House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, February 23, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:12:20

   Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started. I'm gonna call on Representative Byrd to open us up in a word of prayer. What number are you, number 13?

2. 0:12:26

   13, it's up one.

3. 0:12:32

   If everyone would kindly bow their head please. Most gracious Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and for, for granting us the opportunity to be in your divine presence. Be with each and every person in and around this Capitol, watch over families as we do the people's work, and give us traveling mercies to and from the Capitol. I ask that you grant us clarity of mind, wisdom to understand, so that we may make decisions that are right in your eyes. We recognize that every action we take sow seeds for tomorrow and for future generations.

4. 0:13:04

   We ask all these things in Jesus' name. Amen.

5. 0:13:08

   Okay. Well, welcome out everyone, honored guests, judges, DAs, defense lawyers, thank y'all for being here. Glad to have y'all.

6. 0:13:23

   Just a note real quick, there are some changes still being made between the bill author and some folks helping with Chairman Leesa Hagan on House Bill 1142, so that will be moved to Wednesday.

7. 0:13:40

   Which one, excuse me.

8. 0:13:42

   1142.

9. 0:13:47

   And at the request of Chairman Rob Leverett, we're removing House Bill 997, and we'll try to hear that on Wednesday. First up, we're gonna have House Bill 1324. I don't know if Ridley's here yet.

10. 0:14:09

    He's at another committee meeting.

11. 0:14:09

    Okay. We'll, we'll come back. We'll come back. All right. Then we'll go with House Bill 421, Representative Taylor, who has spent the most time with judiciary non-civil out of any member this session, I believe. So come on down.

12. 0:14:31

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I appreciate all the help that you have been to try to perfect this bill. Um, I'm working off of a sub LC481780S, and w- we've cleaned it up, made it so simple and easy. This has to do with traveling, uh, from another state for the purpose of molesting a child or indecent, um, acts. And what we did under Section 1 of 16-6S5, added the simple lines of, um, "Or taking a child under the age of 16 to any place whatsoever, or travels from another state for the purpose of child molestation." That's just adding it to the code.

13. 0:15:14

    It had been left out, and this will clarify it.

14. 0:15:18

    Thank you, Chair Lady Taylor. Um, thank you for those that helped us get this amendment. I appreciate your-

15. 0:15:27

    Thank you

16. 0:15:27

    ... uh, long-suffering patience as well. All right, so let's see. I have several si- or, let's see, just one. Uh, Robert Smith with PAC, do you want to testify?

17. 0:15:41

    Answer questions.

18. 0:15:42

    Okay. All right. Any questions from members of the committee?

19. 0:15:52

    We'll have to come back on that one. We've got members of the other committee, so we'll vote it once we get back to voting power.

20. 0:15:58

    Okay.

21. 0:15:58

    We're gonna go ahead and go through here, and so we'll come back to you.

22. 0:16:01

    Okay.

23. 0:16:05

    All right. Next up, Representative Hilton. Scott Hilton. Come back.

24. 0:16:18

    Representative Lupton.

25. 0:16:24

    She had to leave. You didn't get any thoughts she needed?

26. 0:16:26

    Okay. Well, I'm gonna go back to Representative Jason Ridley, House Bill 1324.

27. 0:16:33

    I don't even know where my man is. Oh, Lord.

28. 0:16:37

    Come on down.

29. 0:16:38

    There, I hear you. Oh, God. All right.

30. 0:16:44

    Been over in education since I got me warmed up. Here we go.

31. 0:16:48

    Go ahead, when ready.

32. 0:16:51

    All right.

33. 0:16:58

    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we're on House Bill 1324, LC394953.

34. 0:17:09

    Everybody got that one? All right. All right, I'm gonna let my man here take over, 'cause this is a little bit above my pay grade. He can explain it better than I can.

35. 0:17:18

    Yes, sir. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Knox Williams. I'm with the president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association. Today I'm testifying in support of House Bill 1324, uh, which seeks to remove firearm suppressors from the definition of dangerous weapons in Georgia statute. Suppressors are hearing protection devices, plain and simple. Can y'all hear me? Is that coming through? Good. Okay. You can call them a muffler, a moderator, a silencer, a suppressor. These are all terms to describe the exact same thing, a vital tool that helps protect the hearing of hunters and law-abiding gun owners who simply want to exercise their constitutional rights without permanently damaging their hearing.

36. 0:17:57

    Suppressors are currently legal to own in 42 states and are legal to hunt with in 41. It is critical to note that no device can silence the noise of a gunshot. Physics simply will not allow it. However, suppressors absolutely reduce the dangerously loud noise produced by a gunshot to safer sound levels. According to Dr. William W. Clark, the director of Washington University School of Medicine's program in audiology, "The most serious threat to hearing comes from recreational hunting or target shooting." That is a direct quote. Multiple studies have found that between 70 to 80% of hunters never wear earplugs or earmuffs, and nearly half of all target shooters don't consistently wear traditional hearing protection.

37. 0:18:35

    That's why the CDC, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Hearing Conservation Association, the Academy of Doctors of Audiology, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery all recommend the use of suppressors as a tool to mitigate preventable hearing damage. I'm happy to read out a lot of, uh, direct quotes from studies from these different organizations, but in the interest of time, uh, I will leave it, uh, with that. Um, however, it is critical to note that even with traditional hearing protection, there are many instances where it is not safe from an auditory risk perspective without the use of a suppressor.

38. 0:19:10

    Um, access to s- to suppressors is indeed a matter of public health and safety, and this legislation s- simply seeks to ensure that law-abiding Georgians maintain their ability to purchase and possess these safety devices regardless of any potential future changes in federal law. For these reasons, I ask that you support House Bill 1324 and vote for its passage without delay. Would be happy to answer any questions.

39. 0:19:31

    Looks like you got one from the part of Jackson over here. Hold on a second. Uh, number seven, Representative Roberts.

40. 0:19:37

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. So help me out. Um, regardless of state law, currently federal law says that you can register under the National Firearms Act a suppressor. Is that correct?

41. 0:19:49

    That's correct.

42. 0:19:50

    Okay, and that requires a background check and I think a $200 tax is what I read, correct?

43. 0:19:55

    Well, um, I can tell you on this, my, my son builds these things so that's the reason I know. So currently the tax has been taken off, uh-

44. 0:20:03

    Oh, okay

45. 0:20:03

    ... in the big beautiful bill so you don't have to do that. So actually what you have to do, you have to set up a trust, um, and then you can own that through that trust. So, and it, that means every time you go buy one, you have to do your fingerprints, you have to go through the whole process. It takes about, about a month for it to come through, and then it's almost like a serial number is attached to your name.

46. 0:20:22

    Okay.

47. 0:20:23

    Um, he can't, I can't ever buy it from you. You can't... That's where the trust, if you have a child, you wanna move it over to them, then you can add them to that trust. But it can't ever be sold or anything, uh, so it's just, it's connected just to you through the ATF.

48. 0:20:38

    Okay, and so under current law, you could do that if, if... I mean, let's put aside that there are lots of other ways to protect your hearing while shooting than suppressors.

49. 0:20:48

    For sure.

50. 0:20:48

    Um, but under current law, you could go through that process regardless of this bill whatsoever, right?

51. 0:20:55

    Uh, yes, uh, but I think there was a change. There was one change that, that all states are having to do this because of some language variation whenever they came out with doing away with the tax stamp.

52. 0:21:06

    Okay, but your bill, what I read, because federal law is what federal law is right now, it would eliminate a state law charge that carries up to five years in prison if you possess a, um, suppressor. That's my understanding of what you're changing in the criminal code.

53. 0:21:26

    Uh-

54. 0:21:27

    Mr. Chair? Yes, ma'am. Um, so to clarify, uh, in order to purchase a suppressor, you do have to go through the National Firearms Act.

55. 0:21:33

    Right.

56. 0:21:33

    You can purchase either as an individual or through an NFA trust, which is what, uh, representative was, uh, discussing there. Um, you know, uh, as of January of this year, you are no longer required to pay the $200 tax that had been in place since 1934. And really what this legislation is seeking to do, uh, is just make sure that it complies, uh, Georgia statute complies with any changes in future federal law. Um, when you talk about, uh, you know, the availability for other types of, of hearing protection, I've got a, a, a direct quote from the Academy of Doctors of Audiology, and in one of their studies they state, "While the use of conventional hearing protection tools such as earplugs and earmuffs are fundamental for preventing noise-induced hearing loss in firearms users, conventional hearing protection alone does not always offer adequate protection from noise exposure.

57. 0:22:18

    Firearm noise suppressors can be an effective supplement to traditional hearing protection." So from our perspective, this is kind of like saying, you know, "Well, we don't really need seat belts because our cars already have airbags." A comprehensive approach is one of the most effective ways that, that, you know, CDC, NIOSH, ADA, NHCA all agree, uh, it makes the most effective way to help protect, in essence, one of our five hear- uh, senses, you know.

58. 0:22:42

    So I'm not-

59. 0:22:43

    Mr. Chair

60. 0:22:43

    ... I'm not arguing with you. We could get into that argument-

61. 0:22:46

    Sure

62. 0:22:46

    ... about the balance of public safety and the fact that la- it, it's harder for law enforcement to identify active shooters or other things. We could get into that argument. I'm really trying to drill down on the fact you just said it's a preemptive bill anticipating some change in federal law. What I'm trying to get at is tomorrow, if this bill passes tomorrow, the only person that I can see that benefits from this law is the criminal who now will no longer be held, be charged with an enhanced penalty if he commits a crime with a gun.

63. 0:23:23

    Otherwise, this is just preemptive assuming federal law is gonna change, but rather than a, a legal law-abiding gun owner can go through these other processes you guys have just said are available, this bill only helps the criminals.

64. 0:23:40

    Mr. Chair, may I respond?

65. 0:23:42

    Uh, I'll remind members this is question period. I'm more than welcome to discussion later on, but keep it to questions at this point. Number six, Representative Neal.

66. 0:23:55

    Thank you to the chair. Um, hello to the author.

67. 0:23:59

    How are you?

68. 0:24:00

    Doing good. Um, so I guess my first question is, um,

69. 0:24:06

    what has triggered the need for this bill? 'Cause e- f- even for myself, and shooting is a sport. It's an optional activity. What has triggered the need for this bill, um, being that we do have ear protectants available for everybody? What-

70. 0:24:19

    Representative Neal, I-

71. 0:24:28

    ... a hole in state law.

72. 0:24:30

    Okay. Thank you to the chair. Um, additionally, um,

73. 0:24:37

    um, is it not true or do you believe, 'cause you mentioned hunters and how 70 to 80% of them don't use, uh, ear protection, um, do you believe, and you let me know how you feel, if you cannot handle listening to, if you can't handle listening to the, um, gunfire, that you sh- probably shouldn't hunt, or you probably shouldn't do the sport if you can't handle that?

74. 0:25:09

    Because you've been, we've been hearing this from, we've been having this situation since the beginning of, of shooting. Like, like, it's one of those things, you understand that even with putting your ear muffs on, there's a certain level that you're going to have to endure if you're going to choose to do the sport of shooting. That was the question.

75. 0:25:28

    Well, I, I would answer that like this. Uh, a lot of... M- my uncle was a state trooper. Um, a lot of those guys have, even today, their ears ring constantly. Some of them so bad that they've actually went and had their, had it cut to where they, they're just completely deaf 'cause it rings constantly. Far as a hunter wise, I mean, y- it's hard to hear what, if you're hunting deer or squirrels or whatever you're hunting, it's hard to hear them coming if you got on, if you got hearing protection on. So a lot of times you don't have it on.

76. 0:25:59

    Well, you don't ever have it on 'cause you can't hear them, but then when you fire off a r- gun, then every time you do it's gonna affect your hearing.

77. 0:26:07

    Okay. Uh, so outside of that, I think, and I'm gonna address my other issues, uh, when, during the discussion period, but my biggest concern is that I just feel like with this bill and a few others we've done in the past, if you're just, if you're not, if you can't handle hearing the guns, if you're, if you, you need a silencer to hunt, maybe you're not a good hunter, and maybe you shouldn't be shooting. Like, these are just things I feel like we need to keep in our, in, in the front of our minds when we're doing bills like this, um, just moving forward. So thank you for the, the question.

78. 0:26:42

    All right. No other questions. Thank you. If y'all want to slide over to the side, we'll get the comments.

79. 0:26:52

    Knox Williams. Oh, that w- Okay, I gotcha.

80. 0:27:03

    Uh, let's see, Heather Hallett.

81. 0:27:12

    Which one of these is this?

82. 0:27:14

    Get it.

83. 0:27:14

    Okay. Thank you. Um, I'm Heather Hallett with, uh, Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, and I'm just here to provide comment. Um, I, I guess I would like to return for the public need for this legislation. Um, uh, uh, there are devices that help deal with sound, um, for people who are shooting firearms, and those devices don't interrupt public safety.

84. 0:27:44

    The silencer would interrupt public safety. We want our law enforcement to be able to hear, um, when weapons are fired. Um, it kind of seems like a natural consequence. I'm a parent, so we talk a lot about natural consequences. That seems like a good natural consequence of firing a gun in the public space. Um, I, I guess I would also like to echo if the only change that is triggered by the implementation of this bill would be to reduce criminal penalties for people who are using silencers, um, as an affront to public safety, I would hope that that would be the preeminent, um, impact that this committee would look at.

85. 0:28:31

    Um, again, you know, we, I would expect that when we're looking at bills, that we're thinking about the impact on the public as a whole. And while I completely understand the, um, that gunfire is loud, um, there are other ways to mitigate that hearing that do not pose a risk to public safety, and I would hope that public safety would be the preeminent goal of any legislation.

86. 0:29:01

    So, um, and Georgia Majority represents, we are a bipartisan coalition, lots of gun owners included. So I just want to make clear that this has nothing to do with, um... It's, it's about safety. So thank you so much.

87. 0:29:17

    No questions. Thank you. Uh, is that Michael Green-

88. 0:29:23

    Greenwald.

89. 0:29:23

    Greenal- How do you pronounce that? Greenal?

90. 0:29:26

    Greenwald.

91. 0:29:27

    Greenwald. Come on down. Go ahead.

92. 0:29:32

    My name is Michael Greenwald. I represent Georgia Clinicians for Gun Safety. Georgia has a number of severe problems when it comes to gun violence. It's the number one cause of death in children. It's the number one cause of death in pregnant women. This is one of the states that you get a stolen gun from in other parts of this country because it's so easy to get them because they're not secured. Um, we do not have a gun noise problem. That's not priority for Georgians. Um, I would encourage gun owners to wear head, hearing protective devices for sure.

93. 0:30:04

    We do not need to make silencers easier. We need to make everything safer for Georgians, and that's the viewpoint for Georgia Clinicians for Gun Safety. Thank you.

94. 0:30:14

    See no questions. Thank you for coming. All right. Let's see. I think that's all I had signed up. Anybody that I missed? All right. Gentlemen, we'll come back to you here shortly. Okay

95. 0:30:33

    Next up, I'll go back to, uh, Representative Scott Hilton. Chairman Hilton, come on down. House Bill 1290.

96. 0:30:47

    Got a pretty good prosecutor with you there, too.

97. 0:30:50

    Thank you, sir. Much appreciated.

98. 0:30:52

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Honored to bring you House Bill 1290. I'll be reading from LC481704. Uh, this bill seeks to help our, uh, seniors and, and m- and, and disabled individuals by changing some language in two areas. Number one, uh, you'll see on lines 12 to 15 there, we are changing coercion to without consent. The rationale there being, as we discussed in subcommittee, you are not able to converse- coerce someone who is mentally incapacitated.

99. 0:31:28

    Think about someone who's in a coma. You can't coerce them, but you can certainly do things to them without their consent. So that helps close that loophole there. And then the remainder of the bill closes the loophole of those who seek to abuse, um, our senior citizens, our elderly, uh, and those with disabilities. They will be added to the sex offender registry, which they are not currently today. And I'll ask my attorney if I... Did I...?

100. 0:31:56

     You got it.

101. 0:31:57

     I'm married to one, but I am not one, so I, I try my best.

102. 0:32:01

     One of the best decisions you made in life. All right. Any questions from members of the committee?

103. 0:32:13

     Was there a loophole in the case law that we saw that judges... Was it a misapplication of the law? Because I feel like sometimes we have to do a coloring book for people to understand what the statute says.

104. 0:32:26

     It, it was a, um, gap, Mr. Chairman. There have been some instances where... And Will Johnson with the Prosecuting Attorney's Council. Um, there have been some instances where a pers- an elderly or disabled person was, um... Do you mean on, on the law itself or the, um, sex offender registry?

