose it with a judicial mortgage foreclosure process. Which is a bit arcane and archaic, but the folks who work in this space know it and are familiar with it, and apparently it's working fine for them.

275. 1:08:21

     Okay. Any questions of the author?

276. 1:08:26

     So again, Mr. Chairman, just one of those very esoteric things which tend to be my wheelhouse.

277. 1:08:33

     All right, um, well, seeing there's no questions, what's the mood of the committee?

278. 1:08:41

     Well, it's still not encoded, but let's provide-

279. 1:08:43

     Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

280. 1:08:50

     Aye.

281. 1:08:50

     Any opposed? All right, bill passes.

282. 1:08:59

     Now, let's see. Jones is gone or anything. He's here. Oh, he's here. So you wanna do your other bill? No, I'd like That's fine. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's see. About an hour ahead of advance, we can book some, uh, no. Lucky I have a motion. Oh. It's booked.

283. 1:09:25

     Mr. Chairman, I was just curious if the members of this committee will now get a three-night cruise for listening to that presentation.

284. 1:09:35

     As long as you know

285. 1:09:39

     . Would you like, I cannot get, get that with me.

286. 1:09:42

     As long as you know you're on the list for the rest of your life.

287. 1:09:51

     Okay. All right, um, Chairman Gullett, you wanna come up? But obviously this practice on April.

288. 1:10:07

     No, no, no.

289. 1:10:16

     But thank... Yeah.

290. 1:10:19

     Thank you, Chairman. Bring an entourage with me where I go. Excuse me. Um, this is House Bill, House Bill 1223 LC630082. Um, and, uh, this is Chief Mike Turner, who introduced some stuff and, and has a few words to say related to it. Uh, Chief of Police in Hiram, Georgia. This is Sheriff Ashley Henson, uh, Paulding County Sheriff. And this is, um, DA Depore.

291. 1:10:48

     Yes, DA Depore.

292. 1:10:49

     Yeah, from West Georgia Circuit, um, s- district attorney. So what this bill does is it, um, is offers a narrow amendment to the Georgia Open Records Act regarding law enforcement video. Um, it does one specific thing. It creates a limited exemption for audio or video recordings that capture the death of an individual, or that captures an indi- captures that individual in distress immediately prior to death when there's no pending criminal investigation and no disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of per- personal privacy.

293. 1:11:22

     Uh, let me be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not eliminate the access to these videos for a criminal defendant, a civil litigant, an estate representative, counsel acting on behalf of those parties. It does not eliminate, uh, court review, does not eliminate judicial oversight. It simply removes the automatic public distribution of a person's final moments. Um, we already have this policy determination, um, in another context. Um, OCGA 50-18-72, 911 audio recordings that contain the speech in distress or cries of extremists of a dying caller are exempt from public disclosure.

294. 1:12:01

     Uh, that statute recognizes the same fundamental idea that a person's dying moments are not just records, they are intensely personal events. Um, this bill exte- extends that same principle to body-worn cameras, um, the modern equivalent of 911 audio. Um, First Amendment con- uh, First Amendment considerations, I think you'll probably hear suggestions that we have a press carve-out. Um, I would argue that the First Amendment doesn't grant the press greater access to government records than the general public.

295. 1:12:32

     Courts have consistently held that the press has no special constitutional right of access beyond what the public receives under statute, and this bill treats everyone equally. No member of the public, including the media, receives automatic access to a person's final moments. Um, if compelling public interest exists, um, a court can reta- retains the authority to, to order disclosure, uh, and that safeguard remains intact. Um, if there's alleged misconduct, um, the estate will receive access. I imagine in most of the cases that we've heard about, um, in the media, um, the loved ones are some of the biggest proponents and activists to bring justice to what happened, um, and that they can release this, this video.

296. 1:13:12

     Um, criminal defendants receive access, civil litigants receive access, and a judge can order the disclosure. Um, the courthouse door remains open Um, and what this bill prevents is a routine release of the death footage into public domain where it can be copied, redistributed, and used in ways far beyond any legitimate accountability purpose. Um, and also just, you know, once it's released under open records, um, the state has no meaningful ability to control downstream use. Um, so this bill addresses that prac- uh, practical reality as well.

297. 1:13:46

     Um, again, this exemption only applies when the recording captures death or an immediate pre-death distress, uh, when there's no investigation pending, and when the death occurs on the video. So it's not a blanket secrecy provision, it's really just content-specific, dignity-based limitations. Uh, if you go to YouTube, um, there are video after video after video of people dying. Um, and oftentimes it's not at the hands of the police. This is not even police specific. It can be, uh, something going on and police arrive on scene.

298. 1:14:20

     Um, and, uh, people love the freak factor, but that's not, that's not who we are, I don't believe, as a society. Uh, this is not, uh, that's not gaining anything, um, for society to see that, to see those things. Uh, if you have an interest, if you're the family, you're able to, to see it. If you're a litigant, you're able to see it. If there's accusations of, um, you know, abuse, um, you're able to get that video if you have standing. So, uh, the courthouse door is open, it doesn't change that.

299. 1:14:52

     We already do it for 911 videos. I'm just looking to do it for, uh, body cam videos. Happy to answer any questions.

300. 1:14:59

     Okay, I have one.

301. 1:15:00

     Yeah.

302. 1:15:00

     Um, in my experience I had a very bad case and the body was, uh... Well, let's just say the head was cut off. And for some people out there, they, they would like to have seen the photos of the body, but this won't cover that. Is that correct?

303. 1:15:22

     That's right. It's only specific to the, to the body cam footage.

304. 1:15:25

     Okay. And when I was a representative, I mean, a DA, I was on pretty thin ice to be able to keep that out of the public domain, but I was able to do that. Um-

305. 1:15:39

     I think there's some cases to help you do that, some, some case law even, um-

306. 1:15:44

     Well, yeah

307. 1:15:45

     ... that, that will-

308. 1:15:45

     I, I wasn't very comfortable with what I had.

309. 1:15:48

     What was available.

310. 1:15:49

     So just letting you know.

311. 1:15:50

     There was one in 2023, Atlanta Press versus Richard Roundtree, Sheriff of Richmond County. Um, but basically-

312. 1:15:57

     And, and it was because I was the DA holding that information, but it came from law enforcement. So I'm, I'm curious whether they don't need that protection as well.

313. 1:16:12

     I didn't consider, I didn't consider... Just, um, if that's something into consideration, I'm not opposed to that, but I didn't consider putting it in.

314. 1:16:20

     It depends on where you're getting it from, where it originated from, the law enforcement. That's a-

315. 1:16:25

     That's right.

316. 1:16:25

     Okay. Then that would cover it.

317. 1:16:27

     The just images? Okay. Yeah, there you go.

318. 1:16:29

     All right.

319. 1:16:30

     Great.

320. 1:16:31

     Vice Chair Reeves, I think you were first.

321. 1:16:33

     This reminds me of the Dale Earnhardt law from Florida. Is that sort of along that line, where Florida enacted a law shortly after that 'cause of, you know, uh, abuse of footage?

322. 1:16:45

     I'm not familiar with that, so maybe. I have no idea.

323. 1:16:46

     I think this tracks the Florida law from shortly after that tragedy 25 years ago. And, um, one thing to know about my local police, uh, chief is experiencing a high volume of open records requests by commercial companies who are using, uh, outrageous footish- footage for commercial clickbait. So that's something to think about for the future-

324. 1:17:07

     Mm-hmm

325. 1:17:07

     ... but I like, like this because I think it's worked well in Florida.

326. 1:17:10

     Yeah. People are, are monetizing people's death, and that's ultimately, uh, the, the biggest rub I have with this. It's, uh, s- someone's... It's a family's, you know, one of the worst days in a family's life, um, however that person passed. Uh, and for people to, to make money off of that is, is really a sickening, uh, part of it. If you have legitimate purposes for that video, think you should absolutely have access to it, but if you, um, for monetization, it's, that's not, that's not who we are.

327. 1:17:39

     Okay. Um-

328. 1:17:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Gullett, thank you for bringing the bill. I appreciate the chief, our sheriff and district attorney, uh, being, being with us today as well. This is an important issue, uh, and it speaks to the way technology's evolving in our society. And I remember almost maybe a decade ago, uh, there were some significant floods over in West Georgia, and, um, there were deaths that were captured on 911 audio. And we had some of those individuals who you said have a, you know, unhealthy fascination with death, uh, and the, and the, and then those who, who want to profit off of it, getting those audio files and then playing the last moments of individuals taking really their dying breath as they were dying underwater.

329. 1:18:35

     And I remember then Representative Michael Gravley bringing legislation for 911 specific audio, and he started with a pretty expansive bill that we sat in this committee and let the Press Association and others carve completely up to the point it got to this compromise language that we passed under the 911 language, and I think it was a good balance. And how far in deviation from that original compromise language from 911 audio are you with this language as it relates to film and images?

330. 1:19:12

     I think I'm in line, and that's, that's what I went to legislative council with, "Hey, there's a 911 exception today." Um, I'm looking to do that for video, uh, from body cams today. If there, if you have a need for it, um-

331. 1:19:25

     You know, you can get it. The courthouse door is still open, um, but it's, it's in line with that as far as how I addressed it to the- And so this is what was compromised language back then with those preserving the First Amendment protections for 9- 911 calls. You've tracked that. Yes. So, okay. Thank you. I think it was a good balance. I just wanna be cognizant as we move, move forward. Thank you for that question. I appreciate, um, I'm sure, your work on that. Uh, back when that happened, I remember, uh, Representative Gravely carrying that bill, and that being a big, a big bill for people back home.

332. 1:19:56

     Thank you.

333. 1:19:59

     Representative Crawford. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Representative Gullett. I, I have a question. If I'm looking at the bill, um, line 15, and we're looking at a sworn affidavit, one of the questions that I have, or a concern maybe, is if we limit the, or access through this sworn affidavit, would that potentially exclude certain family members that may not be covered through the sworn affidavit, or may not be representative of the seedent- decedent's, deceased estate?

334. 1:20:34

     Well, I think, I think line 17, "A duly appointed representative of the deceased estate when the decedent was depicted or heard," is that exception of the people who are eligible to sign that affidavit. Is there something different than you're looking, that you're thinking about? I- if they're... And I, I respect that, but I'm wondering if they're not appointed representatives, would they be excluded? Because it says a, a duly appointed. Right. So if they're not appointed, but still- So- ...

335. 1:21:04

     a family member and have an interest.

336. 1:21:09

     Right. But I think that person, you choose who appoint, you know, what cons- what constitutes family. I mean, we all start coming together if, you know, the further up you go as far as family, so everyone would have access to it. So, uh, I think ultimately who, who is that, who is that person's, um, you know, estate, running their estate, is, is probably the one speaking for that person, uh, in death. That's kinda the way we see it, I think, um, throughout other things, whether you're selling assets or, or, uh, distributing, you know, going through the, the probating process.

