Senate Public Safety Committee, February 25, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1168215035 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1168215035#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-25/senate-public-safety This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:07:34] On a very positive and patriotic note, we are going to call the Senate Public Safety Committee to order. I'd like to call on our very own Senator Chuck Payne to open us up with a word of prayer. [0:07:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you would bow your heads. Dear Heavenly Father, Lord, we just thank you for this opportunity and, and that song, Lord. Just, just, just we, we're thankful to live in a blessed nation that you have blessed so richly. Lord, we just ask you to lead us and guide us in our endeavors in this room today, that everything we do reflect your will. For it's in Jesus' name we pray, amen. [0:08:12] Amen. I got to, uh, sit next to Lee at a dinner last spring. Uh, spent two hours with him. Uh, what a fantastic human being, so gave me the genesis of the song and how many times he'd performed it all over the world, so great stuff. [0:08:27] That's actually Lee Anderson. [0:08:29] Uh, yeah, well- That's a, that's a whole different story, Senator, thank you. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to, uh, have three bills on the calendar. I know some of you have come back from Senate Bill 473. We still have your names. As promised, when we get to that portion, we will have you in order. Uh, we have sign-up sheets in the back for those that do still wanna sign up. If you spoke on that bill last week, uh, we're only gonna do one round of testimony, but again, if you have not, we either have you on the list, or if you're new here today, please sign the sign-up sheets in the back. [0:09:03] The rules are real simple in that. You gotta fill the whole thing out to be called upon, please. Uh, in our three bills, we're gonna do, uh, our Senate Bill 524 first, because it's gonna be a very quick license plate bill. Uh, and I'm gonna ask Senator Harbin to come down here. Uh, if you wanna come down to, uh, the Witness 2 mic there, you can sit down. And, uh, you are looking at a substitute, so if I could have the committee members please all take a look at the substitute to Senate Bill 524, and you should have in your folders LC 39-4992S. [0:09:38] And this is two license plates, and, uh, I believe Senator Parent was gonna join you for part of this. Is that correct? [0:09:43] She had a, a commitment to do a podcast, and she said she might be here and might not, depending upon the time. [0:09:50] All right. Well- [0:09:51] Yeah [0:09:51] ... uh, I would guess that we could probably help talk about the Girl Scouts for her. [0:09:55] We can talk about the Girl Scouts. Would you like to do that? I'm proud of them because they are the Girl Scouts. [0:10:01] I, I agree with everything you just said. Well, you know, my, uh, my sister was a Girl Scout, and she got the Gold Award, and my mom was a Scout leader, so, uh, I'd be honored, uh, to talk about the Girl Scouts. Although, I don't know, maybe Senator Halpern. Were you ever a Girl Scout? [0:10:14] I was. [0:10:14] Okay, then we're gonna let her- [0:10:15] All right [0:10:15] ... talk about the Girl Scouts and why they're so important to this bill. But Senator, uh, why don't you start talking about your first part of the bill, please? [0:10:21] All right. This is a, a two-part. We're working together. This is what I call coming together. This bill, uh, that we're dealing with, or the tag that we're dealing with, is celebrating 250 years of freedom and liberty. We have, we are the only nation that has been established under one document for 250 years, which is absolutely unreal, and that's why our constitutional values are so important. Georgia was one of the first th- 13 states that came together as, as, uh, a, as a nation, or as, as, I like to say this, as the United States of America. [0:10:56] We're realizing back then even more so is that states had great rights, but- [0:11:00] Yeah [0:11:00] ... Georgia was a phenomenal- [0:11:03] I'd like to [0:11:03] ... uh, how to say, add to that. If you look at it, we have, uh, I'm gonna let, uh, pass... Can, can I pass a couple things around, please? [0:11:12] Uh, yes, but we're gonna have to go through- [0:11:13] Okay [0:11:13] ... it pretty quick. [0:11:13] Quick, quick. [0:11:14] Uh- [0:11:14] Okay, I'm, Van- [0:11:14] Do we have a prop? [0:11:15] I'm gonna let Vanna White stand up real quick. [0:11:17] All right. [0:11:17] I'm sorry. I'm, I'm gonna say, he's my assistant, John McWaters. This, I wanted you to see. This is what we're proposing as the, um, 250 years- [0:11:28] Show the other piece [0:11:28] ... of freedom and liberty