105. 0:32:51

     On the elder abuse side.

106. 0:32:52

     On the elder abuse side. There have been several cases where we had persons who were comatose in facilities, and, um, we were not able to prosecute because you cannot coerce someone who is not awake and alert and understanding the coercion. Consent is a much easier, um, and clearer standard because it relates to capacity.

107. 0:33:20

     Okay. I see no other questions. If y'all want to slide over to the side, we got...

108. 0:33:26

     Yep.

109. 0:33:29

     Let's see. Okay.

110. 0:33:40

     I see nobody else signed up for this one. Did we miss anyone? Okay. All right. We'll come back to you here shortly, Representative Hilton, if you want to just have a seat over to the side. Uh, let's see. Floor later, floor later, Gambill. I think he had to go to another meeting. All right. Representative Ehrhart, House Bill 1076.

111. 0:34:12

     Come on down.

112. 0:34:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

113. 0:34:29

     Thank you so much. Um, it's my pleasure today to present to the committee HB 1076, a public safety bill with the purpose of protecting the lives and well-being of law enforcement officers, as well as members of the public. Joining me today is, uh, Chuck Clay, a former Georgia state senator who served 12 years on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He also served six years as a prosecutor for the Cobb County Solicitor's and DA's offices. This bill, uh, in a nutshell, would make it a felony to use a motor vehicle to knowingly obstruct, hinder, block, or otherwise interfere with law enforcement in the discharge of their official duties.

114. 0:35:09

     Currently, this offense is prosecuted under a more general obstruction law found in Code 16.10.24. It's currently a misdemeanor and makes no distinction between obstructing with a body or obstructing with a 3,000-pound motor vehicle. The reason for carving out obstruction with a motor vehicle from the general obstruction code is because of the dramatically enhanced risk of danger and personal injury associated with using a 4,000-pound vehicle to obstruct an active police operation.

115. 0:35:41

     If this vehicle, at the same time, is also driven by someone with the intent to obstruct or impede that operation, the outcome could be, and sometimes is, dire for both our law enforcement officers and the people engaging in the obstruction. It is dangerous conduct and should be taken seriously. Georgia is not alone in this concern. From 2020 to 2025, there has been a 230% increase in state-level bills filed to combat vehicle-related crime like this one.

116. 0:36:14

     Why is that? Let's be very clear about the danger. Over the past 20 years, motor vehicle-related incidents, on average, have been either the number one or number two cause of death and injury to law enforcement offic- officers, second only to gunfire. From 2023 to 2024, deaths to on-duty law enforcement officers as the result of motor vehicle incidents rose by 48%. The danger is real.

117. 0:36:45

     A motor vehicle in the hands of an ill-intentioned person is a lethal weapon. The goal of HB 1076 is to provide an enhanced deterrent to obstruction with a motor vehicle by increasing the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony. It is likely that in some situations, many individuals who engage in obstruction don't anticipate that their actions could actually end in injury or death to themselves or law enforcement off- officers. We want to deter this crime before injury or death occurs.

118. 0:37:16

     With motor vehicles, a non-dangerous situation can escalate in a matter of seconds to a violent or deadly scenario. As with all criminal offenses of this nature, intent, of course, will need to be proven and will be a prerequisite for a conviction of this crime. Uh, it is worth stating that both the chiefs of police and the Sheriffs' Association support this bill. The Prosecuting Attorney's Council does not oppose the bill. Uh, ladies and gentlemen, that is it in a nutshell.

119. 0:37:47

     Um, I'm certainly happy to see if our, my partner and friend here, uh, Chuck Clay, has any comments he'd like to make.

120. 0:37:54

     Uh, very briefly, uh, Mr. Chairman. I, I, you can tell I obviously checked to see what you'd be wearing today. So, uh, uh- ... I wanna thank you for giving me the heads-up. Um, I, and I will be very... The other thing that I would like to poi- point out, you know, back in my day, you had an obstruction, which is a misdemeanor offense, and it was normally at a scene where maybe it was a family or a friend, or there was alcohol, and there's a- agitation, anger, uh, and the laws were adequate. We did not anticipate, and we also knew what an aggravated assault on a police officer was, and whether it was hitting somebody with a car, trying to run them down, shoot at them, threaten you, those type of direct threats that already a, a law is in place.

121. 0:38:34

     We did not anticipate, uh, nor did law enforcement, a time and place. When you look at instances like has occurred in street racing in Atlanta, when you had that small tragedy at the Wendy's that was burned down, you had people with the intent of not assaulting police officers, but the intent with their vehicles, their, their vehicles to very consciously prevent, in street racing, to prevent a, uh, law enforcement having access to, uh, uh, to the perpetrators. Uh, at a scene like occurred at Wendy's, you had officer, uh, you had folks blocking roads, threatening people, and in fact, preventing law enforcement and creating an incredibly dangerous scenario for all involved.

122. 0:39:14

     So this is simply trying to take the facts that we see as today of individuals who are not responding to an emotional, instantaneous instant of bad judgment for which the misdemeanor o- of, of, offense applies, but these are people who are making very conscious decisions to use their vehicles to obstruct, uh, directly obstruct, but while obstructing, putting people's lives in danger and thwarting, uh, the u- the, uh, the process and the investigation by officers on scenes that can change dramatically.

123. 0:39:44

     Time is instantaneous, and those people who do this ought to be subject to the kind of fine and penalty, uh, that is, uh, that is, uh, uh, presented in this bill. And I'll hush up other than saying it's always an honor and privilege. If I can answer any questions, certainly the author of the bill, be happy to do so. But again, thank you for your time.

124. 0:40:03

     Okay, you have one, looks like Party of Jackson again. Representative Panitch.

125. 0:40:09

     Thank you. Um, I have a question. Y- and you menti- or your witness mentioned, uh, the, the Wendy's incident. Are you saying that no one was charged in that case because there was a gap in the law?

126. 0:40:25

     There were people charged in the case, people charged with some very serious offenses. But there are those that may be involved in peripheral conduct that, if not an aggravated assault, would have fallen within the parameter of a misdemeanor offense. So I do not for o- one minute intimate that people cannot be charged with conducting, uh, uh, uh, specific crimes, whether it be aggravated assault, whether it be assault on a civilian, uh, whether it be a m- a misdemeanor obstruction. Uh, but there are those who consciously involve themselves with vehicles, uh, in obstructing law enforcement that i- creates enhanced danger towards, uh, the process of law enforcement and investigation.

127. 0:41:02

     But I, by no means, want to, uh, intimate that I think there are, there are no other charges that can be applicable in a scenario.

128. 0:41:09

     Okay. May I have a follow-up?

129. 0:41:11

     Sure.

130. 0:41:11

     So, uh, is the purpose of this bill to raise this from a misdemeanor to a felony if somebody was obstructing with, with what you believe to be, or what you believe that, that they are obstructing with their vehicle? That is, that is the purpose of the bill. Okay. It absolutely is. And if I may follow up, uh, Representative Panitch, I know that you'd made a remark, I believe, in subcommittee about, um, questioning why we would have a felony for a nonviolent offense. And, um, I just, uh, would like to just kind of maybe touch on that just very briefly, that, uh, thi- this offense and offenses like it are, are classified as felonies because they involve a great risk and potential danger.

131. 0:41:49

     Um, and legislatures often treat, uh, weapons-related conduct, um, as inherently dangerous due to the serious possibility of, well, not only a de- death and injury, but just rapid escalation of an already precarious, uh, situation. Thank you. Thank you.

132. 0:42:10

     Number five. Representative Holland.

133. 0:42:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Madam, uh, Representative, I was under- so much has been spoken about, um, obstruction. Uh, I was wondering, uh, were you familiar with, um, Title 16, uh, 16-10-50, hindering, uh, hindering apprehension that is currently on the books? Um, you know, f- were you, were you actually aware of that, and how does this bill, uh, actually replace that? Right. And I'm, I'm, I'm sorry if I'm not familiar with that particular p- part of code.

134. 0:42:46

     Um, I know that currently we have obstruction laws on, on the books in 16.10.25. Um-

135. 0:42:55

     I- I- I divide

136. 0:42:56

     Oh, right, yeah. And thank you for that. And thank you for the, uh, reminder, uh, uh, Mr. Clay. Um, that this bill, remember, this is... That is not addressing specific danger as a result of utilizing a motor vehicle to obstruct, and that's kind of the purpose of this. We're- we're in- in- in- in- in- in a better mode of explo- I... We- we view of it very different from an individual. Let's say someone's approaching a police officer looking to obstruct, and they're doing so by yelling at the police officer, or they're waving their arms. We're- we're viewing that very different than actually injecting a- a- a large automobile, uh, a heavy piece of equipment, um, into the center of a police, active police operation.

137. 0:43:34

     We view this as very different, and- and hence the need for this particular enhanced penalty.

138. 0:43:40

     Thank you. Um, a small follow-up, sir, if that's okay. Uh, I'm noticing, um, particularly with looking at the culpability of the person, um, that the intent is only based around, um, their knowing or rather should- should have known. And, um, I was actually curious as to, are you familiar with, uh, cognitive, uh, dissonance, um, when with respect to the stress of a s- of a situation? Uh, and I'm just saying it.

139. 0:44:11

     I know personally, um, having to, uh, remove children from a- a burning car and the driver themselves, uh, actually being excited because of the anxiety-

140. 0:44:22

     Mm-hmm

141. 0:44:22

     ... the pressures around them, the smoke and the cause of the fire, that in situations, um, where persons, um, may, uh, be in the middle of a, a law enforcement officer, um, arriving to the scene, and because of the immensity of the circumstances, they may actually freeze. That that is a common human response. Um, do you see that perhaps by this law going through, um, because it doesn't actually raise it to the level that the intentionality, um, is just at a- a possibly knowing, that you actually could not necessarily get, uh, criminals arrested, but maybe, uh, older persons, uh, our seniors, persons who themselves never find themselves in a position to actually respond in emergent circumstances?

142. 0:45:09

     Well, I think if you're talking about seniors or people that are in some way inhibited or encumbered from being able to understand intent, for whatever reason, the stress of a situation-

143. 0:45:16

     Yeah, any person

144. 0:45:17

     ... that, yeah, then- then that clearly would not reach that bar of intentionality that is set. And- and there are so many different ways. It's not the- the- the responsibility of this body or the legislature in general to- to set forth the guidelines by which a prosecutor would determine intent. Um, but certainly, uh, the intentionality is a very, very important piece of this legislation. That's why it's in the bill.

145. 0:45:37

     Obviously.

146. 0:45:38

     Um, so for... I'm so sorry, Mr. Clay.

147. 0:45:40

     No, go ahead.

148. 0:45:40

     These ize them. Um, I would just close that by saying, you know, there are just so many different ways to prove intent, um, you know, whether it be the actions before, during, and after the obstruction, um, the failure of an individual to c- follow or comply instructions, lawful instructions given by a police officer. I mean, these days we have body camera dash cams. We have video- video footage from bystanders. Um, I think that that benchmark for proving that intentionality is, is we are, uh, under most circumstances, well-equipped to determine that, or law enforcement as well, and prosecutors are well-equipped to determine that.

149. 0:46:12

     Um, I would argue that any scenarios that you just described, and, you know, I think you mentioned elderly people-

150. 0:46:16

     Right

151. 0:46:16

     ... or someone who just in the stress of the situation freeze, um, I would- I would believe that that would be outside the bounds of that intentionality, that they can't control that.

152. 0:46:26

     And so therefore the- the laws that are on the books currently address that, which in fact there's no need for an upgrade if that is something that can- can be decided in court.

153. 0:46:34

     But there's a- there's a need for an upgrade because of the danger associated with this particular type of behavior. Um, sometimes people will say, and I've heard the question asked today, "What is the need for this law? Why is there a need to carve out specifically obstruction with a motor vehicle?" And I would argue there are many reasons, one of them being a 48 inc- a 48% increase in law enforcement officer deaths as a result of motor vehicle related incide- incidents.

154. 0:46:57

     Just might also add, and y'all know this, very first thing you learn in law school is mens rea, and they pound it into you to intent, intent, intent to, uh, either ad nauseam or ad infinitum. Um, as you well know, you can impute intent from circumstances. You can also rebut intent by circumstances. Uh, the fact that there is a- a- an ability to charge doesn't mean charges will be made. There are other offenses, as you said, from hindering to misdemeanor obstruction to an aggravated assault on a police officer. Uh, likewise, as you well know, uh, uh, uh, and maybe it's too much, maybe it's too little, but during the process, the justice system itself, both the district attorney, counsel, a defendant will have, should have, and will have apple opportunity.

155. 0:47:40

     There's not a perfect answer, uh, but obviously you well know charges can be raised, charges can be lowered, charges can be negotiated, and quite honestly, I think having an array that you can deal with not only helps law enforcement, but also gives a greater leeway, if you will, to look at lesser included if the circumstances impute or if the circumstances, uh, uh, uh, i- in essence rebut intent altogether.

156. 0:48:06

     Representative, thank you for your question.

157. 0:48:11

     Thank you.

158. 0:48:11

     Number three, Representative Kendrick.

159. 0:48:14

     Yes. Thank you. Sorry I am tardy, and I'm sorry if you already answered this. Two questions. Um, so lines 18 through 20, just so I understand this, so we're raising the penalty, uh, to a felony even though there's no contact and no death that i- that occurs because of the vehicle. Is there anywhere else in the code section where it has a similar punishment, but there is no contact and no death that is associated?

160. 0:48:44

     I- I can think of, uh, quite a few. There are quite a number of felonies that are considered non-violent. Um, uh, I- I'm, one that comes to mind initially, of course there is damage to property, would be a bill that this house, this body passed, the House passed, uh, is in law now, and that is enhanced penalties for setting a police car on fire.

161. 0:49:00

     Mm-hmm.

162. 0:49:00

     Uh, it doesn't have to be any- any f- any harm to- Physical harm to people in that situation, that's a property damage, uh, and we enhance that to a penalty. Um, Mr. Clay may add-

163. 0:49:09

     I would also add, if I were to pick up a gun and point it at you, I would never do that.

164. 0:49:14

     Mm-hmm.

165. 0:49:14

     Um, that is an aggravated assault-

166. 0:49:16

     Mm-hmm

167. 0:49:16

     ... uh, in and of itself.

168. 0:49:18

     Okay. A- and my second question is, we keep talking, uh, we keep mentioning the word intent, and I just wanna m- make sure that I'm reading line 15, because I've seen it in code where it has to be knowingly and intentionally. Um, but we kept, in the last discussion, saying the word intent. And to me, intent and knowingly are two different words with two different meanings, so I wanna make sure that we are... I mean, I, I, I have problems with the bill, but I at least want the wording to be, be correct.

169. 0:49:53

     So is knowingly, on line 15, should it be knowingly and intentionally, uh, to be, um-

170. 0:50:01

     Right

171. 0:50:01

     ... consistent with the code?

172. 0:50:02

     Based on my conversations with Legisla- Legislative Council, um, I believe that they felt that by including the term knowingly means that the individual has an understanding of the action that he's committing and the, and the possible results of that action. Uh, so therefore, if they are aware, if they know that what they are doing is impeding that law enforcement operation, and they continue to act on that, as stated in the bill, uh, that that is implying intent. Uh, I don't know if, if Mr. Clay has a different, different take on that, but that is how it was, it was explained to me, is that those, those terms are intentional, uh, to, to the effect that you described.

173. 0:50:43

     I'm not sure.

174. 0:50:45

     Number six.

175. 0:50:47

     Thank you to the chair. So I guess, um, I'll probably, I'll discuss the other aspect of this, uh, during the discussion about, um, excessive charges, stacking. Just a little concerned about that, 'cause I fe- I feel like we can still write for this crime under 16-10, um, 24B, um, as a felony. Just having to explain what it is in the, when you write your police report or what have you. But, um, my other question is related to, um, you mentioned some percentages related to motor vehicle related incidents, and I want...

176. 0:51:20

     I was curious about how many of those motor ve- vehicle related incidents are related to an officer being harmed by s- you know, an assailant in a vehicle, because the percentages are already high because-

177. 0:51:32

     Right

178. 0:51:32

     ... law enforcement is already hurt or killed-

179. 0:51:34

     Right

180. 0:51:34

     ... because they occupy a vehicle when they're actually driving for their duties.

181. 0:51:38

     Understood. Understood.

182. 0:51:38

     Do you have the numbers related to it?