337. 1:21:46

     I don't really see it much different than that but, you know, there's the will of the committee here if, if there's a problem with that.

338. 1:21:56

     Sure. I- Sorry. Introduce yourself, please. Oh, I'm Sarah Japour. I'm the district attorney for the West Georgia Circuit. I think some of it, and, and this track's identical, not only to the, the statute, um, in Section 26.1 and 26.2, which also addresses some audio and video recordings kind of in a different way, but these were the carve-outs. I think that your concern may be also, um, contemplated in D. So if you have a family that's not all on the same page, which is kinda what I hear you saying, and so maybe the person that's representing the estate is the one that can write the affidavit, but if you are going to make a contest to that in probate, then that would be a civil action which would be contemplated under C, so you could also do an affidavit.

339. 1:22:41

     So if, if you're adverse with the, the, the representative of the estate and, and you're going to probate potentially to, to contest that or part of a civil action, um, there is, um, under D, a party to a civil action that I think might cover that concern.

340. 1:23:04

     Okay. Thank you.

341. 1:23:09

     Representative Westbrook. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing the bill. Um, I think the underlying policy of what you're going for is probably not in dispute at all. Um, but I'm a little concerned about, uh, subsection D on line 22, um, which you preserve the right of a party to a civil action to get this information. But to me it's a l- maybe a little bit of a chicken and an egg kinda thing, because you may not know that there's a potential civil action until you've seen that underlying evidence.

342. 1:23:43

     Um, so have you thought about that? I mean, that would be a concern of mine, is that there's a class of people who might have a civil action, um, but they're, they're not gonna know it because this is, you know, no longer obtainable, you know, outside of the discovery process in a civil action. Sure. I think, think you'll ultimately, I think it's more important of that person's dignity, um, in death and not being monetized.

343. 1:24:16

     But a- at the end, I mean, there's always gonna be a, there's always gonna be a, a chicken and egg on civil actions. You, you show it to the world and hope there's nothing there. Um, I think I did weigh that, and I think that a person's dignity in death and, and not being able to be monetized, uh, was, um, was more important when you have the family being able to receive that, that video or the, at least the representative of that family being able to see the video and, and make that call. Okay. Thank you.

344. 1:24:47

     Representative Hong. And if I can go back to that, thank you, Chairman, if I can go back to that. I think, um, line 24, "An attorney for any person identified in subparagraphs A through D, and A has a personal professional business connection with a party to the accident." So I think in any type of civil actions, I think if an attorney would be able to, um, have access to that in any type of civil action is how I'm reading it. Would you, would you agree? They agree, I agree.

345. 1:25:18

     Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay. Um, Representative Evans. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman

346. 1:25:28

     Sorry, I was just thinking of something on this point. So, um, I appreciate the aim of the bill as well, um, very much, and w- a couple of things that I was thinking about. Um, one question is what is... Is there a particular proceeding that you have to use to open up records that you otherwise can't get under open records? Is that somewhere else in this code section, or is that just a general thing that pe- I've never done it, so I guess the, the media knows how to do it, or a YouTuber would know how to do it if they feel like they've got a good faith basis to ask.

347. 1:26:02

     They, they just send a request. I deal with it all the time. You deal with it all the time. They just send a request. They don't have to file a lawsuit or go to court for that. So like in the representative's question, if, if the family, if there was a tragic event, um, and you don't know whether there's anything there, as she stated, an attorney could make that request and, and do the affidavit so that they could see if there was something there. But the request just comes to our office pursuant to the statute, and then it's our responsibility to abide by whatever the, the statute says.

348. 1:26:34

     Right. No, I understand that. I'm talking about if we've talked about how the courthouse is still open for people to make a case as to why they might be able to get access to this or any of the other... I think there's like 50 things that aren't subject to automatic disclosure. That's something you just file a petition in the court to ask that notwithstanding this code section, I'm making this good faith showing. That's just, that's something that already exists in law is what I'm trying to confirm. That people, that I, the author says the courthouse is still open for people to make a case.

349. 1:27:08

     I just wanna know where that is, I guess.

350. 1:27:13

     With open records, you s- I'm sorry. Mike Turner, Chief of Police for the City of Hiram. Open records requests don't have to be in writing. Most cities or counties' webpages will have an open records request location. It can be done in person or it can be oral.

351. 1:27:29

     Mm-hmm.

352. 1:27:29

     And once the person's open records request is received, of course we have the statutory three days. If we find that there is an exemption to their open records request, we have to give them a response, and at that point they then can go to the court.

353. 1:27:45

     I see. Okay. I gotcha.

354. 1:27:46

     Additional

355. 1:27:47

     I gotcha. Okay. Very good. Um, and then just listening to some of the concerns by some of my colleagues, I wanted to ask, um, uh, with regard to the line 17 and 18 when we're talking about the duly appointed representative, I agree that most of the time that's probably gonna take care of it, but I could see there being situations where, um, sort of a next of kin situation where you might not, you know, might not have an estate worth going through all the probate, and I wonder if you would be open to some language, like I'm not sure...

356. 1:28:19

     I'm sure there's some magic language that we have in other places where it's not a duly appointed representative, but next of kin or, um, you know, whoever would take the property by exercise of law. You know, if I don't have a will and I die, it's all gonna go to my husband and so he would have the right. Something like that, that magic language. Would you be, um, open to something like that?

357. 1:28:44

     Yeah. Uh, I'm open to the will of the committee, so...

358. 1:28:47

     Okay. That was one question. And then the, um, other one related to Representative Westbrook's concern, um, I think that, um, if you don't have a action yet but you're wondering if you might and the footage might help you, um, I think that the lines 24 to 25 dealing with an attorney for the person identified, you're still gonna have to be an attorney for a party to a civil action. So I, my next question was whether you would be, um, at least not opposed to some language added to line 25, um, so it would read something to the effect of an attorney for any of the persons identified in subsections, subparagraphs A through D of this paragraph, or an attorney, and this is where I was when y- when I got called on by the chairman, um, or an attorney, something to the effect of engaged...

359. 1:29:42

     I, I have to work on it, but something that basically like if an attorney... If, if somebody's gone to the, to the place where they've hired an attorney to investigate a claim for them, um, and that attorney is willing to attest to that and ask, I, I think, I, I, I wondered if you would be okay with us adding that as an exception to the, to the E, um, paragraph, if I can come up with some language that makes sense.

360. 1:30:04

     Maybe.

361. 1:30:06

     Fair enough. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

362. 1:30:11

     All right. Um- Yeah ... so tap your mic and make sure it's- Yeah, 15 It's 15? Yeah. Okay. There you go. Yeah, me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you to the sponsor, uh, my colleague in Paulding County. My sheriff's here today. Uh, thank you for being here, and of course the, uh, chief of police from Hiram. I, I wanna thank y'all for being here and bringing this good bill. Obviously, we've had a lot of conversation about how data that is originated through our law enforcement agencies are being used kind of in a hedonistic way, um, that just isn't appropriate, right?

363. 1:30:49

     Uh, and so I appreciate, uh, what y'all done over the years to bring this. I know that's been a priority of yours, Sheriff, so I really appreciate that. I wanted to, I wanted to enter into a discussion about, um, the types of requests that, that, that are coming and the types of, of footage that is being, uh, protected here, and I think you could probably go a step further if that falls in. So right now it says, "Audio and video recordings from devices used by law enforcement officers that include audio, video, or images." I think that covers the chairman's, uh, idea that he wants to make sure pictures that may be taken from a, like a DSLR-type camera at a crime scene would be protected Um, the, the second question I had is, you know, as a small business owner in Paulding County myself, I have security footage, and I work with law enforcement pretty regular.

364. 1:31:47

     I would say at least twice a year. We have 4K cameras around everywhere. We wanna make sure that our premises are secure. If that is obtained by sheriff's office or a law enforcement agency, I don't know, Mr. Chairman, that that would be covered because it, it would have to be from a device used by a law enforcement officer. I think that if it's obtained in the course of a official investigation, it could also be covered.

365. 1:32:20

     Now, of course, that business owner, I, I just contemplate a bar owner, for example, where there's a fight that happens outside and there's a death. Um, is it-- of course, that bar owner, he could disclose it for his own monetary gain, I suppose. I, I don't know that there are any restriction on, on his. It's his footage. But in the circumstance where he does not want to disclose that information to the public, it's not being originated from a device used by law enforcement, i.e., a body cam or a DSLR that is purchased and utilized through the law enforcement agency.

366. 1:32:56

     Is it not appropriate? And, and I've written, I've written a s- a type of amendment. We have some very educated folks here, so we'll, we'll rest that on them. But something after it says officers that says, "Or obtained by law enforcement officer, officers for the use, uh, or in the use of an offic- official investigation." And I think that may, that may cover that box there to make sure that that information, if obtained during investigation, um, is covered, 'cause it's also gonna have a death, right?

367. 1:33:32

     And I would imagine a lot of these deaths are caught by, you know, a security footage rather than a body cam. And you'd probably have a higher propensity there, I would imagine. Any thought to that, or is that, was that contemplated before? It, it wasn't really. Uh, uh, the contemplation I had was specific to, to the body cams. Um, I have no idea how often you guys are getting for footage that was a part of the investigation that I don't know. I, I never thought about it.

368. 1:34:03

     So I think that's a good something to consider, um, if that, you know- If an amendment's made, would that be a friendly amendment to the author? Uh, probably, yes. Okay. Well, I, well, I would only wanna give it if it's, if it is- Yeah ... a friendly amendment. Yeah. I didn't c- I didn't consider it. It wasn't really the, the purpose behind it, but it was j- just because I didn't consider it didn't mean, um, doesn't mean that it's not something valid, so. I, I just contemplate that somebody would request all footage relating to an investigation where there happened to be a death, and then maybe that would be a part of that case file, and it would not have the protections of this code section.

369. 1:34:40

     Maybe the sheriff can answer.

370. 1:34:41

     Yeah, if I may add, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Uh, I'm Ashley Henson. I'm the sheriff of Paulding County. And in some instances, um, when our deputies and, and officers go into these situations, and maybe they're going into a small business where something like this has occurred, um, those body cameras would in fact capture sometimes the screens of, um, a small business owner who maybe, maybe he had someone, you know, in his parking lot have a death of natural causes and, you know, his, his security cameras catch that, um, you know, on his cameras.

371. 1:35:13

     It could very well be on our body cameras as well, so obviously we'd wanna pull that, that, uh, video so we had better footage, but it could very well be on the body cameras as well as on his security cameras. So it, it makes sense. It makes, it makes a lot of sense. And I will say as well, just to echo what, uh, Chairman Gullett said, the monetization of a family's misery when they lose a loved one, y'all, we can't get in that business. I mean, we have got to ensure that these folks have privacy. Obviously, if it's a criminal investigation, that's a completely different animal.