as far as that. Van, Vanna. Yeah, yeah. He's working for a job. [0:11:33] I might- [0:11:33] But, uh, I just see this. [0:11:35] Mm. [0:11:35] What I see is this, is that we really don't realize what we have. I've had the ab- ability to be in Belarus, a, a communist country. I've been in other countries, and there is no place like America. And I feel like this year especially, we should celebrate with everything we have, to be grateful for the nation that we have, and the first thing we can do is celebrate our 250 years. The flag in the background is the Betsy Ross flag that she created in 1776. There are 13 stars, 13 stripes, representing the 13 colonies that came together. [0:12:08] And I just, for me personally, I have come to m- uh, the older I get, the more I appreciate what our Founding Fathers did for us. I can't imagine this. I can't imagine climbing on a horse and riding from Georgia all the way to Pennsylvania. I just can't s- uh, that, that's beyond me. But you know what? They did, and they did that for us, and we have a great... So that's why I am excited about having 250 years of celebration. I will tell you, the, the responses have been phenomenal. [0:12:39] People say, "Hey, I like that. That's great. I, I wanna celebrate." And I believe that most Americans really do want to celebrate. So I would, I'd w- I would like to, with your permission, sir, uh, um, how do I say this? How do I transfer presentation to the- [0:12:55] It'll remind you. [0:12:55] Committee. [0:12:55] Well, we, we, yeah, we'll yield, we'll yield to the, uh, the fine senator, uh, Halpern, who served as a Girl Scout. Now how far did we make it in the Girl Scouts, Senator? [0:13:04] Background check. [0:13:05] Uh, background check. Um, so I did not make it. I was a Girl Scout. You know, you can go, just like Boy Scouts, you can go all the way. So I did not do that, but I was in the Girl Scouts for a number of years. My daughter, who's 10 and in fourth grade, she was in Brownies. [0:13:20] Mm-hmm. [0:13:20] She's not anymore, but Girl Scouts is an incredible organization, and from kindergarten up through high school graduation, right, you can be part of the organization. It is a leadership organization for girls. And, and in the same way that you'd expect any leadership organization to do, it is allowing young girls to have agency and to participate in the kinds of life skills that they will need to take them through their life, and that is done through their meetings with different kinda curriculum focuses. [0:13:55] So different meetings might focus on an outdoor education. It may focus more on crafts. It may focus on- A number of different things and you earn badges, but the point is that at the end of the day, when we think of Girl Scouts, most people only think of Girl Scout cookies- Mm-hmm ... which we all love. That's right. And but that also teaches our young girls entrepreneurship, and they really have to set up their own shop. They have to pitch the sales to whoever they have. They have to collect the money. They have to distribute the cookies, and it is really teaching them the basics of being able to grow up and, and be whatever they wanna be. [0:14:33] And, and to that point, I'll just only add and then I'll stop, so many of the women that we c- could name today who have hit the highest levels of success, whether that's in the C-suite positions, whether that is astronauts, whether that is in industry, started their young lives as Girl Scouts. [0:14:54] Well, thank you. That was an excellent presentation, uh- [0:14:57] The, the sample is there if you wanna pass those. Those are late coming to, uh, the meeting- [0:15:02] Yeah [0:15:02] ... but at least you'll let know, you know what it looks like. [0:15:04] Absolutely, and of course, Girl Scouts Remore Special by, uh, uh, Julie Gordon Low, who was, uh, right in Savannah, Georgia. [0:15:11] Right. [0:15:11] Uh, and if you could take that tour, you can see her home. So, all right, uh, I think we've talked enough about two license plates at this point. [0:15:18] Yeah. [0:15:18] Excellent presentations. Anybody have any further questions? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? [0:15:23] Move due pass. [0:15:24] Uh, motion due pass from- [0:15:25] Second [0:15:25] ... Payne. I got a second from... I'm gonna give it to, uh, uh, Wicks. She, uh, she jumped in here. So any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. [0:15:33] Aye. Aye. [0:15:34] All opposed, please say no. Passed unanimously. Best of luck in the rules committee. [0:15:37] Thank you, sir. [0:15:38] Thank you for your time. [0:15:39] I appreciate it. I will leave this for the chairman, if I may. [0:15:41] Uh, you may. Thank you very much. I'd love, uh, love to have that. [0:15:44] Put that on the back. [0:15:48] It'll be on the back as well. [0:15:52] I like that. That's great. Okay. All right, we're gonna resume, uh, Senate Bill 473 from Senator Robertson, unless you wanna do, uh, 4- 565 first. [0:16:01] It's an easy one first. [0:16:01] All right. Well, w- in, in deference to the, uh, majority whip, we're going to pull out Senate Bill 565 first. Everybody pull it out of your folders, and let's just make sure we have the right LC number. Uh, Senator, I- I'm looking at, uh, 394946. Is that what you have? [0:16:19] Yes, sir. [0:16:19] All right. [0:16:19] That is correct. [0:16:19] I will turn it over to you. Present from your seat. [0:16:21] Thank you. Uh, first of all, I wanna thank my, my friend, the chairman, for allowing me to do this. Um, this is very simple. All we're doing are identifying post-certified law enforcement officers who work for private universities as peace officers. What this does is it gives them the protection required under, uh, qualified immunity. This came to light after a recent active shooter at the CDC, uh, and we do have the chief from, um, Emory University here. Um, [0:16:52] the, these officers have the same powers as any other law enforcement officers as long as they're on the property there at Emory University, with the exception of, um, the qualified immunity aspect. And when this active shooter was moving there through the CDC, I don't think any officer at Emory University consciously realized this, but probably subconsciously they did, that if they would've gone across the street and left the property of Emory University and engaged that shooter and neutralized him as all of us would expect them to do, they could have exposed themselves to civil liabilities and possibly criminal liabilities because of the fact they were not covered by qualified immunity as other peace officers are. [0:17:42] And I keep saying peace officers because that is the important aspect of the identifier in this. So all this does is grant every law enforcement officer who works at a private university here in the state of Georgia to be identified as peace officers so they can engage in the exact same way that I did when I was in law enforcement, Senator Bearden did, and Senator Payne did. It just gives them that ability, that comfort, and adds that extra layer of security to the community in which they serve. [0:18:15] And with that, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to, to stand for any questions. [0:18:18] Thank you. Any questions to the bill's author from our committee members? Seeing none, we have, uh, one person signed up to speak to this bill. Uh, would you like to come on down, Chief? Uh, you wanna go to that podium right there. We got, uh, thousands of people at home watching, and they wanna see you, uh, present to us. [0:18:38] Thank you very much. I, I appreciate your time, and I appreciate, you know, Senator Robertson for pushing this forward. Uh, I've been in law enforcement for 30 years, uh, 18 of which has been with the university. And one of the things that I realized when I came to the university, uh, was we were doing things sort of procedurally, uh, that were, were a little different, and I couldn't understand why. And, and they explained to us because we were private, we didn't have these protections. This is how we operate. Uh, that was a hard pill to swallow. So 18 years ago, you're trying to say, "Well, how does that work," right? [0:19:11] Um, so I stayed, because this conversation has been ongoing for quite some time. This is, uh, for me, a momentous occasion just to be able to stand here in front of this group and discuss it. Uh, I go to August 8th. 300 officers showed up that day when the CDC was under attack by this individual. 300 officers showed up that day. DeKalb County Officer David Rose died that day. Our officers were minutes, minutes behind him. [0:19:46] Our officers ran to the gunfire. They had active gunfire when they arrived. Didn't hesitate, didn't stop. Ran to the gunfire. Their actions drove that person back into the CDC where he ended his own life and saved lives that day. What happened after that was you do an after action. And you come out of that and you go, "You know what? This told us a couple of things." It told us a lot of things, but really, one of the big things that was taken away was, uh, we're not a sleepy little campus. [0:20:20] Bad things happen. And 300 officers showed up, 33 different agencies showed up, and the only ones that didn't have protections were us. The only ones that fired a weapon were us. That has to change. We have to have the same level of, of protection going out and doing that job. We are asked to do the same job. We have to go to the same academy. We have the same post hours. We have the same requirements, the restrictions that post gives us. [0:20:50] You're holding us to the exact same standard as every officer that patrols this building, but you're not giving us the protections to do our job. That's what we're asking for. Thank you. [0:21:02] Chief, thank you first and foremost for your service and all the folks under your command. Uh, we appreciate what they do each and every day. Are there questions for- [0:21:13] Chief [0:21:13] ... the chief? Seeing none. Thank you so much. [0:21:16] Thank you. [0:21:16] Okay. All right, ladies and gentlemen, what's the will of the committee? [0:21:20] Motion to pass. [0:21:21] Um, I got, uh, Senator Williams with a, a first on that, and second from Senator Payne. Any further discussion from the committee members? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. [0:21:30] I. [0:21:30] All opposed, please say no. Passes unanimously. Congratulations, Senator. Best of luck in the Rules Committee. Well done, everyone. Thank you. [0:21:37] Thank you, chief. [0:21:39] All righty. Last but not least, we are- [0:21:41] And Brian. [0:21:42] Yeah. [0:21:43] Appreciate it. [0:21:44] Yeah. [0:21:44] Still got Murph. [0:21:46] All right. We're going to get back to, uh, Senate Bill 473. Uh, just to remind folks, uh, we, uh, did the presentation of this bill, and we heard from several folks that had signed up to speak. Uh, we did mention, uh, to the three people who are still on the list, because we decided we needed to get some additional work from the bill's author, that they would get to go first. Uh, so we will, uh, be going to them in a moment. But I am first gonna give the opportunity back to, uh, Senator Robertson, who I believe, uh, brought an amendment to this bill. [0:22:19] So if you can catch us up, uh, on the bill. I think, uh, everybody was here, uh, on Monday, but, uh, why don't you just bring us quickly up to speed in what your amendment does? [0:22:28] Yeah. Yes, sir. I, I think, um... Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I, I think I went through this, and I'm working off LC394965S as in Sierra. What we're attempting to do is [0:22:44] streamline- [0:22:46] Hang on a second. I think we have a different bill [0:22:48] ... the bill you got. [0:22:49] Uh, we are operating off of LC394902, and then we have an amendment with it. [0:23:00] LC394902. [0:23:02] Correct. [0:23:02] Okay. [0:23:02] And we have amendment 390503 with it. [0:23:05] Correct. [0:23:05] Okay. [0:23:05] That's, that's the amendment I have. [0:23:07] Okay. [0:23:07] Also. [0:23:07] All right. [0:23:08] Yes. Going through this, this stack. [0:23:15] What's the amendment number? [0:23:17] Uh, you should have amendment AM 390503. All right. [0:23:22] All right. So the, the biggest concern we had, uh, at the beginning was the, um, the $30 fee coming in. And if you notice in the amendment, that fee, if you look on line 15, $15 each of that, $15 of that would go to DBHDD. And then if you look on, um, line 41, [0:23:51] the other 15 would go to DDS. So the two agencies involved would- [0:24:03] We, we should be working off the original bill, LC394902. Do you have that in your folder? Okay. [0:24:08] Yeah, that's- [0:24:09] I, I think if I could clarify- [0:24:11] Yeah [0:24:11] ... I think that perhaps you have both individual, and they might have put it together in a sub-view. We- we're gonna look at it, but never- [0:24:16] Yeah, remember that sub got handed accidentally to Booth earlier. [0:24:19] Correct. [0:24:19] Correct. [0:24:19] Yeah, so we're all, we're operating off of 394902. [0:24:22] Yep. [0:24:23] No, you're fine. Go ahead. [0:24:27] That, that was the, the biggest portion of the, the, the bill. The contention, some contention came up in the initial evaluation that everybody is taking when they come into the program. There were several people that testified, um... Or actually, there was, there was one person that testified to the importance of this initial eval. And I guess I need to back up and, and be clear. [0:24:58] Georgia law right now interpreted says that anybody charged with DUI in the state of Georgia must go through a clinical evaluation. The clinical evaluation is currently being conducted by DBHDD. They have, they maintain a list of certified, um, clinicians who, uh, are experts in the field of addiction, addictionology, um, and other things that are explicitly, um, taught to address individuals with substance abuse issues. [0:25:37] Um, and I s- I say issues instead of addictions, uh, because s- some of these individuals are determined not to be addicted, but those determinations are made by trained clinicians, and Georgia law requires that these individuals go through this. So when individuals come in to, once they're charged, and in, in many cases at post-conviction, they go into the, the DUI schools to simplify the, the name of this, uh, this, um, business that is in Georgia law. [0:26:11] And soon, as