183. 0:51:39

     No, I don't ha- I don't have them broken, broken down by that, but, but those-

184. 0:51:42

     So the ones that you're reading currently-

185. 0:51:44

     The, the, the, the for... Yes, yes, that increase, that encompasses all, all motor vehicle related incidents. So all of those types of things have increased within that 48%. I do not have the exact number that the, or the amount that it has increased by. Um, but we know that, we, we know there has been a dratic, dramatic increase as relates to, to deaths of law enforcement in, in any and all motor vehicle related incidents, and it would include this as well.

186. 0:52:10

     Well, I think we wanna be careful for the purpose of this committee, like if we're gonna be giving numbers and we wanna, you know, assess your bill appropriately to make sure the numbers are related directly to-

187. 0:52:20

     Mm-hmm

188. 0:52:20

     ... um, what we're outlining here and not encompassing-

189. 0:52:24

     Right

190. 0:52:24

     ... the high number of officer injuries-

191. 0:52:26

     Right

192. 0:52:27

     ... or relating to when they're driving.

193. 0:52:27

     W- we know also, uh, when we talk about the incidents of a, of a motor vehicle being a deadly weapon, those numbers speak to the reality of the lethality, uh, of, of a motor ve- vehicle. So w- I think it, it kind of lends itself to the argument that, uh, g- it's obstruction. You know, what is the difference between obstructing one, uh, with the body or obstructing with a police vehicle, or with a, um, with a, with a motor vehicle? Uh, the concept then being there is that motor vehicles, however they are used, are a risk to the lives of law enforcement officers if they are in the, in the hands of people who have ill intentions.

194. 0:52:56

     Gotcha. Thank you.

195. 0:52:57

     Mm-hmm.

196. 0:53:00

     Number seven.

197. 0:53:02

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we know of another crime that carries $100,000 civil, I mean, uh, criminal penalty?

198. 0:53:09

     There are quite a few.

199. 0:53:09

     There's a current code section that if a felony does not provide within the particular statute, uh, for a fine, that it would be a $100,000 fine. So I can find that and send it to the general later.

200. 0:53:24

     Oh, I appreciate that. Thank you.

201. 0:53:26

     Of course- That doesn't mean they have to impose that. That, that, that, that's a fine out there that various ways to deal with. But probably the least concern on here, if that is an angst and you, the committee would like to address a matter-

202. 0:53:38

     I was just curious, so he, uh, Mr. Chair, and Senator Backhouse, I have one more quick question. I'm trying to figure out how a stationary car can be dangerous.

203. 0:53:48

     Um, based on my conversations with, with law enforcement, I've had an opportunity to speak to quite a few. Um, uh, the dangers a- associated with a, with a parked vehicle are, are actually numerous. Um, driving or, a driving or a parked vehicle with the express purpose of obstructing a police operation, we know that that is conduct. What are some of the concerns that could be related? For one thing, the, the parked vehicle has to get there, so oftentimes even after it's stationary and parked, it has been driven into a police operation and left there.

204. 0:54:21

     Um, some of the things that law enforcement brought up to me that are concerns with parked vehicles and how that can impede and put officers in more danger. Number one, it prevents emergency response. So given the situation where, where it is, if it's parked on a road, you inhibit the ability of other police emergency vehicles or ambulance, anything of that nature, to be able to access that location, uh, in a, in, in and surrounding that police operation. Um, it has a tendency to escalate situations. Um, it, um, it, it intrudes on the, on, on quite frankly, on the attention and the, um, the ability of that police officer to focus on the operation at hand.

205. 0:55:00

     This is one more thing that he has to deal with. Um, oftentimes, uh, the parked vehicle is just the next, uh- ... is just one, one step in an increasingly elevated situation. Either these vehicles are sometimes driven first to impede and then they're parked, or they're parked first and then they're driven to impede. Um, this is simply one more, one more step in an escalation of a volatile situation. I would say one of the things that, that in my op- in my mind that is most concerning would be the fact that you are preventing, uh, emergency vehicles or anyone from accessing that, that, uh, law enforcement operation.

206. 0:55:42

     Okay. No other question. Or there was one over here. Representative Byrd, are you wa- or Chairman Burchett, or Whip Burchett.

207. 0:55:52

     Well, yeah, th- th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to s- uh, ask the author, isn't it true that a, a parked vehicle could obstruct pe- people from entering or exiting a crime scene? Is that-

208. 0:56:03

     That is correct.

209. 0:56:04

     Okay. Thank you.

210. 0:56:07

     In other wo- in other words, act as a barricade?

211. 0:56:10

     Yes.

212. 0:56:11

     Okay.

213. 0:56:11

     Very much so.

214. 0:56:12

     All right. Thank you. I see no other questions. Uh, did PAC wish to comment on this? Mr. Chair, we don't have a position on that bill. Okay. Y'all don't have a position for or against. Okay. Correct. All right. Thank you. All right. Next up, uh, thank you, uh, Secretary R. Hart. And if you wanna slide over to-

215. 0:56:32

     Yes. Thank you

216. 0:56:32

     ... the left there. Uh, believe I have only one signed up, and that would be, uh, Gacnal. Macy?

217. 0:56:46

     Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Macy Lyng-Garton. I'm the Executive Director at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We spoke to this bill in subcommittee, so I don't want to belabor the conversation. I'll just review quickly our position, and also one thing that's come up today. The thing that come up today that I, um, did not mention the other day 'cause I didn't appreciate it till this moment, but if you look at line 20, the punishment scheme that's laid out here is a fine and imprisonment of one to five years. I'll just say very practically that when someone is spending time in prison, it's really difficult to pay off a fine.

218. 0:57:21

     So a- allowing the court to assess the situation and the financial situation of the person in front of them by making that and in line 20 an or, or, and then adding or both to the end, like we see in a number of our criminal code sections, would just be a much more practical response here, allowing for whatever fine is necessary, but not, um, setting people up for failure simply because they're having to go to prison and unable to pay that fine. Um, it is our position that, um, we understand that blocking a roadway does cause problems, and that right now you have a misdemeanor level punishment, but then you also have an aggravated assault level punishment.

219. 0:58:05

     And when someone does, um, cause an aggravated assault to occur where the victim is a police officer, and you'll know that you all raised the, the bottom penalty on that. If the person is a law enforcement officer in the course of their duties, the person that is convicted of committing an ag- assault against them will receive a sentence of a minimum of five years and a maximum of 20 years, which would cover things like a moving vehicle coming at an officer. There's no question but that a moving vehicle is a weapon. Um, however, we understand blocking a roadway is more serious and, and as I said in subcommittee, we would recommend that the committee consider an high, an h- a high and aggravated misdemeanor in that case, which does, um, raise the financial penalty from what it is now at $1,000 maximum to 5,000, and it takes away a majority of the good time that that person would get in jail if they were to get credit for time.

220. 0:58:57

     On a misdemeanor, they might be able to serve half of their time, but on an high and aggravated they can only get four days per month of good time. It would give, uh, a middle ground between the garden variety obstruction that we have today that is the lowest level misdemeanor and the ag assault that you've got when you really do have, um, harm to the officer. And that's all I would have to offer. If you have any questions, I would stand for those.

221. 0:59:22

     See no questions.

222. 0:59:23

     Thank you.

223. 0:59:23

     Thank you. All right. And I didn't forget you, uh, Zoraida Reyes Garcia?

224. 0:59:35

     Okay. I'm s- my apologies. Brandi Blue with the ACLU. Sorry, Brandi.

225. 0:59:39

     I was gonna say. Hello.

226. 0:59:48

     All right. Good afternoon chairman and members of the committee. My name's Brandi Blue. I'm a legislative fellow with the ACLU of Georgia, and I'm here today to oppose 1076. Basically just going to quickly echo some of the comments that have already been made by the representatives here. Um, there's two main issues we have with this bill. Under code section 16-10-24A, as has been referenced, general obstruction of a law enforcement officer is punished at the misdemeanor level. And subsection B of the same code increases the penalty to a felony if violence is used against law enforcement in the course of the obstruction.

227. 1:00:27

     If someone uses a moving ve- vehicle to obstruct law enforcement activities, that could easily be considered violence, and the person could be charged under subsection B of the code. And if for some reason that code section did not apply, section 16-5C-21 does. It establishes a felony punishable by one to 20 years in prison for aggravated assault with, quote, "Any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury." So in that way, the Georgia Code already has this covered.

228. 1:01:03

     Additionally, as some have mentioned, we take umbrage with the language about stationary vehicles. If the intention is to protect law enforcement from violence from someone using a car as a dangerous tool of obstruction, a moving vehicle can easily be seen as dangerous, but it's difficult to imagine the same threat from a stationary vehicle. With that in mind, we ask the sponsor and this committee for two considerations. First, since the code already address, addresses violent obstruction, the only language between the code and this bill is a fine.

229. 1:01:38

     Simply add la- la- language to subsection B of 16-1024 allowing for a fine that is comparable to other felony charges. Or secondly, if the sponsor still wants to put this bill forward, remove the word stationary from line 15 in the original LC. Thank you, and I'm happy to take any questions.

230. 1:01:57

     No questions. Thank you. Believe that all, that's all had signed up to testify unless somebody straggled in and we didn't get you on the list. All right, what says the committee?

231. 1:02:10

     Move to pass.

232. 1:02:11

     Move to pass. Do I have a second?

233. 1:02:13

     Second.

234. 1:02:14

     Second. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1076 LC 63-0048 say, "Aye."

235. 1:02:23

     Aye.

236. 1:02:24

     All those opposed?

237. 1:02:25

     No.

238. 1:02:26

     Okay, ayes have it. Okay, thank you. You're on the rolls. Get me the form and I'll sign it. All right, I'm gonna go back to House Bill 1324. Believe we had a discussion already. Representative Ridley, if you want to come on back to the seat.

239. 1:02:48

     All right. Now would be the time for discussion number six.

240. 1:02:56

     Thank you to the chair. Um, so I think, um, a few concerns I have are related to law enforcement who's expressed some issues with this. Um, they've used, um, gunshots to be able to go after active shooters. Even when I've trained, I've done the active shooter training when I was in law enforcement, we used the shooting to help guide us through a building and make it where we can, you know, get the assailant. And we watched countless videos across this nation, um, where officers have been able to neutralize the threat just simply because they were able to hear.

241. 1:03:29

     Kids who have been able to get rid, get out of the schools because they can hear and know to go the other way. There's so many ways that, um, uh, preventing silencers, um, can really help, uh, by not, by, by making where we don't touch the, the issue of silencers, make it where people can be safe, children can be safe, even when it comes to schools. Um, and even taking it a step further, um, the, the regular 911 calls. Even when I've responded to 911 calls in the past, just simply if I can hear the gunshots, I know where to go.

242. 1:04:00

     It just makes life easier on the road, and that has been, been expressed to me, um, through law enforcement who's communicated with me on this subject. And also to, to take, take it a step further, um, in recent years, uh, when the current President, uh, Trump was, uh, an assassination temp- attempt was made, after the first shot, four seconds later, the Butler County Emergency Service Unit was able to get shots off to that shooter to make it where he couldn't shoot anymore.

243. 1:04:31

     12 seconds later, that shooter was shot and killed by a counter sniper team from the United States Secret Service, and prevented them from killing the president, and prevented them from killing other people. So I just submit to you, I think this doesn't have to be a partisan issue. Um, not moving this bill forward today will really, um, aid in making sure our law enforcement can be safe, our children can be safe, and the current president can be safe.

244. 1:04:59

     Glad to hear there's so many Trump supporters over there on the offside of the aisle. Number seven.

245. 1:05:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I won't reiterate all of that from the law enforcement perspective. But also, uh, in 2019, the Virginia Beach shooting, a silencer was used, which led to more deaths as the shots weren't initially recognized. And since y'all have admitted here on the record that this is primarily a preemption bill presuming that federal law will change, and that currently under federal law you can register your silencers now to use hunting, the only people benefiting from this law are criminals who will no longer have an enhanced penalty if they use a silencer in the State of Georgia to commit a crime.

246. 1:05:43

     And so I'm opposed to a bill that only helps criminals and, um, is going to be to the detriment of law enforcement and our public. Thank you.

247. 1:05:58

     Number five, Representative Holly.

248. 1:06:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I do echo, uh, the considerations of my colleague seated to my right, uh, that in over 150 cities throughout the country, um, ShotSpotter, uh, which is actually currently known as SoundThinking, has been actively coordinating with police departments to actually, um, to find out where has been the source of a shooting. And while I don't think, uh, I think it's certainly arguable as to whether or not we, you know, might appreciate, uh, you know, a certain person in the Oval Office, I think just for the general safety, um, of making sure that, you know, our leaders, uh, are not gunned down without law enforcement being able to track, um, exactly where those shots come from.

249. 1:06:47

     And with, um, the ShotSpotter system, uh, being, uh, having a, a high accuracy, a rating of over 97% when it's used in the solving of crimes that it's actually effective, um, by taking that, um, out of the, out of the hands of, of s- uh, making it very harmful f- uh, I think you also, uh, additionally make it very tough for law enforcement to actually go about finding the originations of these shootings. That's all.

250. 1:07:23

     Number 12, Representative Panitch. In questions, right? I'm- This is discussion. Oh, okay. I don't... I came in a little late, so I missed some of the testimony, but I don't understand, maybe someone here can help me, how you would handicap law enforcement or why you would handicap law enforcement by not being able to find the source of the shots in favor of just helping people who want to hunt not have to wear earmuffs. I mean, I'm, I'm not understanding the...

251. 1:07:56

     I don't understand the benefit that compared to the risk, which harms everybody, anybody who hears a gunshot, to know where it is or what area to avoid. Um, and I, I'm just having a hard time understanding how you made that balance come out in the favor of a hunter who want, doesn't want to wear an earmuff. Thank you. Number 14, Whip Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So as someone that has heard a silencer, I don't know if how many members of this, uh, committee has heard a silencer, it is not like the movies.

252. 1:08:34

     You don't hear a . It is a greatly reduced percussion, but it is m- very, very audible to the ear, particularly with a large caliber rifle. You're gonna hear a significant sound, um, you know, i- i- you know, i- whether you're outside or inside, there's not... This doesn't silence guns entirely. I j- I just wanted to make sure the, um, the committee knows that. Uh, there's no silencer out there, and I have a close friend that is in that business, that will make it sound like the movies.

253. 1:09:07

     The gun is going to be audible from a long way away. Um, but it does reduce the sound to the shooter. T- thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman knows of what he speaks on that. Not like you'd see on GoldenEye on the old Nintendo 64, is what- ... I think he's trying to say here. All right. Uh, Representative Ridley, I'll give you the last word. Okay, thank you. Um, a- as, as, uh, Chairman Burchett over there said, this does not silence it. It's still loud.

254. 1:09:37

     It's just not as loud. It's just a suppressed sound. Uh, and as much as I've heard people complain about fireworks, uh, if you've got somebody next door that's shooting, you'll wish they had one of these on there. Um, and as far as the criminal side of it, these things cost more than the guns do. A silencer costs more than a gun does, a, a real one. Now, you can buy one online right now that you can screw a, a oil filter on. I, I mean, off... Just a redneck version of it, I guess is what you would call it, that'll do the same thing.

255. 1:10:08

     The, now that's something that's l- illegal. But this is actual ones that, that you have to have stamped, you have to have a federal license to have 'em. It's got, I mean, it's linked to you. Um, so i- it's just a whole lot different here in the city than I guess it is out in the country where everybody's shooting all the time. So, so that, that's, that's the crux of the bill. I mean, it's just, it's just quietens everything down. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion.

256. 1:10:38

     Do, do pass. All right. Her light was on first. All right, motion do pass. Sec- is there a second? Second. Motion do pass and second. See no amendments. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1324 LC394953, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. No. Ayes have it. You're on the rules.

257. 1:11:09

     We can do a hand count, sure. All right, all those opposed, raise your hand. Opposed. All right.

258. 1:11:19

     All right, you can put your hand down. All those in favor. Chair votes aye. You're on the rules.

259. 1:11:30

     All right. I'm gonna recall, uh, Representative Taylor's bill, House Bill 421.

260. 1:11:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

261. 1:11:51

     All right, go ahead. Okay, I would ask for your favorable consideration for House Bill 421 LC481780S. And, um, this just adds to our criminal code that if anyone travels from another state for the purposes of child molestation or indecent acts, they would have a criminal penalty. Okay. Move do pass. Got a motion do pass. Second. Second. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 421 Substitute LC481780S, say aye.