372. 1:35:43

     But in these instances where someone may, uh... We, we go to suicides every day. We go to horrific car accidents every day. We go to deaths of natural causes every day, whether they're at their last moments or they're, they've just passed. And so those images are captured on these cameras, and that is not something that I think should be readily accessible for the YouTube community. Because they're making money. They're monetizing something that, in my opinion, should not be monetized.

373. 1:36:08

     See. Okay.

374. 1:36:13

     All right. Oh, yeah, that's probably a pretty good idea. Mr. Chairman, I think, uh, if we remove from devices used by law enforcement officers- What line are you talking about? That would be on line nine. If you were to strike from devices used by law enforcement officers, uh, that would pretty well cover this. What we're trying to, uh, do there, 'cause if it's, uh, the FOIA request would only apply to those law enforcement agencies, and think that may be, uh, a pretty good...

375. 1:36:45

     If you strike, uh, starting at from through officers on line nine. All right. Well, we'll hold, hold that thought. Yes, sir. We'll get to it here in a minute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right. Um, Chairman Leverett, you got...

376. 1:37:06

     You ready, or you...

377. 1:37:08

     So, so. Um, I'll go ahead. Logistical. Um, I, I think the issue I was going to raise-

378. 1:37:17

     Right.

379. 1:37:19

     Starting to get there. Um, I think the issue I was going to raise was raised by Representative Evans, which is the, the bill contemplates a duly appointed representative, which means an executor or, or administrator, but there's sometimes when they don't have anyone appointed. There's just heirs. So we were-- me and the fellows over here were talking about some language maybe that would include heirs or next to kin or something like that, a family member when they were not duly appointed but did- have a sort of a, a, a close degree of consanguinity, if I can use another term that shows up in the- ...

380. 1:37:50

     in the probate and air context sometime, to limit the, the scope of people, those who truly haven't, you know, you would think due to their familiar relationship have an interest in the person, they're not doing this for improper purposes. But, but we, we don't have any-

381. 1:38:05

     Except for the family member who makes money by doing it.

382. 1:38:08

     Who likes to make money, yes.

383. 1:38:09

     Okay.

384. 1:38:11

     That was it, Mr. Chairman.

385. 1:38:12

     All right. Thank you. And Representative Holcomb.

386. 1:38:17

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I have a few questions. One is, I, I have a case right now that involves, um, a death, and we received video from law enforcement officers, and it's blurred whenever the deceased is there. I- is that the norm? Is that the exception? Like, what's the, the usual state of how that's-

387. 1:38:43

     Yes

388. 1:38:43

     ... is addressed now?

389. 1:38:47

     I can answer that maybe. Um, if someone here can, I can answer that.

390. 1:38:52

     Um, as part of our decision to use humanity in these types of videos, there is no part of any code section that requires us to show graphic images of death. Therefore, to preserve the dignity of the person, the family, we will blur those because, again, we don't know who eventually is going to get that video from us. Once it's in the digital realm, we lose control. We no longer have control of what happens to that video.

391. 1:39:24

     And that's a department decision you made as chief.

392. 1:39:27

     Yes.

393. 1:39:27

     So I guess it's probably dependent on each department.

394. 1:39:30

     Okay. The-

395. 1:39:32

     Or agency

396. 1:39:33

     ... I think the, some of the categories that were mentioned are, are largely non-controversial, whether it be accident victims, suicides, natural death, et cetera. What, what I am, um, thinking about is on line 10, the line, "Or otherwise show a person's death," because that can include the death itself. Like, for example, um, the easy ones are the easy ones. The harder ones are law enforcement involved shootings, um, that may be captured on video.

397. 1:40:07

     Law enforcement not involved in the shooting, but observing either a shooting or a stabbing or something along those lines, where there could really be a significant public interest in seeing the events that led to the death. So I kind of put those in two categories. If you already have a deceased person and then you're arriving on scene, versus there's a kinetic situation where then a death unfolds, and it would seem that the otherwise show a person's death in line 10 and/or 11 would exclude any videos that would capture s- a shooting or, or something precipitating a, a death.

398. 1:40:46

     And, and I have a little bit of concern about that because the public may have a real interest in wanting to observe what happened, and I don't know if there's other ways to have safeguards of blurring, et cetera, so the events leading up to the death can be observed, but then protecting the dignity of the deceased. So I'm totally with you in terms of protecting the dignity of the deceased, but I also wanna make sure that we don't go too far in limiting the public's access to, um, or crimes, which of course there's always a state interest in that.

399. 1:41:25

     I, I think the public is entitled to accountability. I don't think on that we're ever going to disagree. And I think the accountability is guaranteed under Georgia law by the fact that if my officers are involved in a, in a use of force issue that results in the death of another person, it will be investigated by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. So you have an outside independent agency, and maybe even the FBI depending on the claims involved around the death. But also you're going to have a prosecutorial review at some point where it'll be presented to a grand jury for, for them to make a decision.

400. 1:42:01

     There'll be judicial reviews. The public's right to know should not be a right for them to have access to graphic death images that at their will. There are many opportunities that this bill provides for the family, for the lawyers that are, that are on both sides of the issue to have access to the video. What we're trying to restrict here truly is turning law enforcement, turning public safety in, in really into the new gladiators in digital arena, where we are now providing the, the death video that the public is wanting to consume, or at least some members of the public are wanting to consume.

401. 1:42:48

     There is no interest to other members of the public that live in states far away. Once we fact- factor in that there is a review of everything that is done prior to that, and still has access for the family to get the video and their lawyers to get the video. Nobody's trying to stop that.

402. 1:43:12

     Okay. I, uh-

403. 1:43:15

     Uh, can I also add?

404. 1:43:16

     Yeah.

405. 1:43:16

     Uh, I'm the district attorney of the West Georgia Circuit, Saira Japoor. As I read this bill and read it together with 50-1872, which I've had to deal with since I came into office, this wouldn't contemplate your situation because there would be a criminal pending investigation. So it would be addressed otherwise under the Open Records Act. This is specifically for those scenarios where there's not a criminal investigation and, and it's mirrored not only in, um, Chairman Gullett's language in the bill, but if you go to 50-1872, um, there's two other sections, 26.1 and 26.2, that this was completely mirrored after, and that's the 911 and, um, also another scenario having to do with body cams.

406. 1:44:06

     So it was addressed at some point in the legislature, um, the- The coming on of all of the technology and the fact that there are these body cams when there's not a criminal investigation, and I had to deal with this personally, um, in a situation where there was no criminal investigation because ultimately the bad actor committed suicide. But there were requests for, um, body cam footage of conversations with a woman that was involved with it who had been raped repeatedly by that person.

407. 1:44:36

     And so under, um, the 26.2, the, that, that wasn't released to, um, a person that didn't have any connection with the case whatsoever, these intimate things that she had disclosed to law enforcement. So I've kind of seen it in action, and I, I agree with your sentiment. I mean, those are the most important things that happen, and transparency has to be at the forefront. But this is concerning non-criminal investigations when law enforcement goes out and they handle s- situations and their body cameras capture things that are not a criminal investigation.

408. 1:45:14

     Okay. A- and I was going to ask about line 11, which sounds like that's what you're emphasizing, which is that distinction of the, when there is no pending investigation, meaning there's no criminal activity, there's just a deceased, and that's being accounted for by the police, but it's not something that's part of a bigger-

409. 1:45:33

     Yeah

410. 1:45:33

     ... potential issue. Okay.

411. 1:45:35

     And, and, and when you look at the bigger context of it under the whole statute, um, 26.1 and 26.2, they take that into account on those other scenarios. And so, um, where law enforcement captures a lot with, with their technology that don't end up in criminal pending investigations. There's a whole other section in the open records having to do with officer-involved shootings because that would be a criminal investigation because the use of force and the GBI comes in, and then it would fall under that.

412. 1:46:07

     And so this wouldn't, this wouldn't affect that at all. This is situations where there's not a criminal investigation.

413. 1:46:14

     Okay, thank you. And then m- my last question would be, are there any limitation on any of those that are exempted, so your line 17 through 27, are there any limitations on any of them sharing the data with the public, or could they?

414. 1:46:33

     I think-

415. 1:46:34

     Yeah, I think that's-

416. 1:46:35

     I think that's-

417. 1:46:35

     Thank you

418. 1:46:36

     Okay

419. 1:46:36

     ... that's the reality.

420. 1:46:37

     That- that's the safety, that's my safety check as far as if there's nefarious activity that happens, they have the ability to do it, but at least they're, at least they're close to the, to the person who died and are willing to, to make that, versus being a family member or being the family who wishes this was not out there, uh, and it being out there for someone to monetize. Um, that is the safety check.

421. 1:46:59

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

422. 1:47:00

     Mm-hmm.

423. 1:47:02

     All right. Um, well, we're at a bit of a stopping point. Um, I've got at least five people to speak on this bill. We have a hard stop at 11:00 o'clock for rules. Uh, Mr. DeLucas, um, Chairman Jones, he waived his appearance on the bill you signed up for, 1023, so it'll be heard at a later date, probably later this week. Okay? I just wanted to give you that information.

424. 1:47:34

     Um,

425. 1:47:37

     all right. Now, before I start calling these folks up here, oh, Chairman Momtahan, do you have something?

426. 1:47:47

     Well, this only, only pertains to the, uh, previous bill, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just had a comment. We can wait until the next time we... Are we still on that bill?

427. 1:47:56

     We're still on-

428. 1:47:57

     Oh, we're still...

429. 1:47:58

     Yeah, we're still on 1223. I-

430. 1:48:00

     Okay. Um, so-

431. 1:48:00

     First thing I gotta do is start calling up the... Yes, sir.

432. 1:48:05

     I'm not gonna make amendment. I'm just gonna bring up something for discussion, but we can wait until-

433. 1:48:09

     Okay

434. 1:48:09

     ... later to do that. That's fine.

435. 1:48:10

     Okay. Hold that thought then. All right, I'm gonna go down the order that I have them here. Reagan Marsh.

436. 1:48:26

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, uh, members of the committee. My name is Reagan Marsh with Troutman Strategies. Appreciate the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the Georgia Press Association. Um, as explained by the sponsor, this bill before you is an exemption to the Open Records Act. Uh, GPA's position on open records exemptions is that they are sometimes needed, but we ask that be, they be drafted as narrowly as possible. Um, there's a reason for the Open Records Act, and it's actually, uh, in, in Georgia law.

437. 1:48:56

     The preamble to the Open Records Act states, "Public access to public records should be encouraged to foster confidence in government, and so that the public can evaluate the efficient and proper functioning of its institutions." And it goes on to say that, "The General Assembly declares that there is a strong presumption that public records shall be made available to the public." So I ask you to look at this through that lens of the, um, uh, strong presumption that public records shall be made available. That being said, I think we can all agree that a person has a right to privacy, and that's really the question posed by this bill, how much government transparency should we give up, uh, to respect that person's right to privacy?