soon as they come in, one of their requires before they can ever start a class is to do a, a hundred-question evaluation. This evaluation is fed into a software program, and this software program produces a opinion. My contention is this is duplicative of the clinical evaluation. These individuals should not be mandated to go through this software eval, and then while at the same time being required to go through a clinical evaluation. [0:26:50] When the clinical evaluation is being done person to person, every evaluator must have a bricks and mortar space, and these individuals have to come in there, sit down, and have a face-to-face evaluation with a, with a specially trained person. Um, we have multiple studies done on this. Uh, the study I'm reporting off of comes out of the, uh, the Ralston School at the University of Georgia. It states that this, uh, is duplicative and unnecessary. [0:27:23] Um, it adds unnecessary cost to the individual who's been charged, and it also adds unnecessary stress. And look, if you're looking for somebody that has sympathy for somebody that gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence, then I'm not your guy. But if you're looking for somebody that has sympathy for somebody who's addicted to a substance, whether it be alcohol, meth, cocaine, anything else, then I am your guy. Um, um, I've never been addicted to anything but black coffee, and I've been, been lucky and blessed that I'm not that way. [0:27:58] But myself, and I'm sure Senator Beard- Bearden, and I'm sure Senator Payne, have experienced a lot of people in our job that have been addicted to this, and we understand the, the, the power of the dragon. And so when, uh, these individuals come in there, we want it to be a clean process. We want them to get in there. We want them to be able to get the help they need. We want them to be able to go through the training that's offered by these DUI schools, be able to maintain their driver's license, maintain the opportunity to become productive citizens within the community, keep their jobs, keep their families, keep their property. [0:28:32] And adding this, uh, this extra evaluation on the front end does not do that. And so the, the way we have set the program up, and I've told everybody in the last meeting, I've attended these classes. I sat in a class, uh, in my district and watched the class operate, and the class operated with a live instructor, live programs, and taught h- human beings sitting in the class and human beings engaging through virtual, uh, New Jersey, Miami, Florida, and others who had received DUIs while in the military and chose to get there to follow the rules and go through their driving classes through a Georgia DUI school. [0:29:16] Uh, this is no, uh, YouTube program. This is a classroom program, uh, taught by highly trained professionals in the classroom, um, many of them with, uh, criminal justice backgrounds, uh, understanding, uh, far beyond myself, um, the dangers of drinking and driving and some of the, um, the outside issues that lead to these bad choices. So I know there are people here to speak to the legislation, and we, we have offered up amendments, as the, uh, as the chairman said, and I'll be happy to answer any questions related to the amendments. [0:29:55] And we do have people in the room, uh, that can help, uh, with answering questions also. And with that, Mr. Chair, um, I will stand down and, uh, hopefully move forward. [0:30:07] Thank you, Senator. So, uh, as mentioned a few minutes ago to the committee members, you have the amendment in front of you as well. Before we hear testimony based on the amendment, are there any question to the bill's author from the committee members? I've got a question from Senator Wicks. [0:30:24] Um, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, committee members. I just have two questions. One question for repeat offenders, what is the course of action? And to clarify, um, when you have people that came from out of state and got DUIs or are military members, what is the course of action for them? Because you s- you stated that you want them to get the Georgia training. So would they do this online, or they do it-- do they have to come back to Georgia to get in-person training? [0:30:57] I'm just making sure that that's clarified. [0:31:00] That's an incredible-- That's a, that's a great question. They can do either. [0:31:04] Okay. [0:31:04] And when I say online, I wanna be perfectly clear, this is not something where you click on, a link pops up, there's some video of an instructor telling you what to do, and you can pause it and go to the refrigerator and all this. This is a live engagement. Uh, you're basically, for lack of a better term, you're basically Zooming into a classroom with a live instructor. Uh, the one I was in, they