262. 1:12:27

     Aye. All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations, you're on the rules, finally.

263. 1:12:36

     Just bring it f- Chairwoman, if you'll go through the lobby there and come around, we'll get you signed. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. All right, next up I'm gonna call back, uh, Representative Hilton, House Bill 1290.

264. 1:12:55

     I'll give you the last word on this. Need a good bipartisan palate cleanser right here, you know? Uh- ... just let it swirl around. This bill, House Bill 1290 targets sexual ex- exploitation of an elder person, disabled adult, or a resident of a long-term care facility. In my initial presentation, I did leave out that we are changing, um, from it used to... It removes the, the requirement that a person must be a caregiver or authority position, uh, as, you know, uh, really anybody can, can

265. 1:13:28

     sexually exploit these people, whether it's a neighbor, a family member, uh, or, or someone else. So we don't want to prevent the prosecution just because of that, uh, there. And so I will pause for any discussion or a motion.

266. 1:13:43

     Motion to approve.

267. 1:13:44

     Second.

268. 1:13:44

     Uh, move to second. Do pass. Uh, discussion on this, number 13. Re- is that you, Representative Byrd? Go ahead.

269. 1:13:50

     Vote aye. Thank you.

270. 1:13:50

     All right. Discussion on it.

271. 1:13:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to be clear about this, um, Representative. So if there is someone that is considered one of those persons that happens to be in a hospital but not a residential home, as you stated, long-term care, would this also apply to them if they had been sexually abused?

272. 1:14:12

     I believe it just applies to long-term care facilities.

273. 1:14:14

     No, it applies across the board.

274. 1:14:16

     Yeah.

275. 1:14:17

     It's an elder person, disabled adult, or someone in a long-term care facility.

276. 1:14:22

     Okay, so if I am just a normal everyday person and I'm in the hospital and I happen to have something like that happen to me in the hospital, that's, I would not be covered under this bill.

277. 1:14:33

     You would be covered.

278. 1:14:34

     I would be.

279. 1:14:34

     Yes.

280. 1:14:35

     Okay. Um-

281. 1:14:37

     As long as you were in that, those three protected classes.

282. 1:14:40

     Elder, disabled.

283. 1:14:42

     Well, I guess I consider myself elder, but

284. 1:14:46

     Not to me, Representative.

285. 1:14:48

     Stop.

286. 1:14:49

     Spring chicken.

287. 1:14:49

     Yeah, right. And a follow-up question please, Mr. Chairman. And for compliance purposes, how is this going to be monitored and enforced? I mean, are we gonna have cameras, or are there cameras already in all these places so that, um, if someone comes forward and says, "I, this happened to me. I was raped, um, I was abused sexually," how will we know that? Please.

288. 1:15:15

     In some of the cases we have eyewitnesses. There have been some where a CNA caught someone in the act. Um, there are, there's no requirement the facilities have cameras, but there are a lot of folks that put granny cams, as they call them, in facilities and places. Um, if it's in the home, it could be any number of witnesses or home security systems. It would be case by case specific how we proved it.

289. 1:15:43

     Thank you.

290. 1:15:45

     Okay, no other discussion. I've got a move and a second. All those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1290, LC481704, say aye.

291. 1:16:00

     Aye.

292. 1:16:00

     All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations, you're on the rules. If you want, bring the-

293. 1:16:04

     Thank you, sir

294. 1:16:04

     ... form around, I'll sign it.

295. 1:16:06

     Yep.

296. 1:16:06

     All right, next up I'm gonna call House Bill 626, Representative Karen Lupton.

297. 1:16:12

     She's on her way.

298. 1:16:14

     Okay.

299. 1:16:18

     Uh, Inga, are you ready on House Bill 1390? Come on down.

300. 1:16:27

     And we're ready when you are.

301. 1:16:28

     Thank you.

302. 1:16:47

     Right back again. It's getting

303. 1:16:53

     weird.

304. 1:16:53

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the entirety of the committee. I'm Representative Inga Willis, and I present House Bill 1390. 1390 strengthens Georgia's reckless stunt driving law by addressing offenders in a meaningful way. The differentiator between this and the other progressive steps that we've taken as a state to address drag racing and stunt driving is that this focuses on the vehicle as the vessel and would allow it to be considered as contraband.

305. 1:17:27

     I have with me today Lieutenant Carlos Maldonado from Atlanta Police Department, who specializes in auto crimes enforcement and serves as its commander. As many of you know, we have a serious problem with drag racing and stunt driving in Atlanta, but it also impacts other areas. This is a subculture. It's a meetup culture. It's very hard to track. It has caused, uh, injury. It has caused multiple incidents. Uh, but this is not just an Atlanta problem. This is a Georgia problem.

306. 1:17:58

     So targeting the vehicle itself, known as the vessel, will further he- help combat this issue.

307. 1:18:06

     And one of the other things that makes this have a differentiator is this bill includes a hardship provision. If the vehicle is the family's only vehicle, then the court may transfer title to another licensed family member in the home if it would create undue hardship and it's the primary vehicle used to get to work. This bill is about deterrence.

308. 1:18:31

     The change is in the code section 40-6-390.1. In line nine you'll see the new language, which shifts to, "Any motor vehicle operated by a person who is arrested and charged with a violation of this code section is declared to be contraband and subject to forfeiture in accordance with procedures set forth in Chapter 16 of Title nine." I'll pause there, and I also have Lieutenant Carlos Maldonado with me to answer any specific questions and to speak to the hurdle that this presents to the Atlanta Police Department who seeks to combat this crime.

309. 1:19:09

     Thank you.

310. 1:19:12

     Seeing no questions from members of the committee. Oh, there's one. Whit Bucheit.

311. 1:19:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, is it, so we're just removing the provision that requires there have to be a, uh, has to be a previous violation of code section? So it is the first one, is that right?

312. 1:19:30

     Yes, sir.

313. 1:19:31

     Okay.

314. 1:19:31

     I believe that, uh- Adding more deterrence to the behavior. We already have penalties in place if you're a second time offender or third time offender, but it focuses primarily on the behavior participation and not on the vehicle itself as the vessel. You can't drag race, uh, on foot. If you can, I- I've never seen it, or they should sign up for track and field. But specifically with the vehicle, these vehicles take great investment. These are not the vehicles that we drive into the capital every day.

315. 1:20:04

     The, there are thousands and thousands of dollars put into these vehicles to make them, you know, supersonic in the ways that require you to be a great drag racer. Uh, so what this does, in answer to your question, is yes, it eliminates that language, but it also puts a focus on the vehicle as the vessel.

316. 1:20:19

     Well, thank you for the bill. I think it's a great bill. I was gonna ask, um, uh, the lieutenant, um-

317. 1:20:24

     Lieutenant Momtahan.

318. 1:20:25

     I'm sorry, Lieutenant Momtahan. So have you seen some of these, uh, Fast and Furious vehicles that we're talking about?

319. 1:20:31

     I have. Unfortunately, every time we have a big event weekend in the city, the street racers love to come out and put on a show, so it's very common.

320. 1:20:38

     Very good. So good bill. Appreciate you bringing it.

321. 1:20:44

     Thank you.

322. 1:20:44

     Number 6.

323. 1:20:47

     At the appropriate time, I was gonna make a motion.

324. 1:20:54

     Okay. Wanna make sure we don't have anybody signed up on there first. I'm gonna come back to your motion here shortly. Representative Willis, thank you for, uh, coming up here on such short notice.

325. 1:21:07

     Thank you.

326. 1:21:13

     Karl... Okay, I got you, Lieutenant. Thank you for that. I know where I'm not coming to drag at.

327. 1:21:24

     All right. Let's see. Blake Feldman, uh, Southern Center. Come on down, Blake. If one of y'all wanna scoot over and let him come by.

328. 1:21:40

     Good afternoon. I'm Blake Feldman, uh, senior policy counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights. Um, we oppose this bill, uh, and to talk a little bit why, um, so and this isn't the first time that this bill has been, uh, changed in some way. So in 2021, uh, the City of Atlanta asked for this, uh, bill and created this, uh, offense.

329. 1:22:11

     When they created it, because there was serious concern, um, about asset forfeiture, uh, being, um, quote, unquote, "policing for profit" and it, uh, there being mistrust in the community with law enforcement. It was one of the first bipartisan issues, uh, that I experienced. Uh, in 2015, working with the ACLU in Mississippi, the first thing I worked on all of a sudden, now Reason, Institute for Justice, Cato, uh, everybody was talking about asset forfeiture reform.

330. 1:22:46

     So in 2021, uh, through Senate, through House Bill 534 that created this offense, asset forfeiture would only happen when you were arrested for this offense if you were deemed a habitual offender, so after several convictions. Um, and then in 2024, they came back, and those graduated penalties that we've talked about, they upped, we upped those penalties, or not, the general assembly upped those penalties and also removed that requirement that when you're arrested, this guardrail before shifting the burden of proof from the government to the legally innocent person who's been arrested.

331. 1:23:28

     It was, you had to have been a habitual offender and have had a suspended license. In 2024, we reduced it to you just had to have one prior, uh, conviction. Today, uh, we're asking you to change the statute again, and it would be changing it to where there's no guardrail and it's just pure civil asset forfeiture. Just you've been arrested, you've been accused of something, we're taking your property unless you can prove otherwise, and that burden shift.

332. 1:24:01

     Um, we think for all of the reasons why, uh, p- there was bipartisan moves across the country to move away from asset forfeiture, uh, as a practice, uh, we just don't want to see that, uh, being retreated against, which is, uh, what this bill would do. And that's all I got.

333. 1:24:23

     All right. Number 5, Representative Holly.

334. 1:24:26

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, sir, for providing, um, your expertise. Was curious, is that, um, would you find it to be, uh, more defensible if it's, uh, per a conviction, um, that the asset would actually remove, uh, from out the hands of the person who was accused to a family member if it was a primary vehicle for family, you said you find in section 2? So for instance... All right.

335. 1:24:56

     Let's, let me make it clearer. You know. Um, if the person was charged and it was actually a family vehicle-

336. 1:25:01

     Mm-hmm

337. 1:25:01

     ... um, would you find it that this, this particular law would be, have made better, um, because afi- asset forfeiture is such a, a touchy issue, um, that it would have been better that if they're actually convicted, um, that the asset move out of their hands? I'm just, I'm trying to figure out.

338. 1:25:22

     Yes.

339. 1:25:22

     Yes. Okay.

340. 1:25:26

     Number 14, Quitman Cheokas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I missed your name. Will you give it to me one more time?

341. 1:25:32

     Sorry. Blake Feldman.

342. 1:25:33

     Blake. Mr. Feldman, has those... You, you went through, uh, the progression of where we have Um, strengthen the penalties for the street racing. Uh, my question to you is, has it worked? Have they stopped?

343. 1:25:49

     I, I think that if, I think if tackling this issue through this code section was the correct way to address this problem, then we wouldn't be here.

344. 1:25:58

     Right.

345. 1:25:58

     So I don't-

346. 1:25:59

     So it hasn't worked. So s- making a, um, uh, making it a stiffer penalty, you know, at, at least in my r- you know, my, my, my thinking is if I'm gonna race and they're gonna take my car, I may, may not race. Does that, does that comport with your rationale or no?

347. 1:26:19

     I mean, I think that, um... I think if that were the case, then lots of people would be having this seized upon, uh, that, uh, arrest after a prior conviction. Um-

348. 1:26:30

     So before, if I was, you know, an eager 16, 17, 18, 19-year-old and wanted to race, I, and I knew after talking to my fellow racers that, "You can't drive. You've been af- you've been convicted. Uh, you've been charged." Um, but Representative Byrd hasn't been charged. Not, not that you would be racing.

349. 1:26:52

     No.

350. 1:26:53

     But I mean- ... um, you know, someone that hasn't been charged could race is... My only point is that it seems like this is a problem, certainly not a problem down in South Georgia, but it is a problem that I've heard all my colleagues from, um, Atlanta, Fulton area are dealing with. They're trying to handle it, and I, I, I share some of the, um, concerns about civil as- asset forfeiture, but, uh, trying to cut this, this activity out. You have a suggestion how, how to do it?

351. 1:27:21

     Um, I just, I think that, uh... I mean, generally even enhancing penalties, the science showing that the likelihood of getting, uh, caught, uh, the likelihood of getting in trouble versus the, uh, extent of the punishment, uh, is usually has the greater deterrent effect. Um, I just think that, um...

352. 1:27:49

     I think that we are most concerned, or the reason why we shared concerns with people, uh, who have, uh, very divergent, uh, politics on lots of different issues is just that we're not talking about increasing a punishment generally. We're talking about completely shifting the burden of proof.

353. 1:28:09

     Yeah, I think that's, that, that's kind of w- like, where my mind's at is it seems like we can put folks in jail forever, and we can, you know, fine the crap out of them, and they still keep doing it. I mean, my truck's been broken into twice in Atlanta, um, in broad daylight at 11, 11:00 AM, uh, right there on Peachtree. And we have in- increased the penalties, increased the penalties. Now, now if we start taking their stuff, maybe they'll stop doing it. They can stop taking our stuff.

354. 1:28:35

     I've, I think, I, I think taking people's stuff after proving beyond a reasonable doubt just we would have much less concern than taking it because you've been accused.

355. 1:28:45

     That's fair. That's a fair... That's fair. Mm-hmm. Appreciate your testimony.

356. 1:28:50

     Sure.

357. 1:28:51

     Thank you.

358. 1:28:55

     Okay. Let's see. Number six.

359. 1:28:59

     Thank you to the chair. Uh, good to see you. Uh, so just a quick question, um, and, uh, I won't belabor the point, uh, after the, the whip has outlined some of the things I was going to question about. But, uh, in your opinion, do you view this bill as one where these people can't get the, their items back after a case has been disposed of?

360. 1:29:22

     Um, I think as, as, um... I'm not sure when this bill was added, uh, to the agenda, so I haven't had as much time, uh, to fully prepare, but, uh, in my experience, I think that, uh, property can be disposed of that's been seized before, uh, the termination of a case.

361. 1:29:46

     So if it takes you a long time to go to trial, it could be that that car's gone.

362. 1:29:52

     Gotcha. Um, okay, that's all I got for now.

363. 1:29:58

     Number 13.

364. 1:30:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for, um, this bill. Just curious, I'm trying to figure out, so if someone is drag racing, and they've had prior offenses, but they use their car f- to get to work or a family member does, the car would not be taken and put in a stockyard somewhere until the case is finished. It... Could you explain?

365. 1:30:25

     The hardship clause?

366. 1:30:26

     Yes.

367. 1:30:26

     Yes, I would. And Mr. Chair, if I may bring back up Lieutenant Maldonado, if that's okay. Thank you.

368. 1:30:36

     Thank you for the question, Rep Byrd. Um, the hardship clause means that if it's a financial hardship, uh, to the family that outweighs the benefit from the state, right? Um, and that family needs another family member, excuse me, needs that vehicle to get to work. That is where this comes into place, not back to the offender, but to, um, an additional family member who may use this car to get to work.

369. 1:31:07

     That's why that's put in. And, um, the lieutenant could speak to it more specifically from a law enforcement perspective.

370. 1:31:13

     Sure. And, and to that point, for clarification, the way it's already codified into law is that it can be used one time.

371. 1:31:19

     Okay.

372. 1:31:19

     So if that person was given the opportunity and the family was given the opportunity to use that vehicle, and then they're caught in that vehicle again doing the same type of act, that opportunity's already been used. They cannot use it a second time. And that's already written into the code section.

373. 1:31:32

     Okay. So if, um, follow-up question, if I am the driver of this particular car and I have already gone through the process before, I've been picked up and charged, but I need my car to get me to my job- that is a hard- that would be a hardship for me, would it not? Or just strictly for other family members that may use that car?

374. 1:31:53

     Sure. The way it's written now is that the vehicle, if it's the family's only source of transportation, and the loss of that vehicle would be that significant hardship for the family, it would not apply.

375. 1:32:03

     Just to be clear. So just to be clear.

376. 1:32:06

     Can't hear you.

377. 1:32:07

     That if I were the driver and I were making the one who is helping the family put food on the table, and I was the one that was caught using the car, and I need that as a purpose to get to my position, the car would still be in my position, in, in my possession. Is that correct?

378. 1:32:24

     That's the judge's discretion, right? Correct. That ultimately would fall at... It would be on the person to articulate that, but that would be the judge's discretion at the end of the day.

379. 1:32:31

     Very good. Thank you.

380. 1:32:34

     Okay, I think I skipped over Maisy Lynn with GACDL. I think you were signed up on this one.