438. 1:49:35

     I think when it comes to medical records, uh, tax records, identifying information, Georgia General Assembly has been very clear on that, um, that, that those records are closed, and I think there's a reason for that. And GPA has never opposed that, by the way. There's an expectation of privacy, um, with those records. And, uh, and, and we've got other exemptions to the Open Records Act where there is an expectation of privacy. However, when you go out into the public, you lose that expectation of privacy. And, um, this bill doesn't account for that.

439. 1:50:08

     I mean, this bill applies even if you're in a public space. Now, um, you know- If you decide that records like this should be exempt, our ask is that you make this exemption as narrow as possible. And I think there's a couple of issues, uh, additional issues to think about here. You know, one thing is cost. I think, uh, we've heard that over and over from law enforcement agencies, that they're getting inundated with requests, they have to have them redacted. And, uh, you know, what this sets up is instead of your normal open records, uh, request process, which you heard about earlier, which is basically you, you send a letter or email in to the records custodian, I mean, this sets up litigation.

440. 1:50:52

     There's gonna be lawyers involved in this. I mean, when you see the people that have access to it right from the beginning, it's basically all lawyers. And then if, if anybody else wants access to it, they have to have a, a, an order from a court. That's gonna involve lawyers. Somebody on the government side is gonna have to pay for that if people want these records. Um, I think, uh, another thing to look at is, or, or ask, is are, are, are we cr- are we creating a situation here where we're, we're incentivizing law enforcement to not investigate certain things?

441. 1:51:23

     For example, um, if there's, if there's a close call and there's an opportunity to not have a pending investigation, and, you know, you close up the public records associated with this by not having an investigation. So I, it, it, I think it puts law enforcement in an odd position sometimes. Um, you know, from a newspaper standpoint, we, we believe there should be a, a transparency in these, um, in these videos.

442. 1:51:54

     You will never see a Georgia Press Association member posting videos of someone dying. You may see it described in a, in a, uh, in a newspaper article if it's newsworthy. Um, so we would ask that there be an exemption, and it, it's, it's really easy to do. You go to line 28, uh, you would create a new subsection G and it would say, "Is gathering information as a representative of a news media organization." This is very similar to language used in the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Report open records exemption.

443. 1:52:24

     Again, in that exemption it was a similar issue. Uh, folks were, were getting, um, Georgia motor vehicle accident reports and profiting off of them, and it was costing law enforcement a lot of money to, uh, respond to these open records acts, uh, requests. And, uh, they put some restrictions on who could get them, but what was left in was news media organization, and, uh, we would support, uh, that amendment in this bill, and it would help us support the bill also, Mr. Chairman. I'll stand for any questions.

444. 1:52:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reagan, thank you for being with us. Thank you for the work that the Georgia Press Association does. Certainly the, uh, the press play a valuable role in our society, and I, you know, I appreciate you recognizing the, the struggle we're, we're having here that is fundamental of two fundamental constitutional rights, the, the, the First Amendment and the right to privacy. And, uh, it, it is a struggle to try and figure, figure that out here. But help me as, as in, in, as it relates to your proposed amendment, what is your definition of a news media organization?

445. 1:53:34

     That's a good question. Uh, I think that has, you know, that has been used in the Open Records Act fairly often. I don't know if it's ever been litigated, but I think, you know, there's not a, a, a definition for it. I think if you wanted to really, uh, have a, a, a tight definition there's, there's an- another opportunity to do that, in that you would have a subsection G that says, "Is gathering information as a representative of a legal organ newspaper or a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission." Those are pretty tight definitions right there.

446. 1:54:09

     I mean, they, you know, um, that would... That being said, you know, the prior definition has been used throughout Georgia code, so. Do you know when that news media organization was first put in the code? I'm trying to think when we dealt with, uh, motor vehicle accident reports, but I feel like it's been within the last 10 years. Because I, I really struggle with whether I'm a news media organization today using my Twitter account. That's frankly where I, you know. I, I think if you wanted it tighter you could just say, you could define it as a legal organ newspaper or a broadcaster licensed by the FCC.

447. 1:54:45

     But that does get rid of what I consider legitimate news organizations, which are different blogs and things like that. The, the, the, the Atlanta Journal Constitution isn't the legal organization in, in Fulton County. That's correct. I, I, I think if you wanted to expand the definition you could say a newspaper of general circulation. I don't know that that... That, that may still leave the AJC out since they don't do print, print distribution anymore, but that would expand the amount of, of, of organizations that would qualify.

448. 1:55:18

     Despite our, our history of finding solutions to a problem, I'm not sure me and you have reached one on this one yet, but I want to talk to you maybe when we get a break here. Yes, sir. Thank you, Reagan. Thank you.

449. 1:55:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let's see.

450. 1:55:40

     Margaret Caywood.

451. 1:55:44

     Hope I got that right. You did. Ah, all

452. 1:55:49

     right. Thank you. I'm Margaret Caywood, Ms. Chair , with Department Juvenile Justice, and two weeks ago I did have the opportunity to speak with Representative Gullett about, um, our c- what we would like for you to consider, and that would be adding correctional officers to the, to line nine. And then the other thought is about adding fixed surveillance monitoring systems to include CCTV, which is closed circuit television.

453. 1:56:20

     And that's all.

454. 1:56:21

     Okay. All right. That's all you have?

455. 1:56:25

     Uh-huh.

456. 1:56:26

     All right.

457. 1:56:26

     Any questions.

458. 1:56:26

     I have, uh, Trey Kelley.

459. 1:56:28

     May- maybe just a question we can get clarification from from legal counsel, but does law enforcement officers not cover correctional? And, and if we're getting in, you know, what does that... If we start defining individuals, I understand your, your concern. I wanna help you, but I wanna just make sure we're not- Typically not. Okay. I mean, unless we were invited there, um- Okay ... we typically just stay completely off. And correctional? Due to the, the, the authorization, authority to do this. And then the fixed surveillance monitoring, do you think that's needed as well, or, or would that be encompassed in, include audio/video?

460. 1:57:09

     I do think it would be. Yeah.

461. 1:57:11

     If you drop devices, that, yeah. Mm-hmm. Sure.

462. 1:57:17

     Thank you for meeting with us. Thank you for the work that DJJ does.

463. 1:57:21

     Okay. Thank you.

464. 1:57:25

     Jeremy Collins.

465. 1:57:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Jeremy Collins. I'm here representing the Georgia Association of Broadcasters. That's all the local radio and TV stations in Georgia. Um, in an effort to respect your time, um, I don't wanna repeat a lot of what Mr. Marsh said, but, um, who was up here previously speaking, um, on behalf of the Georgia Press Association. But we s- um, echo what he, what his presentation was, um, and I gue- I guess I will in, in or- in a effort not to repeat his testimony, I'll talk about a couple things that I heard, um, during this bill's presentation.

466. 1:58:10

     Um, one was YouTube videos. Um, another was commercial companies, um, providing clickbait. Another one I heard from several different people was monetizing people's deaths. One of the, um, one of the suggestions that Mr. Marsh brought up was, um, an amendment that says, "Is gathering information as a representative of a legal organ, newspaper, or a broadcaster licensed by the FCC, Federal Communications Committee- Commission." Um, we heard in talking with several member- members what, um, uh, Representative Kelley was asking, what is, um, what exactly is a news organization?

467. 1:58:51

     Um, FCC, um, if, if you are a, if you are licensed by the FCC and you're a, a newspaper or radio station, um, they set standards. Um, they, um... It's everything from emergency alerting requirements, community service. Um, they permit, um, individuals and organizations to operate radio and TV stations on specific, specific frequencies using public airways. So that is a way that you would not have, and I'm just using the words that others, um, spoke before me, you wouldn't have that clickbait and the YouTubes that everybody, um, which I believe is a part of the intent of the bill, speaking with the author and others, which the intent, we believe, is, um, is very well, um, is very well placed by this, uh, piece of legislation.

468. 1:59:43

     But we also wanna protect, um, news gathering organizations and gathering the news to be able to report the news, because that's our newsworthy. And if you ha- if you are licensed by the FCC, you will not see that clickbait, as mentioned before, um, from a radio or TV station. Radio, they obviously have got internet, um, they've got websites, but you will not see that because they will be in jeopardy of losing their license. So that is just a way to narrow down some of the concerns that we heard, but also allowing the press the freedom to, um, to report, um, to the general public.

469. 2:00:16

     Um, I can go into more detail, but I fear that I would be, um, repeating Mr. Marsh's, um, concerns and testimony, but I'm happy to stand for any questions.

470. 2:00:25

     Okay. I don't see any. Thank you.

471. 2:00:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

472. 2:00:30

     And is, uh, DA Cranford here? No.

473. 2:00:38

     You did, you did very well. Anything else you want to...

474. 2:00:46

     I think it's important to remember, talking about cases that are not criminal investigations, um, and that there's a whole statute that, that carved out two exceptions prior to this, and I think it just flows with that, um, that, that, that language all mirrors exactly what is al- als- already within the statute.

475. 2:01:08

     Okay.

476. 2:01:09

     Thank you.

477. 2:01:10

     All right. Thank you.

478. 2:01:11

     Thank you.

479. 2:01:15

     All right. Um,

480. 2:01:24

     I'm gonna try and do it now. Are we ready to do the amendments? And, uh, what's, what's the will of the committee on the bill itself? Representative Kelley.

481. 2:01:34

     Mr. Chairman, I, I, I know we're running up on an 11:00 timeline. I like the legislation. I wanna see it get done. I think we're gonna have some amendments that could take pretty extensive-

482. 2:01:47

     Mm-hmm

483. 2:01:47

     ... discussion to get it right. I almost wondered if, if we're running up onto that timeline, since it's such a sensitive area, could we have some time during this little break we're gonna take to perfect the language, and with the goal of passing it when we come back from our break? I wanna see it done. I wanna, I wanna... I know we got, like, 15 minutes before we're all go- or a lot of us are going to rules.

484. 2:02:15

     Yeah.

485. 2:02:15

     That's, that's just my concern, is maybe we can have some off time to try and perfect some language to be offered as, as an amendment. ... in this little break, so maybe if we could even just, I don't wanna necessarily table it, but maybe just suspend on it for a little while if, if, if, if the rest of the committee is agreeable to that as-

486. 2:02:36

     We can take a recess while we go take care of rules, and then, uh, by the way, I have lunch for the committee, um, that'll be here as well.

487. 2:02:45

     And, and so the only other bill we have is that 899?