381. 1:32:39

     We are. And I'd like to bring Andrew Hall with me.

382. 1:32:42

     Yeah. Andrew McCall, lawyer of the week for GACDL. Good to have you with us. Just tell us where you're from.

383. 1:32:47

     Thank you for having me. From Decatur.

384. 1:32:48

     Okay. Good deal.

385. 1:32:49

     Would you like us to sit down?

386. 1:32:50

     Whichever one. If y'all wanna slide over.

387. 1:32:52

     I'll slide over.

388. 1:33:03

     Again, I'm Maisy Lynn Garton, executive director at GACDL. This is Andrew Hall. He's a practitioner here in the metro Atlanta area who also has a background as a prosecutor, so comes with, uh, a lot of experience on both sides of the courtroom for you to draw from today. I would like to kind of follow up on some of the conversations that have happened so far. One is, um, Representative Byrd, you don't have to pass this bill to have the hardship. Um, it's already in the law. You'll see it there at lines 13 through 19. It's current law.

389. 1:33:33

     And to your point, it is not the person who's convicted who would have a right to re- to keep that car. In fact, the title has to be transferred to such other family member who is a duly licensed operator, et cetera, et cetera. So it, it does not contemplate giving, keeping that title with the person who's causing the harm. It contemplates keeping the title with the family so that the family isn't, um, suffering a hardship because of the behavior of one person in that family, and that's current law today.

390. 1:34:04

     That's happening right now. But here's the trouble, um, with Burchett. I would just love to talk a little bit more about the timelines here because in fairness to my colleague from the Southern Center, I don't think we have a sense of how well things are going yet because cases don't get to court this quickly. You know, the, the most of- the recent, most recent effective date of, um, a change to this code section is 2024. We're not even two years in, and this is a felony. Cases are... So they don't even move that quickly in state court.

391. 1:34:34

     So I don't think we know yet what the outcome of the changes that were made most recently are, but what I know is that if you dial back this recidivism piece here, you are definitely taking the property of someone who's simply accused of a crime, and that is our strongest concern. It is, would be our request that you give this law a chance to work, give it a chance to do what you were hoping it would do when you passed it, rather than continuing to make it more punitive by taking things before someone's convicted as a pre-adjudication punishment.

392. 1:35:11

     Um, and just consider waiting a bit before you move forward on a more, um, regressive policy measure.

393. 1:35:23

     You wanna say anything further?

394. 1:35:24

     I'll weigh in briefly if I may. Thank you for hearing from me. Um, a few different comments. So I do practice in Fulton County quite a lot. Uh, it varies on the timeline, but I would say at a, you know, rough ballpark, one to three years to get a felony through Fulton County. So to, uh, uh, the comment made by my colleague here about we don't have the data yet as to whether the, um, assembly's latest change to this law has been effective, we just don't know. It may, it very well could be effective or it very well could not be effective. Um, we just, there's an absence of data, and that's because of the timeline.

395. 1:35:57

     So what you're hearing, I respectfully submit with all, um, actually ran across Lieutenant Maldonado before. I like him a lot. Um, great, uh, law enforcement officer. Um, he's dealing with anecdote information real world right now. We don't know yet whether the, um, deterrent effect of this law has come into effect yet because we just haven't gotten these cases far enough through the judicial system. Another thing I'd point out is that the way the law is currently written is it has to do with the perpetrator's, uh, operation of the vehicle. It's not that the perpetrator has to, um, own the vehicle, and so that's pretty significant if you stop and think about it.

396. 1:36:33

     We can come up with any kind of hypotheticals. My college kid's off doing something they're not supposed to do, in state, out of state, whatever the case may be, but why would I be on notice of that? And as an innocent owner, there's no innocent owner provision in the law as it is. So without that innocent owner provision in there, perhaps the only thing that's saving it respectfully is the fact that the owner's on notice that the person that they have allowed to use their car has been previously convicted. That previously convicted I would say is a hugely important aspect of the law as it currently stands. I personally would, would prefer the law to say that once you're convicted, then the punishment of forfeiture would take into effect.

397. 1:37:10

     That's not what the law says. The law says we can seize it as a matter of civil forfeiture, which is a pretty expedited process and certainly favors the government, um, but it does require that person to have been previously convicted. So you're convicted. Car's not necessarily forfeited. You're operating the car a second time in, um, violation of the law, and at that point, now all of a sudden your car's subject to forfeiture. Well, you can see that makes more sense in some ways because at that point the own-, um, the owner of the car should have known, "Well, this person I'm giving the car to, car to has already been convicted before," and so you deal with an innocent owner.

398. 1:37:44

     So I'd respectfully submit, um, that you not change it, take out that, um- that requirement that's in there right now that they be previously convicted. I know this is not on the table. I will take it a step further. Probably, I think if we really wanna get effective, what you wanna do is look at the statute itself for this, um, crime, and look at changing things like forfeiture in that context, uh, either as well or in addition to. But I think respectfully, uh, you should keep the law the way it is. In fact, I think you need to, to avoid, um, undue fairness of the owner of the vehicle.

399. 1:38:18

     Al- also, I'm sorry, I didn't say, Representative Neal, um, people don't get their property back. Once it's forfeited, it's forfeited. And so unless they qualify for the hardship provision, either the police department has put that car into service somehow for its own fleet, or they've sold it to benefit the state for, by... There's just, there's no getting the car back if someone is, um, adjudicated as not guilty of these offenses.

400. 1:38:46

     I, I had one thing. I, one other thought following up on, um, what, um, uh, my colleague just said here, is the general timeframe for a civil forfeiture is 60 to 120 days. So if you're thinking about the time it takes a case to get through the judicial system, certainly in the metro area, that person may or may not be convicted of what they've been accused of, and yet that car is long gone, uh, through a civil forfeiture proceeding, which is just a preponderant standard and not a, um, proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

401. 1:39:13

     Thank you.

402. 1:39:19

     Representative Roberts.

403. 1:39:20

     I just wanna clarify, 'cause this is not my area of the law. Um, s- 'cause originally I thought, well, could we change the language? 'Cause I understand the concern that there, you're taking the car before the person's actually been found to be guilty. Um, so changing has been convicted doesn't solve the problem because you're saying an owner wouldn't have notice that the person that they let th- and their car is taken and, and forfeited if someone else is operating. Is that what-

404. 1:39:47

     I-

405. 1:39:47

     ... your concern is?

406. 1:39:48

     I guess what I was trying to express, I may not have done it very artfully, is that as it's currently written, um, there's, first of all, there's no innocent owner provision, which is normally existent in all forfeiture proceedings.

407. 1:39:58

     Okay.

408. 1:39:58

     Okay? What there is is this hardship pro- provision that allows that the person-

409. 1:40:04

     The family

410. 1:40:04

     ... to get the vehicle back, right. But the previously convicted, as is in the current law, at least arguably puts the owner on notice that the vehicle they've allowed someone else to operate is subject to this law.

411. 1:40:16

     But I can ima- couldn't there be another circumstance where it's not the family that was the owner, and it was some other third party that owned the car and allowed someone to drive it, and then they're losing their car based on the behavior?

412. 1:40:31

     Absolutely, yes.

413. 1:40:32

     Uh, and not even the convicted behavior. Is that-

414. 1:40:34

     Correct.

415. 1:40:34

     Okay.

416. 1:40:34

     That's the problem.

417. 1:40:35

     All right.

418. 1:40:35

     And, and if you have a, if you have, like, a history, "Hey, I'm giving my car to someone who's already been convicted," you're at least arguably on notice. Be careful who you give your car to.

419. 1:40:43

     Thank you for the clarification.

420. 1:40:44

     Yes.

421. 1:40:46

     Number six.

422. 1:40:48

     Thank you to the chair. A quick question. So the two recommendations you all have is, of course, post-conviction being included and then an innocent owner provision. Correct?

423. 1:40:59

     Well, in order to effectuate those changes, that would be a restructuring of the entire forfeiture code, which, um, we would be happy to come to the table about, but I don't think you're gonna do it in this bill with all due respect, um, Representative.

424. 1:41:12

     Even if we, even if we include something that says, "For the purposes of this section, this applies"? I'm just asking, just curi- I'm just tossing that out there.

425. 1:41:20

     I guess it's, I guess it's possible. I just think it's a bigger can of worms to try to restructure forfeiture. Um, we, uh...

426. 1:41:31

     I, I mean, I think our, I think our most practical suggestion is that you hold off on passing this bill. Um, that by taking that recidivist piece out of this legislation, you're taking away the one bit of notice that a person has right now that hasn't even been tested by the courts to see if the behavior can be deterred through enhanced punishment, which we join our friends at the Southern Center, which from, you know, I know you guys sound like I think I'm a beating a dead horse about this, but it's the chance of getting caught that's the most deterrent thing, not increased penalties.

427. 1:42:05

     Although, I do understand that if, if word gets around that someone took my car because of this conviction, that could change something for some people in that person's orbit. But we don't even have that yet because we don't have these cases all the way to adjudication based on your most previous updates to this law.

428. 1:42:23

     So you don't have a recommendation-

429. 1:42:25

     Uh-

430. 1:42:25

     ... for the, to fix the current form?

431. 1:42:30

     We, then I would say at line 10 to say, who is convicted of a violation of this code section, would be my suggestion. I'm not, that's, might need a little help from legislative counsel, but-

432. 1:42:44

     But that would fix your initial issue, your f- the initial issue it fixed.

433. 1:42:48

     It doesn't, it-

434. 1:42:48

     If forfeiture followed conviction, I think we would have a l- I mean, we would have a lot less to say here. But, but given that not only is it, is it preceding conviction currently, but now this idea that it's, doesn't even have to be recidivist behavior that someone could know about, it's just you got arrested and charged, and now we're gonna take your vehicle. Yes, please.

435. 1:43:09

     For, for instance, just tossing out an idea, you could say any motor vehicle operated by a person who is, and then arrested and convicted of a violation of this code section, and keep on rolling from that point forward. That changes, that changes it from its current law. Current law is you're previously convicted, you get a second bite of the apple. What I've just said changes it to one bite of the apple, but it's a conviction bite as opposed to a mere allegation bite.

436. 1:43:38

     We'd be-

437. 1:43:38

     So-

438. 1:43:38

     ... for two bites too. Yeah

439. 1:43:39

     ... so line 10, keeping what we have, insert, replace charged with convicted.

440. 1:43:46

     Who is, or who is-

441. 1:43:47

     Arrested

442. 1:43:48

     ... replace arrested and charged-

443. 1:43:49

     And convicted

444. 1:43:50

     ... with-

445. 1:43:50

     With convicted

446. 1:43:51

     ... convicted

447. 1:43:53

     Striking arrested and charged

448. 1:43:54

     ... convicted of. You would, you would strike arrested and charged with-

449. 1:43:57

     Convicted of

450. 1:43:58

     ... and put who is convicted of. And I would, I mean, uh, we could all debate. If you want one bite, if you want one bite at the apple, you leave the strikes that are there. If you're willing to keep two bites, you would make plain who has been previously convicted of a violation of this code section and, in addition to the other change.

451. 1:44:21

     Okay. I got it. Thank you.

452. 1:44:22

     Thank you.

453. 1:44:26

     You still want a bite?

454. 1:44:28

     I'd like two, please.

455. 1:44:30

     All right. Gent-

456. 1:44:35

     Everybody's biting at apples in this room, I figured I ought to get my chance, too. So, um, so currently, the, the, the state of the current law is if you have one conviction, then your car is subject to forfeiture if you're arrested for a violation of that section. All right? And so that's the current state of the law.

457. 1:44:53

     That's right.

458. 1:44:53

     All right. So it, it, it's... And maybe this is my question to the author, and I, I apologize. There's nothing like running into the last minute of a hearing and asking a bunch of questions that have already been addressed. But is it the author's intent to provide that upon, um, arrest the first time with no previous conviction and before conviction of that first charge, the motor vehicle would be subject to forfeiture?

459. 1:45:19

     I thought that probably-

460. 1:45:20

     Oh, sure. I'm sorry. I'll move.

461. 1:45:22

     There you go.

462. 1:45:22

     No, no. Come on.

463. 1:45:24

     Thank you.

464. 1:45:30

     And thank you for your feedback. Could you restate the question?

465. 1:45:34

     So I'm, I'm trying to determine, and, and I'm sure you probably made this clear during your presentation, are you... Is it, is it your intention to provide that upon arrest the first time your car can be subject to being forfeited, or upon arrest the first time after conviction it could be forfeited and you don't have to have the previous, uh, conviction?

466. 1:45:54

     I'm amenable to the conviction upon the first time. The intent is to add another layer of deterrent and to focus on the vehicle as the vessel-

467. 1:46:03

     The vessel-

468. 1:46:04

     ... as opposed to-

469. 1:46:04

     ... to deter

470. 1:46:05

     ... the participation in the-

471. 1:46:06

     Yes. Okay. All right

472. 1:46:06

     ... the, uh, behavior. Yes, sir.

473. 1:46:07

     And, and I, um, so that, the... I just wanted to clarify that. I, I, I guess my, my question would now be for the previous witnesses.

474. 1:46:18

     We, we just want to give our input to you.

475. 1:46:21

     I'll turn you on.

476. 1:46:22

     If I may, Mr. Chairman.

477. 1:46:23

     What number is that one?

478. 1:46:24

     17.

479. 1:46:25

     17.

480. 1:46:29

     All right. Go ahead.

481. 1:46:31

     So is, uh, uh, under current law, this allow... So this current law, the statute that is proposed to be amended in Representative Willis' bill-

482. 1:46:38

     Mm-hmm

483. 1:46:39

     ... it allows for forfeiture based on an arrest if there's a previous conviction.

484. 1:46:46

     Current law does, yes.

485. 1:46:47

     So it does not require a conviction as the basis of a forfeiture.

486. 1:46:53

     Right.

487. 1:46:53

     And, I mean-

488. 1:46:55

     Except, uh, the previous one would require, of course.

489. 1:46:56

     The, the previous one, yes.

490. 1:46:57

     But, yes. But the current... But a- as it is today. So, like, there could be people right now who were, as of, you know, whatever it would've been, July 1st, 2024, had previously been convicted. Actually, no though, because you can't be... So at the time they were convicted, this would not have been the law. So it would have to have been a conviction that occurred after. So you have to have, right now you would've had to have that first conviction occur post July 1, 2024-

491. 1:47:22

     'Cause otherwise you don't have notice of what can happen.

492. 1:47:23

     Right.

493. 1:47:24

     Yeah.

494. 1:47:24

     And then you'd have to be arrested again. And we... That's what I was saying. We just haven't had time to get there because-

495. 1:47:30

     To see what the impact is.

496. 1:47:31

     Right, 'cause we don't even have the first round of convictions yet that would substantiate then the forfeiture upon the next arrest.

497. 1:47:38

     So it, I, I'm assuming is there, has, has anyone argued to your knowledge that it would be unconstitutional to forfeit a vehicle based upon an arrest before determination of whether you've actually committed the crime the second time?

498. 1:47:53

     Well, I, I can't speak to that particular scenario, but I know that it is routinely argued in civil asset forfeiture cases. Our con- the concern about a pre-conviction forfeiture-

499. 1:48:07

     Forfeiture

500. 1:48:07

     ... of property happens not only in this context, but in many contexts in our state.

501. 1:48:10

     Yes. Yes. And that's-

502. 1:48:11

     And-

503. 1:48:11

     ... that's what I thought

504. 1:48:11

     ... it is an ongoing problem that has never been addressed here. It's a very sticky wicket, as-

505. 1:48:18

     Yes

506. 1:48:18

     ... we call it down here.

507. 1:48:19

     But, but I gather there are other, um, um, contexts in which assets can be forfeited based upon an arrest-

508. 1:48:30

     Yes

509. 1:48:30

     ... statutorily?

510. 1:48:31

     Yes.

511. 1:48:31

     Okay. Um, and a- as to the innocent owner defense, is that not in chapter 16 of title nine already?

512. 1:48:39

     Yes.

513. 1:48:41

     It would be.

514. 1:48:42

     Okay. So you've got that. Even with this language here, you currently have that. I guess your argument is you don't have it if you don't even have a conviction and you're having the asset forfeited.

515. 1:48:51

     Well, yeah, I just think the way that this... Sorry. Correct. I think the way that this current, um, statute is written, which makes only this hardship provision, it creates a great deal of uncertainty as to the innocent owner. There is a general innocent owner in the Georgia forfeiture statute, and that is correct.

516. 1:49:08

     Okay.

517. 1:49:08

     So my concern there is, once again, as a kind of the southern center attorney or, or person spoken to, it's kind of rapidly been changed over a short amount of time without really giving time to see if any of these changes are effective. And you're now creating a situation where, um, someone operating a vehicle, um, i- without having been actually convicted of that, is being put into this civil forfeiture process, which is a tough place to be, particularly when your criminal case has not been adjudicated yet and you have, and you're not a recidivist.

518. 1:49:41

     I mean, we often treat recidivist differently. This is first time through, and your car is gone within 120 days.

519. 1:49:49

     Mr. Chair, may make a point of clarification? So with the representative's proposed amendment to what we initially introduced, uh, upon seizing upon a first conviction, what this would do is allow us to at least hold the vehicle pending the adjudication of the case. And obviously, if it was adjudicated not guilty, the property would release back to the rightful owner. But with the amendment for a first conviction, it'll allow us to hold that vehicle and then go through the asset forfeiture process if that is adjudicated guilty in court.

520. 1:50:18

     Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

521. 1:50:19

     Tha- and thank you.

522. 1:50:19

     Yes, sir. Move on.

523. 1:50:21

     Okay.

524. 1:50:22

     Number-

525. 1:50:24

     Just to be clear, there would have to be language added to the code to have that holding of property requirement. There's not a holding of property requirement in our code right now, and that may be the ordinary practice of the Atlanta Police Department.

526. 1:50:35

     Excuse me.

527. 1:50:36

     I can't speak to that, but that is definitely not the ordinary practice of every law enforcement agency around the state that is-

528. 1:50:42

     And it's not statutory prescribed.

529. 1:50:45

     Right.

530. 1:50:46

     Right. Yeah, you seize and forfeit. The seizure, I mean s- uh, the, the forfeiture title goes to the state, and, and there's no coming back from it.

531. 1:50:55

     Representative Panitch, I think I'd turn it on over there. Or no, that's 12. Go ahead.

532. 1:51:01

     She is 12.

533. 1:51:02

     Thank you. Yes. Let's assume the bill is enacted the way it is, and a car is involved in this. The car gets, or the pers- the driver gets arrested or cited. The car then goes through the forfeiture process, which is a process which has due process protections to it, right? So it's, there are civil guardrails because it's more of a civil system. I, I, Mr. Hall and I know each other from handling federal cases many years ago, even as co-counsel on one of them.

534. 1:51:36

     I think his client flipped on mine, but, uh, we can discuss this a whole other day. But there isn't, we're not the Wild West in that the, the car's not taken upon arrest and sold, and without some levels of protection, becomes the property of APD or anyone else, right? It just shifts. This is now a civil proceeding, pre-conviction, um, which has its own types of due process. Is that accurate?

535. 1:52:06

     And, uh, you don't have to answer it yourself, I mean.

536. 1:52:12

     There are due process protections-

537. 1:52:12

     But you-

538. 1:52:13

     ... within civil asset forfeiture, yes. But is, um...

539. 1:52:19

     We could also ima- we could imagine a scenario where, especially when you consider the truncated timelines that that process does unfold in, that a person that's arrested and in custody during the duration of that proceeding, although we would technically as lawyers say that they were allowed due process, it might feels pretty different to someone who's incarcerated while they're trying to fight to keep their property, um, than it would if it was someone, say, for instance, who was just on bond. So we're talking about the time, the time so soon after someone's arrested for, for a charge like this, where the proceedings would unfold and the property, um, potentially taken from them.

540. 1:53:01

     We stand by our, our hope that, that this body will one day find its way to, to not taking people's property until they're convicted of a crime.

541. 1:53:08

     Well, I mean, I, I understand that. Um, but that happens in lots of other cases. If the person's un- is, is incarcerated and they have a civil case, there's no civil right to be present. Um, I mean, that's up to the judge. I'm not saying it's correct.

542. 1:53:25

     Yes. Yeah.

543. 1:53:25

     I'm just saying that it occurs. This is not the only type of case, uh, where civil forfeiture or, uh, somebody's in jail at the time of a hearing on a civil matter. Okay. Thank you.

544. 1:53:40

     Okay. Number 14. Whip or Chip?

545. 1:53:43

     Oh, I was wanting to ask the lieutenant one more question. In, in these arrests that you're making with these cars, and they're all souped up, I mean, h- how many of those are, are mom's minivans?

546. 1:53:55

     Um, alm- almost none of them.

547. 1:53:58

     Yeah. That's, that's what I was thinking then. Um, a- a- at the appropriate time, um, Mr., Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Uh, I think the, um, um, the author has said that she is, um, amendable to a, uh, post-conviction conviction, uh, s- uh, asset forfeiture. So at, at the appropriate time, please open up a vote.

548. 1:54:19

     One more question, Mr. Whip, and I'll come back to you. I think you read the room the same way I did about 15 minutes ago. Number 17. Chairman Crowe.

549. 1:54:29

     It's me this time on mic 17. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, uh, miss the days of Chairman Leverett and I sharing a microphone, so-

550. 1:54:36

     I was happy to see you do it.

551. 1:54:37

     Maybe later. Um, just for, for clarification, um, and, and I understand the amendment and would not be opposed to the post-conviction forfeiture, but Lieutenant, did you say earlier that having the language of arrested and charged with a violation allows you to hold the property because it's subject to then? If we change this to after conviction, would the v- vehicle then have to be returned while the case is adjudicated, and then if there's a conviction, then it would have to be seized and forfeited?

552. 1:55:13

     Sure. Just to clarify the statement. So if we make an arrest for someone for street racing, we hold it, and it goes to impound under normal circumstances. They can th- theoretically pick it up within one hour. With the provision to allow us to have a potential for asset forfeiture, we can hold it for the duration of that process.

553. 1:55:27

     Mm-hmm.

554. 1:55:27

     And whether it's found to be se- uh, seized by the government or to return back to rightful owner allows us to at least hold onto the vehicle for that time period. That's more of what I meant, and I'm sorry if it came out a different way.

555. 1:55:37

     No, no, no, that's fine. I just ... I wanted to make sure if, if this language gets changed to arrested and convicted of-

556. 1:55:46

     Mm-hmm

557. 1:55:47

     ... is that going to then ... Will they still be allowed to hold that vehicle? And if not, by the time this case gets adjudicated in a year, two years, maybe three years down the road, uh, are they going to be able to locate that vehicle, reclaim the ownership? What if it's been sold? You know, I, I just ... I'm curious about that, and I, I don't know the answer, but it is a question because I know that being able to hold onto it is, um ... That creates another problem with my friends over here to my right who are so graciously sharing theirs with me.

558. 1:56:22

     I think Representative Hong has a, a little bit of wisdom on this matter.

559. 1:56:25

     Please.

560. 1:56:26

     Thank, thank you, Chairman. Um, so having listened to everyone's concerns, I understand the concern that we wanna be able to hold the vehicle, um, yet I understand n- the fairness of not having a conviction before it is, um, forfeited. So would potential on line 11 ... So leaving all the language that you've changed, Representative, um, but on line 11 after forfeiture, so it would read, "With a violation of this code section is g- declared to be a contraband and subject to forfeiture after conviction in, in accordance," would that allow you to hold the vehicle, and then if there is a conviction, then it could be forfeited?

561. 1:57:15

     So during that asset forfeiture process, when the paperwork is filed, it would just be for that time period, um, just until it's adjudicated in civil court.

562. 1:57:24

     I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

563. 1:57:26

     Yeah.

564. 1:57:26

     I, I don't understand what that meant.

565. 1:57:27

     Sorry.

566. 1:57:27

     Yes.

567. 1:57:27

     Uh, so the answer would be yes, just for that process while we're in the, uh ... we file the notices to seize it in court. So.

568. 1:57:35

     So-

569. 1:57:35

     So meaning, so, uh ... And I, maybe I'm just not understanding you.

570. 1:57:39

     Sure.

571. 1:57:40

     So would that allow you to hold the vehicle and then, uh, after conviction, be able to keep the v- basically go through the forfeiture process if I put that specific language in where I'm proposing it?

572. 1:57:56

     Yes, I believe so.

573. 1:57:57

     Okay.

574. 1:57:59

     Robert Lopekh, Robert Smith, can you come up?

575. 1:58:03

     Thank you.

576. 1:58:06

     And I'm gonna lead off with a question from right here at the chair real quick. If one of y'all ... If y'all just scoot over.

577. 1:58:18

     And Robert, I'll just kind of line up a little bit of a straight fairway shot for you. You've heard the handed amendment coming to this legislation. My question would be if vehicle's impounded subject to the investigation.

578. 1:58:38

     I wanna make sure everybody understands first off that the way this is drafted, and I wanna make sure everybody hears this clearly. Y'all have already put into, and as, as been suggested, and I wanna make sure everyone understands, the innocent standard, innocent owner standard applies. That's nine ... That's OCGA 9-16-17. Any time the state attempts to forfeit anything, we, the innoc- the, a innocent owner has the right to come forward and be able to demand the property back in a civil proceeding If we shift, and right now as- how asset forfeiture works is that instrumentalities, proceeds, those, you know, contraband is seized at the time of the arrest.

579. 1:59:23

     And then it's been stated it becomes two separate processes. There's a civil process and a criminal process. If we were to split them and say that the civil process cannot go forward until after there's a criminal conviction, it means that the state has no proprietary interest in the property. It's a, it can't be contraband, because how can it be contraband without an adjudication beyond a reasonable doubt that in fact it is contraband? So the two things become... And if you want to say at conviction,

580. 1:59:55

     if you want to say at wait until conviction, when is conviction? Because conviction is not when we say guilty or a plea of guilty is entered, but it, as we open records say, it's not through the first direct appeal. So take your three years. Let's say, let's say we have a fast-track trial, and, and let's keep it here in the Atlanta Judicial Circuit, where you've heard earlier about needing a 21st judge. Three years to get to a jury conviction.

581. 2:00:26

     Another year or two to be able to get past the motion for new trial, because after all, in this state, the only way to get a conviction is through ineffective assistance of counsel. So we have an appeal. We go to the court of appeals. We go to the Supreme Court. So now that souped-up car that was used in this pro- in this process, not the Honda Odyssey, but, you know, one of those cars that's got all the things to it, which, let's be honest, and I think the lieutenant would agree with me, usually they're not owned outright.

582. 2:00:57

     Some of them are, but for the most part, there's a lien. There's somebody who's got some other interest in it. So now we're gonna go seven years and then finally be able to, the state finally be able to go forward and say, "Hey, we'd like to forfeit that property." Good luck finding it. Good luck, good luck saying it has any value, because that's the other thing, too. The reason why assets are forfeited is because they are assets, because they can be converted into something else. Vehicles that old kind of won't, won't have the asset, won't have the value to them.

583. 2:01:28

     It's no different than if I were to forfeit, you know, a fungible i- like, something like food or something like that. It's gonna be spoiled. A vehicle will have diminished in value so much it won't be worth the effort to go forward with it. So don't make this the only forfeiture that's post-conviction in the state. Keep it in line with everything else. Keep using the language that's already, that you have already approved with the innocent owner standard. And whether or not you choose to go this, that's a policy decision.

584. 2:01:59

     I just want to make sure that you know what the law is and why we, why y'all have told us to do it the way we have and have told us to do it for years.

585. 2:02:10

     Lighting up like a Christmas tree over here. Number 11.

586. 2:02:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So trying to understand how to interpret what you've just said in terms of what action we would take here. I, I think the sponsor's desire is to provide that upon arrest, the car could be held, and then upon conviction, if there is a conviction, the forfeiture proceeding could occur, or the forfeiture could, could, order could be entered. Are you saying that's currently the way it, th- th- that procedurally it w- it happens under current law?

587. 2:02:45

     How it works right now is somebody has a prior conviction, then they get caught doing reckless street crime, street craft, cra- whatever the crime is, a second time. The car is then seized. They, they, and whoever is the owner of the vehicle, get a notice that the car is gonna be subject to asset forfeiture proceedings. And then there's a civil case. While the criminal case is still yet unadjudicated, there's a civil process. Now, the defendant or the state has a right to come in and say, "Hey, can we put this civil proceeding on hold until the criminal case is over?" In some cases, we do that.

588. 2:03:18

     But if a s- but there are, because, you know, obviously may not m- make the most sense to subject a criminal defendant to a deposition about their activities r- in regards to the vehicle. I mean, there is a Fifth Amendment, after all.

589. 2:03:32

     Well, b- b- but what I'm asking is it sounds like you are saying under current forfeiture law, upon arrest, any, uh, it, it, just like the, the defendant, although they're presumed to be innocent, they can be arrested and held until they bond out. The asset, if, if it's alleged to have been used in a criminal enterprise and satisfies the conditions of the forfeiture statute, can be held, can be held at that point. It do- you don't have to wait until the conviction to pursue the forfeiture case.

590. 2:04:01

     That is, that is correct. We can start the p- civil, we can start the civil forfeiture proceeding-

591. 2:04:05

     Immediately

592. 2:04:06

     ... before, immediately, and while the criminal case is pending or not pending. A lot of times, the truth, a lot of times there's a pause. But if, you know, if no one wants to take an interest in items, like, you know, say, you know, we've got this car and all of a sudden the defendant who was driving it says, "Oh, it's not my car," nobody else comes forward, we can go ahead and move to a forfeiture proceeding-

593. 2:04:26

     So, okay

594. 2:04:26

     ... and forfeit it.

595. 2:04:27

     So before I forget where we're going here, my, my understanding then from what you're saying is lines nine through 12 as currently proposed in the bill would allow law enforcement to hold the vehicle from, u- upon the first arrest, although it, they, they, it isn't necessarily forfeited. There still has to be a forfeiture action. But they could hold the vehicle and initiate the forfeiture action while the charges are pending.

596. 2:04:53

     Yes.

597. 2:04:54

     Subject to forfeiture.

598. 2:04:55

     Subject to forfeiture, but the forfeiture doesn't happen until you get the order in the forfeiture case.

599. 2:05:00

     Correct.

600. 2:05:01

     So I, I suppose if, if the, the desire of the committee is to allow the car to be held pending and, and just allow forfeiture to happen, the language as proposed by the sponsor would achieve that result. If we want to make it after conviction, that apparently is an aberration in the forfeiture the process, but we could do that by the language that's been proposed.

601. 2:05:22

     Yes, sir.

602. 2:05:23

     You know, but you don't need some additional language to allow holding of the asset. That already can be done once the arrest occurs. And d- d- does, does some notice of intent to forfeit have to be provided, or?

603. 2:05:35

     Yes, it's a civil proceeding. It requires a process. It has to be personally served. We, um, if we can't find the owner, we have to publish it in the newspaper or the other legal organ. It's, it is a process. Um, having done asset forfeiture on vehicles where banks were involved, it becomes really interesting.

604. 2:05:51

     But you gotta notify everybody with an interest.

605. 2:05:53

     And all kinds of lawyers come out of the woodworks wanting to tell you that you don't have a right to forfeit it.

606. 2:05:57

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

607. 2:06:00

     Okay, I've got some big hitter bills still to get to, so here's what we're gonna do. I appreciate that very much, Mr. Smith. Uh, I'm gonna go ahead and move over and let Representative Willis have the last word, and we'll let the committee decide what they're gonna do.

608. 2:06:18

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. I know this was long, uh, but I do appreciate all of the feedback 'cause this is a serious decision. The intent of this bill was to add an additional deterrent to a raging issue in the city of Atlanta and Fulton County. Rings of fire, disruption of major events, uh, which we continue to have forthcoming. So I just want to express to you that that was the express intent of this bill, was to add another layer of deterrent, um, to a behavior that is a public safety issue, plain and simple.

609. 2:06:53

     I appreciate the feedback. I, uh, expressed amenability to, um, post-conviction language. I understand that and, and receive it, and just wanted to circle back and lastly wanted to say I met with the city of Atlanta, um, I've met with the police department, and this is an issue that both the governor and the mayor have expressed needing greater layers around, and that was my pure intent. Um, and I thank you for the opportunity to present to you.

610. 2:07:23

     Welcome to the NFL. Uh, number 12.

611. 2:07:27

     I have a motion.

612. 2:07:29

     All right.

613. 2:07:29

     Move to pass.

614. 2:07:31

     Move to pass.

615. 2:07:31

     Second.

616. 2:07:32

     Second. Mr. Webb, you got a...

617. 2:07:34

     I was gonna second, but, yes, I'd like to, when you move into amendments, I'd like to offer an amendment.