488. 2:02:48

     Mm-hmm. Yeah. And we'll be convening back, um, as soon as we can, I guess after we eat lunch, and then, um, we've got about an hour-

489. 2:03:04

     Hour and a half

490. 2:03:05

     ... about an hour and a half when we get back, um.

491. 2:03:09

     I just thought maybe during lunch we could, we could try to perfect some language.

492. 2:03:13

     Yeah.

493. 2:03:13

     'Cause I, I just know it's gonna get... W- we're, we're balancing two very important constitutionally protected rights.

494. 2:03:22

     I agree. I agree. You good? Okay. All right. Well then, uh, we'll stand at recess and, uh, report back after rules and lunch, so somewhere in between 12:30 and 1- Right ... just so I can tell you. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

495. 2:03:47

     12:30. Yeah. Okay. 12:30.

496. 4:03:57

     All right. We're back from recess. Um,

497. 4:04:05

     if there's,

498. 4:04:08

     if there's no objection from the committee, I would like to switch over to Omari Crawford's bill right quick, and then, uh, I don't think it's on the schedule, but you should have a copy of it. S- House Bill 688, LC48-1483.

499. 4:04:31

     And, uh, if you wanna go ahead and tell them what the bill's about.

500. 4:04:38

     Which, uh, which one you on?

501. 4:04:39

     Seven.

502. 4:04:40

     All right. I'm on. There you go.

503. 4:04:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Before you is House Bill 688, and it's LC48-1483. This bill would amend service, and what the bill would say is service of any document shall be in person by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery with a return receipt requested, and this is to allow service to be legally defensible and proof of mailing and delivery so there's no question or ambiguity of any pleadings that are being served.

504. 4:05:20

     And I will stand for any questions.

505. 4:05:23

     All right.

506. 4:05:28

     All right, any questions by the committee?

507. 4:05:33

     I'll give you a few minutes to read it.

508. 4:06:03

     Vice Chair Reeves.

509. 4:06:05

     Representative Crawford, will this keep the three-day period regardless of how it was served, will this keep the 30 days plus three days intact?

510. 4:06:14

     Yes.

511. 4:06:15

     Thank you. As long as it keeps the three days, uh, I'm good with it and I won't hear from all the folks, uh, in my neck of the woods who depend on that three days to get it done no matter how it gets to them.

512. 4:06:27

     That three days is extremely important.

513. 4:06:35

     All right. Any more questions from the committee?

514. 4:06:40

     Hearing none, what's the will of the committee?

515. 4:06:43

     Second.

516. 4:06:44

     Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any amendments? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Bill passes.

517. 4:06:55

     Thank you.

518. 4:06:57

     Thank you. All right, now we'll go back to, uh, House Bill 1223.

519. 4:07:07

     And I think when we went to the break we were working on some amendments, and...

520. 4:07:17

     Okay. You gonna make me do it?

521. 4:07:24

     You got it all right here. All right, I'm gonna call on the staff attorney for judiciary who has all this written down, so we'll go through it and, and consider it as one amendment with many parts.

522. 4:07:41

     All right, so let's see.

523. 4:07:45

     Broken off of LC63-0082, line nine, uh, striking the words, "From devices used by law enforcement officers."

524. 4:08:07

     Next.

525. 4:08:07

     Okay.

526. 4:08:07

     Let's, let's keep going.

527. 4:08:09

     Um, on line 11, instead of, "Just prior to," inserting, "Immediately preceding his or her."

528. 4:08:27

     Okay, on line 11, strike the words, "Just prior to," and insert the words, "Immediately preceding his or her."

529. 4:08:45

     On line 17,

530. 4:08:50

     after the word estate insert, "Or the deceased's next of kin."

531. 4:09:09

     On line 22, after the word party add, "Or putative party."

532. 4:09:20

     From putative?

533. 4:09:21

     Putative. P-U-T-A-T-I-V-E. On line 25, striking the word or.

534. 4:09:37

     And then you wanted the section G. Did you want, did you want the-

535. 4:09:43

     Yeah

536. 4:09:43

     ... the newspaper one?

537. 4:09:46

     Yeah, let's go ahead and do it.

538. 4:09:47

     Okay. And then on line 27, uh, add the word or and then a Section G that reads as follows, "A legal organ newspaper or a broadcaster holding a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission

539. 4:10:17

     to operate a radio or television station using public airways."

540. 4:10:28

     Those are the amendments for submission.

541. 4:10:33

     Okay.

542. 4:10:33

     We can...

543. 4:10:37

     To match that in the title, I would also recommend removing captured by law enforcement at the end of line two at the beginning of the ninth line.

544. 4:10:46

     Oh, definitely.

545. 4:10:49

     Where is that?

546. 4:10:51

     Line...

547. 4:10:52

     Oh, up here. Okay. Yeah.

548. 4:10:56

     Yeah.

549. 4:10:59

     Um-

550. 4:11:01

     I guess my question, Mr. Chairman, is were you, are we gonna take each of these up individually?

551. 4:11:05

     I'll do it however y'all want to.

552. 4:11:08

     I have some concerns with a couple of the amendments.

553. 4:11:10

     Okay. All right.

554. 4:11:11

     But I'd like them be taken up separately.

555. 4:11:13

     All right. Let's, um, let's start at the beginning. Line nine-

556. 4:11:17

     Do, have we already... We have done a motion due pass?

557. 4:11:22

     Um, yes.

558. 4:11:22

     Okay.

559. 4:11:23

     No.

560. 4:11:24

     Now haven't we? No?

561. 4:11:26

     I mean-

562. 4:11:26

     I thought we did.

563. 4:11:27

     Okay.

564. 4:11:30

     Well, we were discussing amendments when we left, but-

565. 4:11:33

     We didn't.

566. 4:11:33

     Motion, nothing's seconded of it, it's definitely made. Let's go ahead and do it again, boss. I move due pass.

567. 4:11:39

     All right, we got a motion.

568. 4:11:40

     Second.

569. 4:11:41

     Second. Okay. All right, we-

570. 4:11:42

     Got that

571. 4:11:42

     ... got that. All right, now we're gonna discuss the amendments. So first one is line three

572. 4:11:50

     All right. Two.

573. 4:11:52

     Two and three.

574. 4:11:52

     I guess it's two and three, but it also extends to nine. I think, Mr. Chairman, and that is... My question is, um,

575. 4:12:03

     if we are expanding, you know, this is an expansion in my mind to where you would not just cover body cams or dash cams or any other footage that law enforcement take, but it could extend to video or images that were recorded by a private party. And that, to me, gets outside of what I, I thought the original scope of the bill was. So for me, if I'm, I'm, I'm thinking about a Ring security footage camera that I have on my house, if I happen to catch something like this, are we now under Georgia law saying that I can't do whatever I want to do with that video as a non-governmental actor?

576. 4:12:54

     How's that then?

577. 4:12:55

     This would just be that it's not subject to a disclosure under the Records Act.

578. 4:12:59

     Right.

579. 4:12:59

     This would not impact any private rights. It would only mean that government agencies subject to open records, this, this, this would be an exclusion.

580. 4:13:07

     I- if they take possession of it, then it-

581. 4:13:10

     Okay.

582. 4:13:13

     That may have answered my, my question.

583. 4:13:16

     All right.

584. 4:13:18

     On that one at least.

585. 4:13:19

     All right. Who's got, um, 16? Nevermind. Okay. Representative Hall.

586. 4:13:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I wanted to just ask what the underlying intent is by striking the law enforcement. Is it to make it to where correctional officers are included in that beyond? Is it, is, is that

587. 4:13:46

     the thinking?

588. 4:13:58

     Chairman Sligh. You good? So, yes, it's, it's for the correctional officers. There was also a situation where there was a shooting, um, at the CDC, uh, where an officer was, was killed. Uh, one of the GDOT cameras had video of that. Um, someone for profit, uh, requested that, that video through OR. It came, and, uh, they then had it online, and they were... The family didn't want it on there, and they were, uh, asking for money to remove it.

589. 4:14:32

     So it would capture situations like that-

590. 4:14:34

     Okay

591. 4:14:34

     ... as well.

592. 4:14:35

     Understood. Okay. Thank you.

593. 4:14:40

     As well as the, um, the prison system. Mm.

594. 4:14:49

     Vice Chair.

595. 4:14:50

     Chief, while we're focused on, if you wouldn't mind talking to Chief Butch Ayers and Chief Mooney about this whole commercial use of, um, police footage, violent police footage. I think that's a larger issue. I'm not gonna get it any larger than it is today, but if you wouldn't mind talk to th- talking to them.

596. 4:15:07

     Yes, sir. Thank you.

597. 4:15:10

     Uh, Representative Evans.

598. 4:15:12

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question on the line two and three part of this. Um, it sounds like the proposal is to strike captured by law enforcement. Is that right?

599. 4:15:26

     Seem to be.

600. 4:15:27

     And if we do make the change, if we do agree, ob- obviously we would only do that, I guess, if we make the change on line nine, but I was wondering if it might be more appropriate, and this is a question for consideration, it, it, instead of captured by law enforcement, um, still having some kind of descriptor, audio and video recordings in the possession of law enforcement or in the possession of the government because it's not really providing an exemption for everything. That was just my concern on the description of the act.

601. 4:15:59

     Like the, the language about by a governmental agency.

602. 4:16:03

     Okay.

603. 4:16:03

     Versus in possession of, just for what that's worth, if we're having discussion. Because in possession could encap- you know, encapsulate other non...

604. 4:16:18

     Okay. And maybe we need to deal with nine and 10 first.

605. 4:16:21

     If I may.

606. 4:16:22

     Yeah.

607. 4:16:22

     So the language in, in lines one through... It's the title which is constitutionally required to provide some notice as to what the exemption is accomplishing, so I would respectfully recommend you make whatever substantive changes you want within the statutory modified portions of the bill, and then we can have our titles reflect what that change is. If you were to take the part out of line that you've taken out, it would be appropriate to take it out of lines two and three because the bill is no longer doing that.

608. 4:16:52

     That's it.

609. 4:16:53

     The, the title has to reflect the, the underlying statute.

610. 4:17:03

     Representative Momtahan, you got...

611. 4:17:05

     Good statement. We can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to understand. I, I know I was getting back from lunch a bit late. Um, so on line nine, we are striking, um, from devices used by law enforcement officers. Is that correct?

612. 4:17:23

     Yeah.

613. 4:17:24

     Currently, yes.

614. 4:17:25

     And that is, uh, to make sure that those surveillance, I think I, I, I had some question earlier about the surveillance footage that's obtained. I just wanna make sure we're on the same topic.

615. 4:17:38

     Is that correct, Mr. Chairman? I think so, or maybe somebody else. I just wanna make sure that those surveillance footages that are obtained are covered under this exemption. Is that the-

616. 4:17:53

     Yeah

617. 4:17:53

     ... author's understanding?

618. 4:17:56

     Yes. It would encom- it would, it would, it would- It's not limiting it to law enforcement. It would limit, include- Any governmental entity, any footage or video or images that they have. So it expands the scope of what's covered. Right. As long as it's a governmental entity. So they have the right to go after it. Thank you. I think that speaks to the heart of the, uh, the, the gentleman's, uh, bill, and I think that's, uh, that's good.

619. 4:18:27

     Thank you. All right. I guess we'll vote on each one individually. Any further discussion of this?

620. 4:18:39

     And what we're gonna talk about is from lines two and three, striking captured by law enforcement, and line nine, where it says, uh, striking from devices used by law enforcement officers.

621. 4:18:58

     All right. All right. Do I have a motion on that? Second. Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Any opposed? All right, we have that one. We'll move on to number 11, or line 11, where we struck just prior to death and s- inserted immediately preceding his or her in its place. Got a motion.

622. 4:19:30

     Do I have a second? Second. All right. Any dis- discussion on that one? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, that one's in.

623. 4:19:45

     Okay, what we got next? Seventeen. Seventeen, is it this? Mm-hmm. On s- line 17, after the word estate, insert, or the deceased's next of kin.

624. 4:20:05

     Got a motion and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right, that's in. Line 22, uh, after the word party or putative party. Okay. Inserted after the word party. And Representative Evans? Um, just a clarification. Is the proposed amendment in- changing or adding or putative party to both places where the word party is used in that sentence?

625. 4:20:39

     I think we need it in both.

626. 4:20:45

     Or- Okay.

627. 4:20:49

     Good catch. Mm-hmm.

628. 4:20:55

     Perhaps the first use of it should be after the word action. That's a suggestion, part suggestion, part question. I think it should go there. Okay.

629. 4:21:13

     After the second such party on line 22, add in, or putative party. What? Putative party. Yeah.

630. 4:21:28

     So will the sentence now read, a party to a civil action or putative party when in the good faith belief of such party or putative party such recording is relevant to the civil action? I had it inserted after the word party. Okay. Yeah, either place. Mm-hmm.

631. 4:21:48

     Any further discussion?

632. 4:21:52

     So I believe I got a... Do I have a motion and second on that? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All right, we have that one. And then we have, see. Last one is this. Right, but- But you take...

633. 4:22:22

     So still strike it here.

634. 4:22:26

     All right. Line 25, strike the word or.

635. 4:22:33

     And I guess add it to the end of line 27.

636. 4:22:45

     You should really just tie it together, 'cause it's only gonna move if G- Yeah, and then, then we're gonna put G in. It says, uh, a legal... I mean, I don't think I got the whole thing. A legal organ, newspaper, or broadcaster holding a license issued by the FCC, or Federal Communications Commission, to operate a radio or television station using public airways. Representative Kelley? Mr. Chairman, I just have some concerns about adding that language.

637. 4:23:15

     I know we're trying to balance a, two very important protected rights, that is the freedom of the press and the right to privacy. And while I understand those in the press may like to have the opportunity to monetize these events, and they're gonna cling to the First Amendment argument, I feel like the protection of privacy is much more important in this conversation. Um, and I think in addition to that, you've heard even if we do this amendment, we are picking and choosing winners inside the First Amendment debate, as in the Fulton Daily Report would be able to get this footage, but not the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

638. 4:23:58

     And so for me, not to mention our citizen journalists who may operate, and so-

639. 4:24:04

     That is my concern if, if we're trying to get First Amendment protection, we're picking and choosing winners in the First Amendment. But for me, ultimately, the right to privacy should be paramount, and I, I'm gonna have to oppose that amendment. And I, I would ask maybe the author, too, if he considers that a gut of his bill.

640. 4:24:24

     It is a, it is a big change to my bill, yes. Um, it's something that I think I addressed when I presented the bill. It, it's something that I weighed as I created the, the legislation. But, um, I think to Representative Kelly's point, um, it is a significant change to the, to the bill.

641. 4:24:59

     All right, we got a couple more who wanna talk about it. Uh, Representative Hong?

642. 4:25:06

     Is this a discussion on the amendment right now, Chairman?

643. 4:25:09

     Yeah.

644. 4:25:10

     Okay. And then, then I'll hold.

645. 4:25:13

     Vice Chair. I'm considering, uh, what Representative Kelly said, and I'm leaning in favor of the amendment because, uh, you know, I think the First Amendment is strong enough, and there's enough litigation by the media on the First Amendment that that could be a, uh, that could jeopardize the statute if we don't include the, the amendment in there. I look at how legal organs, newspapers, and licensed broadcasters treat things like the rape shield and victims' names versus commercial online, um, services who are making money and don't have those journalistic standards and other checks and balances, uh, that I think this is a narrowly tailored amendment that would, uh, help the statute withstand some First Amendment, uh, attacks.

646. 4:25:59

     And, uh, because I see responsible action by the Atlanta media, uh, and the Georgia media on other subjects dealing with sensitive matters such as, uh, victims and, um, uh, people whose names, uh, are not publicized by those responsible actors, whereas they may be publicized by others who don't fall into the subsection G amendment. And then in, in terms of like Fulton Daily Report versus, uh, AJC, I think that the AJC and, and, uh, some of its related companies would fall under, uh, subsection G in terms of Cox Media and things like that.

647. 4:26:35

     So...

648. 4:26:36

     Well, I think there's a question to that, Representative Reese. And, and I think also I would ask you if you know of any successful First Amendment challenges to the 911 call protections that we placed over a decade ago, and if those have been challenged, if the court has upheld that the First Amendment right is more important than the right to privacy on a 911 call, uh, challenge.

649. 4:27:02

     Well, I, I, um, one, one difference, I mean, the, the murder victim, they're not around to, uh, to challenge that, but certainly crime and other victims, I think that, uh, the companies in this category of legal organs, newspapers, licensed broadcast-casters, they have been responsible in not publicizing victims', uh, uh, plight, um, with 911 calls and things like that. But a picture's worth a thousand words. I think showing somebody's, uh, um, deceased person image is different than a 911 call.

650. 4:27:38

     And I think having a First Amendment, uh, media exception that's narrowly tailored like this one would be a good idea to make sure that the statute is upheld.

651. 4:27:48

     If I can, Chairman. There are a number of cases that, uh, Augusta Press versus Richard, Richard Round T- Tree, Sheriff of Richmond County from, uh, 2023, Supreme Court denied review, dismissal of media action seeking body cam. Um, media already litigates this. They have a problem, they can litigate it and put it to court and say that the judge can order this to be released. But I think it is even more significant in the other way. Um, someone's loved one, uh, having their video out there versus, um, the audio of the 911 call seems even more, uh, personal.

652. 4:28:24

     Um, and, you know, is, you know, I think there's even Supreme Court case, National Archives and Records Administration v., uh, Favish, 541 U.S. 157, um, where a- again, your, the surviving family members' privacy interests, um, do weigh into that. So the one thing I'll say about media, there's no weapons if they let it out. There's no recourse. There's no anything. Once it's out, it's out.

653. 4:28:54

     And so there's no, uh, protections that the media has to, to make sure this isn't leaked, um, that an intern gets it and can get a thousand bucks for a YouTuber wanting a video of someone who's famous who died. Uh, there's no, there's-- once it's out, it's out. There's no protections from there. And so when you're, when you're given this, it's, it really is, there's no recovery once you let it out.

654. 4:29:19

     All right. Let me just read the paragraphs on, or the paragraph from line 12. Provided, however, that such recordings shall be disclosed upon the order of a court of competent jurisdiction and shall further be disclosed to the following, provided that the person seeking such recording submits a sworn affidavit that attests to the facts necessary to establish eligibility under this paragraph. And if we were to be general enough in here to include, um, on G, the newspaper or broadcaster with a license, whatever, something like that would fit better.

655. 4:30:02

     W- I'm trying to keep it as general as I can. I'm not, I'm not coming up with the wording right now, but, um-

656. 4:30:09

     Uh, basically they got to get an order from the court that shows that they're a licensed broadcaster or whatever that's entitled to First Amendment right-

657. 4:30:22

     I-

658. 4:30:22

     ... to get this.

659. 4:30:23

     Chairman, I, I, I think the order would be easy to get, uh, if, if you, you know... I understand being able, you know, they would able to just be able to show a judge and the judge would issue. Now I think for me it's just fundamentally and philosophically who should get to make this decision as to whether this footage gets out? Should it be an executive sitting in a office building somewhere, or should it be the mother, uh, or next of kin of the person who has suffered this tragic loss? That's, that is my fundamental and philosophical issue with this, is even if a-

660. 4:31:00

     You're more concerned about h- what happens after they get it?

661. 4:31:03

     Uh, and, and it's just a, it's just a, it's a, it's a, it's a right to, to, to the very intimate moment. I, you know, I, I just don't necessarily have the trust of the media that others may. Um, and that is, that is, that is my concern. I think if we, I think if we vote this amendment, I will have an amendment that would potentially create a right of action against those areas, uh, against those entities should they in any way, either knowingly or unknowingly, allow that video to be distributed.

662. 4:31:38

     Um, and so I, I, I think that, you know, that just knowing I may have a potential amendment after we, after we, if we get a motion and a second on this one.

663. 4:31:49

     Okay. All right. Thank you. Vice Chair.

664. 4:31:53

     The reason I like the idea for an amendment G about legal organ newspaper broadcaster is, um, you know, oftentimes it's the government who is the, the, uh, perpetrator of the killing, and I think having some oversight in situations where you've got questions, unanswered questions about how did the person get killed, I think it'd be a good idea to be able to let the, uh, responsible journalists investigate and ask questions about the matter, because oftentimes that's how you get to the truth about what happened, how the person got killed.

665. 4:32:27

     Again, Mr. Chairman, I, I don't, I don't necessarily agree that it's oftentimes the perpetrator is the, is the, the police or law enforcement in this situation. These cameras are everywhere. Um, and there's a lot more cameras catching these things than the police, than police are involved in officer-involved shootings. And so, uh, there's a lot more, you know, if it's a, if it's a shooting at the mall, um, that now gets brought into an investigation. It's not a body cam of the officer being involved, but there's, there's r- you know, a camera shot of this person being killed or executed or whatever in, in a mall or, uh, I think that's a lot more likely, those types of situations where cameras get caught up in the investigation are now subject to open records, um, for the media to get it than there are officer-involved, uh, oversight that you're l- that you're talking about.

666. 4:33:16

     Okay. Representative Holcomb.

667. 4:33:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, here's what I'm wrestling with. When we had our conversation before the break, the distinction that was articulated was that this would be for those circumstances where there is no pending investigation. So my question is by deleting the law enforcement aspect of it, because that conceptually made a lot of sense to me, that that would just be for instances where you're talking about suicides, accidents, natural deaths, no public interest in having those images available.