618. 2:07:39

     All right, that'd be it now.

619. 2:07:41

     Um, Mr., Mr. Chairman, I'd like to, I'd like to look at lines 10. W- what did we say again?

620. 2:07:48

     Arrested and convicted.

621. 2:07:49

     Yeah.

622. 2:07:50

     Arrested and convicted.

623. 2:07:51

     I'd like to strike the word charged, add convicted, strike the word with and a and add of. So the r- sentence would read, "Who is arrested and convicted of..." No, don't strike a. Of a violation of this code section. That'd be my amendment.

624. 2:08:11

     Okay. Have a second? All right, I got y'all out and out. Do y'all want to talk about the amendment? Is that what you're- I was hoping that was okay. Okay. Chairman Crowe.

625. 2:08:23

     Thank you. Um, and I, I, I understand and, and like the amendment, but I think that that is contrary to everything Robert just told us, that that, that Robert just told us if we do that, we're gonna make a big mess of things by declaring something is not contraband until after there's a post-conviction. And I think that'll mess up a lot of other things in our civil forfeiture code.

626. 2:08:49

     Um, let's get Robert back up here.

627. 2:08:57

     We need to get Robert a per- permanent chair.

628. 2:09:00

     The one with wheels won't.

629. 2:09:01

     Yeah.

630. 2:09:03

     First gotta get a traditional looking table. Go ahead, Robert.

631. 2:09:06

     Well, Robert-

632. 2:09:07

     And I-

633. 2:09:07

     ... isn't, isn't it true that, isn't it true that we've had this discussion about civil asset forfeiture for a very long time in this committee?

634. 2:09:14

     Yes, we have.

635. 2:09:14

     Not just this committee, but yes, sir.

636. 2:09:16

     Yeah.

637. 2:09:16

     All right. Isn't it also true that the, by and large, the majority of folks that are civil, u- utilizing civil asset forfeiture, they are waiting till after conviction to forfeit those assets?

638. 2:09:28

     I don't have the information to be able to accurately answer that question.

639. 2:09:33

     Isn't it true that it's possible to, um, utilize civil asset forfeiture after c- after conviction?

640. 2:09:39

     That is true.

641. 2:09:40

     Okay. That's all.

642. 2:09:41

     It's also true you can do it before.

643. 2:09:43

     You can do it before. That's correct. Um, isn't it true that you're, you're innocent until proven guilty?

644. 2:09:48

     That is a true statement.

645. 2:09:49

     All right. So my concern is this: we have had this discussion for a long time. Now, this, this specific legislation right here will only be pertaining to this specific crime. Isn't that true?

646. 2:10:05

     Yes.

647. 2:10:06

     Okay. So this doesn't bleed into any of the other civil asset forfeiture. This change on line 10 doesn't change it for anybody that you let racketeering or anybody that is, um, you know, subject to any, many more civil asset forfeiture crimes, correct?

648. 2:10:23

     This would only impact the reckless stunt driving.

649. 2:10:26

     Reckless, so drag racing.

650. 2:10:28

     Yep. I think that's a different crime, sir.

651. 2:10:31

     Oh, w- w- well, I'm sorry. So what, what'd you call it? Any person-

652. 2:10:35

     Reckless stunt driving.

653. 2:10:35

     Re- reckless stunt driving. Okay. So drifting. Is that what we're talking about? Okay. So this is only specific to this area, right?

654. 2:10:44

     Only to this specific code section, this forfeiture proceeding, yes.

655. 2:10:47

     Okay. Okay.

656. 2:10:50

     Chairman Crowe.

657. 2:10:52

     Okay. I think, I think that answers my question, but it brings up another question in that if you mention that there's already typically the civil forfeiture's already waiting till after conviction anyway, I don't know why we would need to change the language in here, um, to do that. I think we can just leave it as the bill was originally written.

658. 2:11:11

     Uh, Robert, have we had any issues where, um, we've had some, um, pre-conviction, um, asset forfeiture that then it turns around that the person was innocent?

659. 2:11:26

     Yes.

660. 2:11:30

     Can I clarify?

661. 2:11:31

     Yes.

662. 2:11:32

     It was spec- the one incident I can think of was specifically involving the coin-operated amusement machines-

663. 2:11:39

     Mm-hmm

664. 2:11:39

     ... where the Court of Appeals changed a definition to something that was different than the way we understood the law at the time.

665. 2:11:46

     That's the case I was talking about.

666. 2:11:49

     Mr. Smith, thank you again.

667. 2:11:51

     I didn't sign up for this bill.

668. 2:11:52

     I know you didn't.

669. 2:11:57

     Thank you. All right. You've-

670. 2:11:59

     I, I, I don't feel, I mean, I think that from a policy objec-

671. 2:12:02

     People are leaving the room, Rob

672. 2:12:03

     ... from a policy objective, I think that we should go post-conviction. Uh, now, I don't wanna put the, uh, representative's bill in jeopardy. If she wants to leave it like it is, that's fine, but I think this is a good policy objective to do it after conviction. There is, they will have to hold the vehicles, which if you've been to any of these impoundment lots, uh, some of these vehicles are being ho- held for how long now, Lieutenant?

673. 2:12:28

     Uh, there's some for quite some time.

674. 2:12:30

     So I, I get that. There is a, um, um, decrease in value, but if she wants to hit this with a hammer, it's take the car, um, upon a conviction. I guess it would, it could be argued that if you take it as arrested or charged, then it's even harsher. So whatever the will of the committee is, Mr. Chairman.

675. 2:12:49

     Second. All right, got a mover and a second on the Burchett amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed same sign. No. All right, ayes have it. So, all right, so we got a mover and a second with the Burchett amendment now on there for House Bill 1390, LC 39, 4974. All those in favor of the bill as amended say aye. Aye. All those opposed same sign. No. Congratulations, you're on the rules.

676. 2:13:19

     Thank you. Thank you to the committee.

677. 2:13:21

     Okay. All right, Representative Karen Lupton, House Bill 626.

678. 2:13:39

     All right.

679. 2:13:53

     Good afternoon, Representative.

680. 2:13:54

     Good afternoon, lady chair.

681. 2:13:56

     You can proceed forward when you are ready.

682. 2:13:58

     Absolutely. Hi, everyone. This is, uh, the, pretty much the exact same bill that was passed out of this committee last year. Uh, it died in rules, so it has been resurrected once again in the second year of the biennial. I'm reading off of LC48-1769S. Um, there was a change made in subcommittee that struck on line 7, 2025, and made it 2026, because the year has passed. Um, this is, this is a bill that involves seven words.

683. 2:14:30

     If you look on lines 15 and 16, we strike not less than 12 months, and we add 30 years. This, uh, Georgia has a, an excellent, excellent system when it comes to tracking our rape kits. When rape kits are taken at emergency rooms, sexual assault centers, they are immediately put into our tracking system. That tracking system is excellent. In my research, I found that Georgia is way ahead of a lot of other states on that. So yay to us. Now, every kit is taken, and every kit is logged into our system.

684. 2:15:03

     Not every assault is immediately reported to police. There are a lot of different reasons why a handful of people may not feel comfortable going straight to the police. So with the numbers that we get, there's between 2,500 and 2,900 sexual assault kits, rape kits taken in Georgia every year. Fiscal year '23, 256 of those kits did not get immediately reported to police. Uh, FY24, 319 kits did not, uh, uh, occurred with assaults that were not immediately reported to police.

685. 2:15:40

     So about one in 10 is not getting reported. Right now in code, those one in 10 can be tossed after 12 months, after no less than 12 months. We want to move that to 30 years. The states right now have a, a, a retention of these kind of kits anywhere from 10 years to 50 years. Um, a kit is about this size. It does not need to be held in any s- particular fet- uh, refrigeration, any special place.

686. 2:16:12

     It has some slides, maybe some baggies. Um, you could fit every kit that does not get reported in a year in Georgia on those bookcases over there. Uh, it does not have, as such, it does not really have a cost associated with it. I went out and I asked people, "How much does this cost?" They said, "What does it cost to keep a filing cabinet? What does it cost to keep a closet? I don't know." Um, so this retains evidence that we cannot get back for a period of time that allows for all sorts of circumstances. Um, I have two people here to speak to the bill who have helped, um, who have helped a bill like this get passed in Florida, um, and who have been, who like me, are sexual assault survivors and feel strongly about this.

687. 2:16:54

     So that's my bill.

688. 2:16:56

     All right. Thank you, Representative.

689. 2:16:59

     Yeah.

690. 2:17:00

     Any questions? I don't see any questions from the, from the committee. I'll, um... Ms. Gail Gardner, do, do you two wanna come up together or wanna-

691. 2:17:11

     We'll come up together.

692. 2:17:12

     Okay. Sure. No, we heard from-

693. 2:17:15

     Whichever chairs

694. 2:17:15

     ... both of you, uh, in the subcommittee, but thank you for coming back. So Ms. Gail Gardner and Stephanie Sherman. Thank you so much. Do you wanna get the mic?

695. 2:17:25

     Yeah, you can come over to this side.

696. 2:17:26

     Yes.

697. 2:17:26

     There's a mic over here.

698. 2:17:32

     Come on in here and use this microphone.

699. 2:17:35

     Thank you for allowing me to, to take these moments. Um, I'm, my name is Gail Gardner. I'm not only an advocate and a survivor, but Georgia and Florida have one thing in common, that rape kit tracking system, and I was named after the one in Florida, where I lived for 46 years, and I've been here for three years, Gail's Law. I have taken time through the years to advocate for survivors before there ever was a Gail's Law, because for 30 years, I didn't know where my cra- my rape kit was, or whatever happened to my case.

700. 2:18:09

     And I happened to go into the police department for a moment to, to find out about my case so that I could put it in a memoir, and I was held for a while because they had actually found out that I had a cold case, and I made, uh, local and national news. The point I c- wanted to know was why wasn't I contacted all those 30 years. They had people that actually helped keep him in jail, and then as soon as they would k- put him in there for 45 years, he was back out on probation and did some more.

701. 2:18:41

     He was known as the Malibu, uh, Rapist. He was a serial rapist in Orlando, Florida area in the Black community. I was determined that he was gonna actually p- see my face in court. And so on, on the September 18th of 2024, I had the opportunity to confront him. He had been in prison since 1992. No one came. I have the joke, um, one of the, uh, organizations that helped with this case brought it to my, brought it to attention for the backlog of case of, as far as looking for how many rape kits are still sitting on a shelf without being tested, and that was Joyful Heart Foundation and some others.

702. 2:19:25

     Well, that campaign that they did, I kept looking for Olivia Benson to show up to my door, who is actually the founder of Joyful Heart Found- uh, um, Joyful, um, Heart Foundation. Um, so and, and that's just my joke, you know, whatever happened, but then nobody ever in, uh, touched me. But I'm beginning to figure some things out why. The one thing I didn't l- care for with the survivors, and when I met Stephanie, and she had asked me about, you know, about her case, what w- w- what could she do?

703. 2:19:57

     I didn't know at the time, 'cause I was still reeling and, and from, from this whole situation. But what actually got me concerned was that she's not the only one, and there's so many others. My, uh, culture and, uh, mostly females are very close about holding family accountable for things. They don't, they don't wanna c- be the, they try to be the peacemakers, so they don't talk much, especially my generation. Thank goodness we have a generation now that's one in, used to be one in three, now it's one in six, who are talking and telling th- what their story is and actually holding people accountable.

704. 2:20:35

     And so with that, I have d- have dedicating my life, and I say my life, but now I'm heading down in that, in that area. I'll be 79 this year. It's just to make sure the next generation does not have to go through this, and never again will we see this happening. Now, people say, "Well, that's cultural. That's how, that, that's the way it is. It's been going on since ancient days." It does not have to, and I believe if you put enough billboards up, and if you just speak more and, and talk about it more, this will stop perpetuating to the point people will stop doing what they do and protect our children all the way.

705. 2:21:17

     Thank you.

706. 2:21:20

     Do you wanna lean in? Lean in. Yep, we got this.

707. 2:21:24

     Okay.

708. 2:21:24

     We got the bad chair.

709. 2:21:24

     See, no questions. Thank you very much.

710. 2:21:26

     Oh, do you want to change chairs?

711. 2:21:27

     No, that's fine.

712. 2:21:28

     Okay.

713. 2:21:28

     Go ahead.

714. 2:21:29

     Yes. My name is Stephanie Sherman, um, Colquitt-Sherman. I was brutally attacked in 19, um, 93 in front of my children. Um, they was ages three, two, one at that time. This happened, like, 33 years ago, but we're here now. And they lost my rape kit. I'd done a rape kit, and so for evidence inside the court system, they couldn't find it, so we came up with the Stephanie Sherman Act so that it will...

715. 2:22:07

     What we're asking to propose that this committee agree on a non-partisan basis that an anonymous survivor should not be forced to decide within 12 months whether to seek trauma treatment or live with it, but instead be allowed to make this decision when they are ready.

716. 2:22:27

     Mm-hmm. Thank you very much for coming and sharing with us today.

717. 2:22:35

     Yes. Thank you.

718. 2:22:35

     Is there a question? Representative Holley.

719. 2:22:40

     Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for, uh, coming today and be able to tell that, um, to be able to tell from your experience. I was just curious, um, um, by providing this, um, to extend beyond 12 months and to that 30 years, um, would you agree that not only does this provide for the case to be resolved, but it actually allows for the victim, um, to be able to fully get some closure on this case-

720. 2:23:09

     Mm. Yes

721. 2:23:09

     ... and so that it's not out there?

722. 2:23:10

     Yeah. Could I speak to that also?

723. 2:23:13

     Yes, ma'am.

724. 2:23:13

     The, the, the trauma is lifelong. It's just gonna go away. You just learn to manage it.

725. 2:23:20

     Mm-hmm.

726. 2:23:20

     That's all.

727. 2:23:20

     Mm-hmm.

728. 2:23:21

     And it takes a while. I, I actually was with a nine-year-old child at the time, and who is now be 48 years old this year.

729. 2:23:30

     Mm.

730. 2:23:30

     And the one thing that I realized that I was able to actually put myself through college, put myself through, um, uh, uh, education, a, a, um, educator and do some things, but I had to learn to manage it. And I would always think that somebody was behind me. Or he t- the, his last words were always with his, his, um, his, uh, uh, so, his, uh, well, his victims were, um, "I'll come back if you tell anybody, or if you call the police, I'll come back and kill you." That was in the paper.

731. 2:24:03

     That was definitely what everybody heard. So I believe that. And that's a terrible thing to live with. So it takes a moment for somebody to say, "You know, I'm a little tired of living like this." Or you have a m- marriage situation and you got a frigid wife. You don't know why, but you know something's wrong. And those are the things that happen and break us up marriages. And so it takes a, it takes a moment, but it may never happen. My gener- generation don't talk about it.

732. 2:24:34

     Not gonna do it. That's just not it. But at the same time, we're, we're so grateful to the younger generation who actually sees that it's there, there's things that's in place for them and that they can live through this. So just being able to take 30 years, it might not take that long, and hopefully not. In, in Florida, it's 50 years. And the whole idea is bec- so people can get to the point that they will report what is going on in their life, and is it worth it? And, and there were seven people who was on the list.

733. 2:25:07

     Um, there, he, he raped over 150 people over a course of 1974 to 1994, I think it was, 1992. Um, and the one thing that they had w- uh, or found was that he actually, um, caused some problems because of the children. I'm thinking about Stephanie's children.

734. 2:25:30

     Yes.

735. 2:25:30

     Children have to live with this. They thought Stephanie, if I could tell this, Stephanie-

736. 2:25:34

     Right

737. 2:25:34

     ... was going to die. He multip- he stabbed her multiple times, even ended up basically, Stephanie was actually on The Doctor's show to-

738. 2:25:41

     Oh, yeah

739. 2:25:42

     ... for, for, um, for, you know, getting her, her, her tissues and, and everything in place. But he ruins, you know, and all of, all those ruined. And so she had to go through this with her children who were there and watched them, and she pretend she was dead in order to him to stop stabbing her while he raped her.

740. 2:26:00

     That's it.

741. 2:26:01

     So we don't want that. We don't want that in our society. We're tired of that.

742. 2:26:05

     Yeah. Thank you. Buster Holcomb. All right, I got a move, do pass. Second. All those in favor, say aye.

743. 2:26:12

     Aye.

744. 2:26:13

     All those oppose, same sign. You're on the roll. Okay. Next-

745. 2:26:15

     Thank you very much. Thank you very much

746. 2:26:16

     ... next up, we're going to hear, uh, House Bill 1196.