668. 4:33:54

     But how does the phrasing of when there's no pending investigation now relate to the prior text if we're removing the reference to law enforcement? What investigation would there potentially be?

669. 4:34:09

     I believe that the devices used by law enforcement doesn't change the fact that there's an investigation. So if there is a, if there is a, a murder in a mall, and there's closed caption or whatever of that murder in the mall, it's not law enforcement's body cam of that murder in the mall, but there's a murder that happened in the mall that now belongs to the investigation. Um, and so once that investigation is closed, this is now s- you know, today is subject to open records, um, and this would just stop that.

670. 4:34:46

     So I don't think it changes that the device has to be law enforcement for it to be an investigation. There's an investigation in, I think, most deaths other than those at a hospital or hospice or something.

671. 4:34:58

     Okay. I, I think what we were told earlier is that in the criminal context, that would be dealt with with other provisions within the Open Records Act and that the universe of individuals who would be safeguarded and protected by this would not be victims of crime. So that's kind of my threshold question of are individuals that would be protected by this potentially victims of crime, yes or no? Or only the circumstances of where it's a suicide, where it's truly viewed to be a suicide.

672. 4:35:32

     Um, as an aside, one of my first cases was initially viewed to be a suicide, and then it was a homicide, so those things are not always easy to, to unpack and figure out. Natural causes or, like, an accident with death. Because, again, I don't see much of a public interest in just those situations, whereas a criminal context, I think that there is a public interest. And so that's, as a threshold, who's covered by this?

673. 4:36:04

     Now that it's amended, um, I still believe it's, it's a-

674. 4:36:10

     And I think, I think DA, um, I think you mentioned the ones with this crime, so we can call a friend and- If, if you don't mind, but I believe that as once the investigation is closed, whether there's a crime or not, this would, this would be included, though.

675. 4:36:23

     I was-

676. 4:36:23

     Do you understand the question? Because if we're removing the, the reference to law enforcement officers and expanding that scope, which I understand, like the DOT cameras and otherwise, just who is this gonna cover?

677. 4:36:36

     I'm not specifically sure how to answer that, 'cause it does change the nature of what the original bill was, um, especially when you read it in total with 50-18-72. This was just a very small scope of, of cases where a death is captured on a video, um, that law enforcement has in their possession, and there's not a pending criminal investigation. 'Cause if there's a pending criminal investigation, there are all sorts of protections, because you can't get through open records the, um, information because it's a pending investigation.

678. 4:37:12

     And then when that's done, the open records request comes, and then you go through the, the whole statute and figure out what you're allowed to give, what you're not allowed to give. And to, um, the chairman's point, you know, pictures of deceased, unfortunately, we d- you know, isn't one of those things that you're not able to give. Like, you have to go through the open records. But as far as what you... I am on the same page that you are from what I said. This, this, um, legislation as it was presented to the committee, um, is a part of 50-18-72, and when read together with the other sections of the 911 and the other body cam, this is for situations that do not have pending criminal investigations.

679. 4:37:56

     It's, it's those situations a- as it was originally read. Um, those are for when the body camera captures, you know, a tragedy that they go out and, and, and there's been an accident or somebody has committed suicide or there's been a traffic accident. Um, and, you know, usually those cases are, are pretty quickly, um, closed and, and not pending criminal investigations. Um, and I can only, like I said, use my, um, experience when I had a case where there would've otherwise been a criminal investigation but for the, the bad actor had killed himself.

680. 4:38:35

     And so very quickly that all closed, and then this, um, barrage of requests came in. And in that case, this statute helped to protect the, the individual that was captured on body cam disclosing things that had happened to her, um, that were not gonna be prosecuted going forward. And while if there had been a civil lawsuit against the family for what had happened or whatever, they would've been able to get it. But just for, for anyone out there to be able to get these private moments where she's telling about being sexually assaulted, um, that protected her.

681. 4:39:09

     So, um, that's the context that I understand it, and I understood the chairman's bill was just adding to that statute those specific instances where those videos capture someone's last moments. And instead of allowing for there to be this barrage of people that are sick that want it so that they can do all these different things with it, um... Otherwise, if it's in the context of an officer-involved shooting or, um, an otherwise criminal, um, case, they're gonna be protected under the open records because we don't give those out.

682. 4:39:48

     Until it's adjudicated?

683. 4:39:49

     Correct.

684. 4:39:50

     Well, sometimes-

685. 4:39:50

     If it's adjudicated-

686. 4:39:51

     Well, if it's adjudicated-

687. 4:39:52

     ... then yes. And, you know, and it may go through appeals. I mean, I, I, you know-

688. 4:39:56

     Right

689. 4:39:56

     ... I have to look at all of that when I get those requests, as like the chairman was saying. But as amended, I'm not sure how to answer that question.

690. 4:40:07

     Thank you.

691. 4:40:09

     Mm.

692. 4:40:09

     Representative Evans.

693. 4:40:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I s- I'm not sure I've shared that concern as much because I still think all this, it, it wouldn't even be subject to open records if it wasn't in the hands of government. Um, but I think it might be good to add some language, um, no pending investigation involving the death or just something so that it's not so random. But that just 'cause we just finished that. My, my issue on the amendment that we are discussing right now about the newspaper situation, I was looking back at 50-18-72, and the places...

694. 4:40:47

     You know, there's about 50 something or more things in here where you can't... There's 52 things that are not subject to open records that are exempt, and then there's only, only the 911 call sections have these carve-outs unless you can say you're these things and then. So this would now be the third thing out of the 52 things to have those exceptions. And those 911 ones don't have the newspaper, and I was looking to see if there was any exception for newspaper or media in the other one, and there's not.

695. 4:41:17

     What I'm afraid of, not just related to G, um, is that we're also now setting up different exceptions to the exception than we have in the 911. So now, like for example, the 911 call you would have, um... You know, we talk about the appointed representative, but we don't talk about next of kin. Here we've done that, and, and that doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't do that, but I think we're just creating a sort of a patchwork at this point, and that's concerning to me.

696. 4:41:48

     Um, but because we don't have that legal organ newspaper or broadcast, broadcaster in the other ones, I worry a little bit about us, um, creating a legal challenge by including it here, because then we'd have to explain why we put it here and we didn't put it in the other ones. Just from a, just from a First Amendment strict scrutiny kind of situation, that is concerning to me. Um-

697. 4:42:17

     But I'm not sure that it's not the right thing to do. We- I'm, I'm wondering if maybe we should have it in the other sections too. Um, so I haven't quite decided how I wanna vote on this. I just wanted to share my concerns with the committee in, in case they are, um, shared by others or someone can come up with a way to rectify this. But I do-- my bigger concern is that we're just creating a patchwork at this point. Okay. And that is scary. All right. Uh, Representative Kelley. Um, I'll wait at this point, Mr. Chairman. All right. Um, Vice Chair.

698. 4:42:48

     Y- I looked at the Dale Earnhardt law in Florida that we mentioned at the beginning, that's been on the books twenty-five years, and they do have a court order component, which is similar to what we're doing here. And I think having, uh, the media, li- legal organ, newspaper, licensed TV or radio broadcaster, uh, being there, uh, would help for this reason. The First Amendment is number one for a reason. It's, you know, the way we've done it in America for a long time. When I hear there is no pending investigation, I mean, that could be criminal, that could be, you know, truck investigation, that could be a plane crash investigation.

699. 4:43:21

     Many different things that lead to dead bodies where, you know, uh, there could be a situation where the, uh, powers that be say, "Well, that was, you know, that was just, uh, people buying drugs or something. I don't wanna investigate that," or, you know, "That was just an accident. That was just a plane crash or accident." I think having the media be able to see the evidence and ask questions on that is something that could y- lead to investigations. Um, and also, I think we've got, uh, an exemption in paragraph five of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Accident Report Law, uh, that would shed some additional light on that also, uh, that's already there.

700. 4:43:58

     But this would provide, you know, under court supervision. Um, and, uh, also there could be a protective order component in the court case if, uh, you know, the media is requesting it, then the family, you know, could be notified and the court can, could limit that. And I think we do have a representative of the Georgia Press Association, Reagan Marsh, who could shed some light on some of these issues if the committee would like it. I think he testified earlier. But- I th- I, uh, I think we've gone beyond the scope of what was on the table when he testified earlier.

701. 4:44:30

     But I think he can shed light on the recently raised issues if, if the committee would like to. Well, I got two more that wanna respond on this, and then I'll, I'll come back to Mr. Marsh. All right, uh,

702. 4:44:49

     Chairman Leverett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, to-- I just had a question for Representative Holcomb and then a quick comment. Representative Holcomb, when you were making your comments, I, I thought I understood you at one point to suggest that we might need-- and this kind of goes to a comment that, that Representative Evan made, Evans made about the word investigation. Were you suggesting that needed to be modified or limited in some way, so it was just criminal investigation or criminal or administrative investigation or something of that nature?

703. 4:45:23

     I mean, there may be an investigation for insurance purposes pending, but that's not, I think, what we're after here. Correct. I, I, I was trying to understand it because as it was presented initially when we were talking about the body cams, is it, it was only for those for which there was not an investigation. So those categories or circumstances where one would suggest there isn't a real public interest in seeing anything. Um, I did like, I think initially, Representative Evans' suggestion of involving the death as a qualifier on that.

704. 4:45:58

     I think that makes sense i- in terms of what it might be, whether it's civil or criminal. A- and, um, yeah. But the, the, the, the scope of precisely who this would apply to is still somewhat unclear to me, but I think that- The, the scope of, of whom, what would apply to, the exemption? Yeah. So I, I, uh, I, I don't know if this is the issue you're hitting at, but the, the, the act, it would apply only to agencies as defined in the act.

705. 4:46:30

     Correct. So this wouldn't apply to any private entity, and it's not creating any kind of, um, uh, you know, invasion of privacy cause of action. It's simply saying for procedural purposes, if an agency gets a request for records, what do they have to produce, and what do they have arguably some obligation not to produce, or are they not obligated to produce? So it's only gonna apply to things that are in the possession of an agency, and generally law enforcement, police departments, and that sort of thing can constitute those agencies. So, uh, but, but is that what you're a- are you asking to, to whom would the-- what kind of class of persons, in a sense, would be protected by the exemption?

706. 4:47:09

     Is that-- Okay, that's the question you're asking. And a- as I read it, it's just, it's applying to, you know, any kind of agency that's got now video recordings showing someone's death. Under this exemption, they're gonna have an obligation-- well, I don't know if it's an obligation, but they're not obligated at least to make available in response to an open records act request, documents which show that if the other circumstances in the statute are met.

707. 4:47:40

     And I, I think right now it's no pending investigation. Maybe that needs to be further elaborated, and disclosure would be an invasion of personal privacy, which is somewhat,

708. 4:47:53

     uh, I would say that, that, that is the determination about which reasonable minds could disagree. But I suppose that's why we have courts, 'cause the, the ultimate remedy if someone requests documents and they think the agency's not complying with the act, is they would sue to get a judge to construe those terms. So I don't really necessarily have a problem with that. Um, but I, I think we're, we're trying to figure out under what circumstances can the requesting party obtain, pursuant to an open records act request

709. 4:48:20

     the, the v- audio or video recordings that depict someone's death.

710. 4:48:24

     Right. And, and to, to accentuate the point just a little bit more is what I don't wanna do is exclude, for example, law enforcement involved shootings. Uh, I think there is a public interest in that, but I don't want to have just your private citizen who passes away from an accident or natural causes or suicide for that to be exposed.

711. 4:48:48

     So, I, I guess is your concern that, that more, more individuals or entities besides the current exception should be allowed access to those recordings even if they are of a personal nature if it's a, a, a law enforcement involved death?

712. 4:49:05

     Yes.

713. 4:49:09

     And look-

714. 4:49:09

     Because I think all that's covered now.

715. 4:49:13

     You know, would you think the current exceptions would permit, address your concern, or that's what you're trying to figure out?

716. 4:49:20

     That's what I'm trying to figure out.

717. 4:49:21

     Okay. Yeah. I, I would also note, I think Representative Reeves pointed out, there is an exception to uniform motor vehicle accident reports for news media organizations, whatever that means. And I think Representative Kelly's concern is in this context where it's such a personal thing, it's not just an accident report. He's worried that that exception would, would eat up the rule here, or that, that exception to the exception would eat up the exception. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

718. 4:49:52

     Okay. And Representative Kelly, last comment.

719. 4:49:56

     Well, well that was part of my point, and I kinda had a question. I'm not sure who's offering the amendment for this. I was gonna ask whoever's offering, whoever offers this amendment, I was gonna ask him a question, but I don't know who's making that motion, if we're gonna have one.

720. 4:50:11

     I don't recall.

721. 4:50:16

     Reeves.

722. 4:50:30

     You can withdraw the-

723. 4:50:32

     I haven't heard anybody offer it.

724. 4:50:38

     Make a motion for it.

725. 4:50:41

     Okay.

726. 4:50:45

     All right. Well, then I'll ask, do we have a motion for this amendment?

727. 4:50:53

     For subsection G?

728. 4:50:54

     Mm-hmm.

729. 4:50:55

     I move to add a subsection G which provides a Georgia legal organ, newspaper, licensed TV or radio broadcaster.

730. 4:51:10

     Do I hear a second?

731. 4:51:14

     Second.

732. 4:51:15

     Motion and a second.

733. 4:51:16

     Further discussion or amendment, Mr. Chairman?

734. 4:51:19

     I'll give you an opportunity to go.

735. 4:51:22

     I guess to the author of the amendment, is your intent with letting our newspapers or media have this just for their investigative purposes or for them to release or publish?

736. 4:51:34

     Investigative purposes.

737. 4:51:36

     Would you consider it a friendly amendment then if I were to offer language to provide for a right of action against those entities should they release this?

738. 4:51:46

     Yes.

739. 4:51:47

     Okay. Then I would have an amendment to the amendment.

740. 4:51:51

     Okay.

741. 4:51:52

     I would offer

742. 4:51:56

     ...

743. 4:51:56

     Um, private right of action speak peacefully accountable in my experience.

744. 4:52:04

     I would then add...

745. 4:52:10

     I'm gonna amend this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I'll have an amendment should this amendment pass, so I'll withdraw and hold for an amendment afterwards.

746. 4:52:16

     All right. All right. So-

747. 4:52:19

     It's not just, um, uh, Representative Derrick McCollum who amends this amendment.

748. 4:52:28

     Getting withdrawn that amendment.

749. 4:52:29

     All right.

750. 4:52:29

     Can, can I, uh, add for investigative purposes for it to read a Georgia legal organ, newspaper, licensed TV or radio broadcaster for investigative purposes?

751. 4:52:44

     Okay.

752. 4:52:45

     No, he, he-

753. 4:52:48

     All right. Well, let me ask it again. Do we have a motion and a second on that? That's different wording than what, what we had before. You making the motion?

754. 4:53:01

     I, I... Yes.

755. 4:53:03

     Just so it says.

756. 4:53:04

     Yes. A Georgia legal-

757. 4:53:05

     People know

758. 4:53:06

     ... organ, newspaper, or licensed TV or radio broadcaster-

759. 4:53:09

     It's a good finish

760. 4:53:10

     ... for investigative purposes.

761. 4:53:13

     Holding in, I suggest.

762. 4:53:16

     Yes, sir.

763. 4:53:21

     All right. And you're making the motion?

764. 4:53:22

     Yes.

765. 4:53:24

     Do I have a second? I wanna reaffirm that. Do I have a second?

766. 4:53:32

     Okay. Motion and a second. I think we've discussed it enough. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed?

767. 4:53:42

     No.

768. 4:53:44

     Show of hands, please. All those in favor, raise your hand.

769. 4:53:51

     Those opposed?

770. 4:53:55

     It defe- it's defeated. All right. Now, we're running into Chairman Smith's time right now. Um, we do have the amendments, uh, that we've already passed.

771. 4:54:10

     Amendment.

772. 4:54:11

     Okay.

773. 4:54:11

     Chairman, thank you. Um, with, with discussions, um, I know that we believe that this isn't going to infringe on the criminal discovery, but just with all the excep- exceptions and, um- Different codes and et cetera, I just wanted to put in language that is going to make sure that it does not interfere with criminal discovery on both sides.

774. 4:54:41

     And so my amendment would be to subsection A of code section 50-18-72 to read, "Except as required by Chapter 16 of Title 17," comma, would be inclu- would, would be the language that I would like to input in that section. Insert.

775. 4:55:08

     So A of the statute.

776. 4:55:09

     A of the statute 50-18-72 A, I would include language, "Except as required by Chapter 16 of Title 17," comma, which is the discovery section.

777. 4:55:27

     Everybody clear on that amendment?

778. 4:55:28

     So we're adding that not just to this exception to the entire exception statute?

779. 4:55:32

     That's correct. To this entire statute.

780. 4:55:38

     And that is the entire open records act, or all of exceptions?

781. 4:55:44

     Which?

782. 4:55:45

     There's... If I can make conforming changes to both the title and the directory language that would be required to expand the scope of this language, I can make... If I have the committee's approval to do that, I can do that.

783. 4:55:55

     That'll, that'll be the committee's instruction to you, yes. All right.

784. 4:56:03

     Any further discussion? All those in favor of the Hong amendment?

785. 4:56:13

     I.

786. 4:56:13

     Those opposed?

787. 4:56:16

     I'll have to-

788. 4:56:18

     It's a very weak approval there, but

789. 4:56:21

     Maybe.

790. 4:56:22

     Okay

791. 4:56:23

     Maybe. Absolutely.

792. 4:56:26

     All right. Then it, it, it passes. It, it weakly, but it passes. All right. Now, um, any further amendments?

793. 4:56:40

     Representative Holcomb.

794. 4:56:41

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, uh, I wanna offer up on line 11 after death an exception to cover what I've been talking about. So to add, um, except in cases of deaths, of civilian deaths involving a law enforcement officer in the course of his or her duty, because I think that there is a public interest in being able to have access to that.

795. 4:57:11

     Yes, except in cases of civilian deaths involving a law enforcement officer in the course of his or her duty.

796. 4:57:27

     Have to-

797. 4:57:29

     Line 11 after death,

798. 4:57:34

     and then I think we'd have to add or when there is no pending investigation. So add an or after that.

799. 4:57:43

     Okay. Representative Kelley.

800. 4:57:46

     I guess to the, the offered amendment, do you still not think that... Or do you think that that decision still should, should be made by the next of kin, should they want that?

801. 4:58:04

     I think there's a societal interest because it involves law enforcement.

802. 4:58:09

     Even if, and I know you, I think I know that you're, you're, you're concerned about officer misconduct, but I'm also wondering just about situations where it's not officer conduct, but it's an officer-involved shooting.

803. 4:58:27

     Right.

804. 4:58:38

     Yeah, I, I think of those I'd probably prefer greater transparency, but your point is well taken,

805. 4:58:46

     and I don't know how to carve out the distinction between those two categories either. I don't know if you can think of something.

806. 4:58:53

     Well, I, I thought it would be covered just by giving the next of kin to have the opportunity to make that decision for the family.

807. 4:59:02

     Right.

808. 4:59:06

     All right. Chairman Smith, we're eating up your time right now. You okay?

809. 4:59:15

     No.

810. 4:59:20

     No. Ah.

811. 4:59:20

     Okay.

812. 4:59:23

     All right. Do I have a motion and a second on the language from Representative Holcomb?

813. 4:59:33

     Second.

814. 4:59:34

     Move and second. All right.

815. 4:59:36

     Sure.

816. 4:59:36

     Any further discussion?

817. 4:59:40

     Jen, about the amendment that I just seconded, um,

818. 4:59:46

     I'm wondering about the or.

819. 4:59:49

     You're, you're making all of it exceptional, right?

820. 4:59:54

     Well, I think when there's no pending investigation is when this whole thing could apply, and I think if we say except, then we're accepting-

821. 5:00:04

     Seconds.

822. 5:00:06

     I think what?

823. 5:00:09

     I, I'm not sure I'm going to vote for the amendment, but I think if y- if your idea is just to create an exception to the exception, if you insert it there, it sounds like you're making it that the rest of those clauses are exceptions. So I think it needs to be elsewhere.

824. 5:00:23

     That's my concern with the or, um, maybe at the beginning, except in case it... Put it before audio and video recordings. Yeah, at the beginning of line nine.

825. 5:00:34

     Karen, we gotta kind of watch the council.

826. 5:00:37

     Yes, sir.

827. 5:00:38

     I can suggest a, the, a drafting solution that would maybe minimize confusion, and that would be, uh, to essentially split this paragraph 26.3 up into subparagraphs such that this would begin, "Except as provided in subparagraph B," and then you could include this amendment language in that subparagraph to show that it would apply to all of it, um, and describing it without reading it out loud, but that would, rather than just having this kind of sh- run-ons of exceptions of other conditions, which I think is gonna be pretty wordy and maybe a little bit difficult to get-

828. 5:01:18

     Okay

829. 5:01:18

     ... a layperson applying it to really understand.

830. 5:01:22

     All right. I, uh, we're gonna take this up on Wednesday. What time we doing? 1:00?

831. 5:01:31

     Oh, it just moved.

832. 5:01:33

     1:00 Wednesday, we're gonna finish this bill up. We've got too many things going at once. I'm gonna give y'all a chance to get it worked out, and I'm gonna turn the room over to Chairman Smith.

833. 5:01:49

     All right.