747. 2:26:26

     And I'm gonna present from right here, unless anybody has any objection.

748. 2:26:31

     What number is it please, sir?

749. 2:26:32

     1196.

750. 2:26:39

     Okay, if everybody recall, it was either a year or a couple years ago, we had legislation dealing with criminal trespass. Apparently, we've had situations of those at, uh, different, uh, zoos across our state. I know everybody thinks of just the one here in Atlanta, but even though I, I loved that as a child, there's more than just one here in the state. And so that was actually back in 2024. Uh, so as far as what this would do, it would actually update what we have previously done for criminal trespass, uh, for someone who knowingly causes a foreign object to enter an animal enclosure, and if an individual was to interfere with the operation, functionality, or integrity of a cage, enclosure, or other area where a wild anim- animal is housed or otherwise contained.

751. 2:27:33

     Uh, that, in essence, is what this does. Now, those of us that are learned members of the bar may, uh, say that, you know, "We thought criminal trespass already covered this." Well, again, the coloring book, we have to get out every now and then. So, uh, as bad as I would hate to do it, uh, we're representatives and not judges here. So no offense to our judge that's with us today. I know he does a fantastic job. Just wanted you to know that, Judge.

752. 2:28:03

     Uh, so anyways, uh, questions from members of the committee? Brian Hudson, you're signed up to speak. Come on down.

753. 2:28:16

     And I'll come back if y'all got questions for me.

754. 2:28:17

     Which one of these?

755. 2:28:18

     Either one of them.

756. 2:28:19

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the committee. My name is Brian Hudson, and, uh, I, I run, own the Hudson Group government relations firm. And I have represented Zoo Atlanta, um, probably since about 2007, 2008, something like that. As the chairman mentioned, uh, we worked a few years ago with this committee as well as the Senate, and the governor signed legislation that, uh, w- was really be kind of, became monumental, uh, worldwide. And I, and I say that because we were the first to do it.

757. 2:28:51

     Uh, Georgia was the first state to pass this law, and I think it has worked, uh, very, very well. And we have received a lot of interest from zoos as far as San Diego to Berlin to Australia as far as wanting to model Georgia's law, uh, to protect their animals. And so I think one oversight that we had, and I think thanks to the chairman and Representative Tanya Miller, who actually represents the zoo, she's a great partner in this as well, amongst others, uh, uh, co-sponsors that have facilities in their districts, um, was the growing trend of, um, patrons throwing objects at, at animals.

758. 2:29:31

     I know it sounds crazy, but it's happening. There was a, uh, a situation in Memphis where, um, a, a patrons threw a shoe at a Komodo dragon, and the dragon ate it, and they had to have emergency surgery on, on that animal. And that's, uh, it sounds ridiculous, like childish, but it's, it's the type of behavior that we're dealing with. And I will say, just from our standpoint from Zoo Atlanta, since the law passed two years ago, we've invested over $281,000, which is a lot of money for a nonprofit, uh, in improving, um, the facilities, specifically those with dangerous animals like lions and tigers, clearly.

759. 2:30:16

     Um, and so we are hoping that the ... I walked right into that, didn't I? Thank you. Thanks for not picking on me. Oh, can always count on my good friends. Um, but we, in all seriousness, we did invest, uh, over $280,000 to improve these, uh, enclosures, and, uh, this will just make that, uh, that law that much stronger, and hopefully will continue to be a model for not only United States, but the rest of the world. So, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

760. 2:30:48

     Some of these were lighting up before Brian got up here. Are those questions for him or for myself?

761. 2:30:55

     Waive.

762. 2:30:56

     Okay.

763. 2:30:57

     First proper time.

764. 2:30:59

     Okay. All right. All right. We'll come back once we get another member back.

765. 2:31:07

     Yes, sir. Thank you.

766. 2:31:08

     Has anybody else-

767. 2:31:09

     Thanks, members

768. 2:31:09

     ... signed up to speak to this GACLPAC?

769. 2:31:12

     Oh, you got it.

770. 2:31:13

     I think we're good.

771. 2:31:14

     Go get it.

772. 2:31:14

     All right.

773. 2:31:14

     There we go.

774. 2:31:15

     Okay. Now, entertain your motion, Chairman Crowe.

775. 2:31:19

     I move to pass.

776. 2:31:20

     All right.

777. 2:31:20

     Second.

778. 2:31:21

     Move and a second. Uh, Chair Hong.

779. 2:31:24

     I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman.

780. 2:31:25

     Go ahead.

781. 2:31:26

     Um, j- just so that it reads well, um, on line 25, before any, I'd like to include, "Such term shall not include," and change the A in any to a lower case. So such term shall not include any domestic animal. And then on line 27, starting with the word shall and ending with definition on line 28, strike shall be excluded from this definition, and put a period after science on line 27.

782. 2:32:06

     And I'll take that as a friendly amendment. All right. You hear the Hong Amendment. All those in favor of the Hong Amendment, say I.

783. 2:32:14

     I.

784. 2:32:14

     All those opposed, same sign. Okay, seeing no other amendments, uh, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1196 LC 48 1662 with the Hong Amendment will say I.

785. 2:32:26

     I.

786. 2:32:26

     All those opposed, same sign.

787. 2:32:31

     Congratulations, I'm on the rules.

788. 2:32:37

     Okay. Uh, t- sh- bear with me a minute, members.

789. 2:32:54

     Real quick, I'm going to do this on behalf of Representative Stevens. Uh, this is going to be House Bill 1329 LC 650071. Members that have been here for a little while or even, uh, one session will remember this is a update to our scheduling statute here in the state.

790. 2:33:19

     And this is what we do every year to make sure that we are in compliance with federal code. Trying to see if I have anybody signed up for this one. I don't know that I've ever had anyone signed up for it. GACLPAC, anybody want to take a bite? All right, seeing, seeing none, number seven.

791. 2:33:43

     At the ap- at the appropriate time.

792. 2:33:44

     I'll entertain that time right now.

793. 2:33:46

     Motion to pass.

794. 2:33:47

     Second.

795. 2:33:48

     All right, move and a second to pass. All those in favor of House Bill 1329 LC 650071, say I.

796. 2:33:56

     I.

797. 2:33:56

     All those opposed, same sign. All right. That's on the rules.

798. 2:34:05

     Until we know each one of those drugs on this list.

799. 2:34:10

     Okay, there's a quick update real quick just for, uh, some house- ... house, house-

800. 2:34:19

     Good job. Live. Live.

801. 2:34:23

     All right. So, uh, just for clarification, we've had to move two into Wednesday. We're going to move House Bill 1282 and House Bill 1154 to Wednesday afternoon. That may be a long day, but we will endeavor to persevere, as the Outlaw Josey Wales movie said back in the day. That's your homework for tonight if you've never watched it.

802. 2:34:55

     Uh, let's see, is Representative Gambill with us?

803. 2:34:57

     Nope.

804. 2:34:58

     All right. Those of you that have been in the crowd and needing a restroom break, we're gonna stand at ease for 10 minutes.

805. 2:35:06

     Perfect.

806. 2:35:19

     What you saying, Mark?

807. 2:35:21

     Huh?

808. 2:35:21

     What we gonna watch for homework?

809. 2:35:22

     Yeah.

810. 2:35:22

     Outlaw Jose Wales.

811. 2:35:24

     Oh.

812. 2:35:24

     DVD.

813. 2:35:25

     Yes, sir.

814. 2:35:30

     Go get you a switch, fine boy.

815. 2:52:26

     Trey, if you want to go ahead and present it.

816. 2:52:31

     What kind? Yeah.

817. 2:52:38

     All right, we'll come back to order and go ahead and have you present the bill. So go ahead when ready.

818. 2:52:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee. Um, great to be with y'all today. In my 14 years, I've never had the opportunity to present a bill to the Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, but I know y'all spend a lot of long hours in here, and I certainly appreciate the, the work y'all do, um, despite me not getting to be a part of it until today. Um, but what we're bringing before you today is House Bill 1303, working off of a substitute LC48177S, uh, which deals, uh, w- what I was trying to do, and I'll tell you the, the impetus behind this legislation, uh, is I have a cousin, uh, who is interested in both the political process and is a law enforcement official in Floyd County, um, one of my younger cousins, and he said, "Trey, we have all these child endangerment statutes for, uh, that apply when someone, uh, is consuming alcohol around a child.

819. 2:53:51

     Uh, but we don't necessarily have that for, uh, in, in their driving through DUI, but we don't necessarily have something that relates to someone, um, possessing or using c- controlled substances, uh, in the presence of a minor." And so that's what we have before us today is that it would, um, add on a child endangerment statute for individuals who knowingly possess or have under their control a Schedule 1, um, controlled substance, a narcotic under Schedule 2, or marijuana, uh, while in the presence of a child under age 14.

820. 2:54:30

     It tracks the same, uh, penalty that's in subsection D of code section 16-12-1. Um, it's a fairly simple piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and I'll, I'll be glad to answer any questions.

821. 2:54:48

     Number seven.

822. 2:54:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, generally, I think the bill is good. I'm worried about folks that have the legal medal- medical marijuana cards and the low THC oil, how they could possibly get wrapped up in this with younger children.

823. 2:55:05

     I, I, I agree with you. That's something that I certainly would be open to us trying to, to clarify.

824. 2:55:11

     Okay. Thank you.

825. 2:55:14

     Number three.

826. 2:55:17

     Thank you.

827. 2:55:17

     Nice of you to come back and join us, Representative Kendrick.

828. 2:55:19

     I had to practice in law. Um, my question is about, um, the age of 14. Um, w- why not 16 or 18? Where we get that number from?

829. 2:55:30

     That is where I was trying to track what we have is my understanding in the other child endangerment statutes. But I'm open to suggestions from the committee.

830. 2:55:42

     Number 12. Representative Panitch.

831. 2:55:46

     So in cases involving domestic violence, um, if a, a child is present, then it's called, it's a separate charge also, cruelty to children. Uh, that's a misdemeanor. What ... I, I'm trying to look up 16-12-1, but do you know what the punishment for this is?

832. 2:56:03

     Yes. Um, it is, um, it's a misdemeanor.

833. 2:56:09

     Okay. Thank you.

834. 2:56:12

     Okay.

835. 2:56:16

     Okay. Uh, any other questions from members of the committee? All right. Seeing, seeing none ... Or Representative Roberts.

836. 2:56:29

     I just wanted to clarify. I, I think the first offense is high and aggravated misdemeanor, and the second offense is, um, felony.

837. 2:56:35

     On the, in the substitute-

838. 2:56:38

     Oh, my look

839. 2:56:38

     ... on 16-12-1, first and second are misdeme- just standard misdemeanors. A third, uh, subsequent con- uh, conviction would be-

840. 2:56:49

     Sorry

841. 2:56:50

     ... uh, would be a felony, but it would take the third, um, and that's, uh ... So we had also changed up, um, the provision that would allow each child to be a separate offense. I took that out in my, um, substitute.

842. 2:57:18

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, while y'all contemplate on that, is there anybody signed up to speak to this bill? Okay. Robert Smith, pack.

843. 2:57:30

     I don't ... Everything that got said was brought when you bring it up, other than you also have Schedule 2 drugs that are prescriptions as well. So you need to make sure you bake in some sort of ... You know, 'cause the idea is that, you know, I'm, I'm assuming that the author does not want to criminalize the, when a parent is taking medicine in front of their child.

844. 2:57:50

     Correct.

845. 2:57:51

     And that, so I ... And I know that's not what the intent was, but you just gotta make sure your drafting has that in it to make sure we, that some overzealous whoever doesn't scoop up. And by overzealous, like, not meaning law enforcement, also could be, this could be weaponized in a domestic or something like that. So, but otherwise, you know, I understand the intent, and that's, that was my biggest concern was making sure we had that baked in.

846. 2:58:14

     Okay. All right. Number 17, Chairman Crowe.

847. 2:58:18

     Um, yeah, just to that point, maybe adding something in after Schedule 2 highlighting the fact that in violation of the, the code and, and then after marijuana in violation of 16-13-30, which is, you know, the marijuana statute for violation. So-

848. 2:58:41

     Okay. I, I, if that's the, that's an idea if some of you more n- more knowledgeable lawyers would like to work on framing that. I'll tell you this much, Representative Kelly, if you wanna slide over, I got a couple more to testify. If y'all wanna go over there quietly. If, Robert, you wanna help out and pack. If y'all wanna sit over there and chime in too, please. Thank you. Oh. I

849. 2:59:07

     think there's

850. 2:59:13

     a ... All right. Come on, uh, Dale.

851. 2:59:25

     Say, uh, thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson, and I'm with Frontline Policy Council, in support of HB1303. I'll keep this pretty short. It's been a long day. Uh, this bill addresses a serious gap in our child protection laws. Under current law, possessing controlled substance is a crime, but there is no specific accountability when that possession happens in the direct presence of a young child. Children should not be exposed to illegal drugs in their homes, vehicles, or immediate surroundings. HB1303 reinforces that responsibility and strengthens protections for Georgia's most vulnerable.

852. 2:59:58

     We are grateful to Representative Tre- uh, Trey Kelley for bringing this bill forward, and I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration in support of HB1303. Thank you. Thank you. See no questions from members of the committee.

853. 3:00:12

     Ma'am, do you wanna speak on this one? Uh, I could. I, I mean, it was pretty much said, um... Leave it up to you on that. I appreciate the opportunity. I d- I, uh, personally know some folks who have, um, been targeted by crazy exes, and, uh, I'm worried that they can have another excuse. Um, I'm all about being a responsible adult around children. Um, I also know folks can definitely be targeted for cannabis, uh, whether it's medical or otherwise.

854. 3:00:47

     So yeah, it'd be great if he added that, and it sounds like he's open to it, so I appreciate that. Thank you. Mm-hmm. And what was your name again? I'm sorry. My name is Aviva- Okay ... Vuvuzela. Okay. Mm-hmm. Thank you for being with us today. Mm-hmm. Thank you. We're gonna stay in the days until they finish up on their changes.

855. 3:02:59

     Okay, go right on ahead, Representative Kelly. Mr. Chairman, uh, you know, the, the, the three minds that, that were gathered back there, along with myself, came up with, uh, recommending that we put by knowingly. If, if we move forward with the chair amendments, they suggest that on line 12, just after knowingly, insert the word and, and then the word unlawfully. And they think that would handle the prescription issue as well as the, uh,

856. 3:03:34

     low THC card

857. 3:03:41

     issue. You like that, Holly? Repeat that, repeat that one more time. I'll never say it, but I'm doing it. Repeat that one more time, Representative Kelly. On line 12, after knowingly, you would insert the word and,

858. 3:03:55

     and then the word unlawfully. Okay. Members, y'all have heard the amendment.

859. 3:04:08

     Vice Chair Hong? 16. Or- Okay ... I need to move and second. Move it. Line 16.

860. 3:04:24

     I have a motion, when appropriate. All right, I'll take it. Move, do you pass the second? All right, move, do pass on second. Number 13, you got any discussion on that? I do. Well, not on the- Which number are you, 13? 13. Okay. Let me... You, on the amendment or the bill is all? No, the bill. Okay. I'll come back to you. Okay. All right. You've heard the Hong amendment. Uh, all those in favor of the- All right, I did a move, do pass, sir. Oh, yes. Move, do pass. Can I have an amendment? Ah, that's correct. Okay. All right. Any amendments? Representative Hong.

861. 3:04:56

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I move on line 12, after knowingly, insert and unlawfully. Second. All right. I got second. All right. No discussion on that. Uh, moving and second on the Hong amendment. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. Representative Byrd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanna go back to your question and the age of 14. Um, Representative Kelly, could you explain why 14 and not 16 or 17?

862. 3:05:33

     I'm sure there's a definition of what minor is. You know, it was our goal to track the child endangerment statute as it relates to alcohol, and that was my understanding as to what that was. Thank you. That's my understanding, but I'm here for the committee.

863. 3:05:51

     Okay. All right. No other discussion on it. Uh, all those in favor of the passage of House Bill 1303 LC 48177S as amended with the Hong Amendment, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign. All right. Congratulations. Uh, m- the Secretary of Rules, if you'll get me one of them forms, I'll sign it so you can take it to Chairman Parish. This was so enjoyable, I may try to come back here a few more times.

864. 3:06:23

     No. Okay. I have not heard back from- Thank you ... Representative Gamble. I'm going to let him know that we're going to move this bill of his to Wednesday. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

865. 3:06:47

     Thank you. All right. Perfect.