had this large screen that covered the entire wall, and there were many squares on this wall with individuals sitting there at their computers drinking coffee, engaging, uh, with the instructor, and as the instructor went through the program, he would stop and call on individuals, and they would have to answer questions and engage in that. [0:31:42] They did not have the ability of turning their video off so that they could, you know, hide or whatever, and they had to stay engaged. They can choose to do that, or they can choose to buy a plane ticket, fly back to Georgia, rent a hotel room, and take the class there. Because as you know, in my community, I have Fort Benning. As you know, uh, being prior military, not all young soldiers make the best decisions when they go out on the town, and so this gives them that opportunity to, uh, maintain their li- driver's license and in many cases, maintain their military career by, by getting this done. [0:32:16] And, um- So, and some of them are, have the opportunity to do this while still stationed at Fort Benning. But those who get shipped out, uh, usually reach back and get their training there. Others who come to Atlanta for concerts and things like that who may get in trouble, they also have the opportunity to reach back to a school here in Georgia and get that done too. And hopefully get that, uh, hopefully make it less expensive and a little more affordable when they, uh, when they fulfill the requirements that the courts may hand down. [0:32:49] Thank you for the clarification. [0:32:51] Thank you, ma'am. [0:32:52] All right, I got a question from Senator Jackson. [0:32:54] Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so Mr. Whipp, I just wanna make sure am I understanding this correctly, 'cause I'm reading back and forth. Are we increasing the fee for the class while decreasing the amount that goes back to the Department of DBHDD and DDS? [0:33:15] No, ma'am. The, right now there's a $30 fee that's paid out. Half of that fee goes to DDS and half of that fee goes to DBHDD. All we're doing is, is showing that, broken down into two $15 instead of 30. Uh, DDS, what would normally happen is they would pay the $30 and all 30 would go to DDS, then DDS would send $15 to DBHDD. What we're doing is separating that out. The, um, as far as the- [0:33:44] C- can you show me that l- where that- [0:33:45] Yeah [0:33:45] ... how it's divided? [0:33:46] That's, that's what I was... If you look at line 41. [0:33:56] So look at your amendment. So on 15. [0:33:58] Yeah. It's, it's 1- [0:33:59] Right. And then again, you'll break it out, uh, in- [0:34:02] It's line 41 [0:34:03] ... amendment. Yeah. [0:34:07] Mm-hmm. [0:34:09] So if you look on the amendment, uh, you'll see on line 15, breaks out the first part on the amendment, $15. You'll see it again on line 41. So striking the 30, 15, and 15. I think what the bill's author is trying to do is, is put clarity around each part of those and their role of getting that so the state is not out of pocket for these expenses. We're being made whole. [0:34:32] Because there's concern, as you know, Senator Jackson, all money collected by the states, uh, is to go to the general fund. And the concern at DDS was that if we, if they lost it completely, if we sent it all to DBHDD or there were some other things, that that would put them in a $500,000 budget hole. But that, the funds that they use that for go directly back to this type of things, managing the suspended driver's license issues and, and things of that nature. But the increase in cost, the state mandates the costs on these schools, they mandate the tuition, and there's not been a change in this, um, I believe in, in 14 years. [0:35:12] And these schools are bricks-and-mortar schools. Uh, they, the technology is up to date so they can do everything, and the requirements established by the General Assembly, many times we, we send mandates out there and do not anticipate the, uh, the, the pressure we're putting on the individuals that we require to carry out this service. And so all this does is, I think we figured it up, it's about $5.02 a year that we're factoring back in to what they can charge on their tuition. [0:35:40] Okay. May I ask a follow-up question? [0:35:41] Yes, ma'am. [0:35:42] Um, I don't think this is addressed in your amendment, and so just wanna go to the very end of the bill in section four- [0:35:49] Okay [0:35:49] ... um, where it talks about being able to an, accept a lesser plea. So I'm looking at lines 150. [0:35:55] I, I, I know exactly what you're looking at. [0:35:57] Yeah? [0:35:58] Yeah. [0:35:58] Um, so in order to accept the lesser plea- [0:36:03] Yes, ma'am [0:36:03] ... a person would have to complete the DUI program. [0:36:07] Yes, ma'am. [0:36:08] But they haven't been convicted, so they're, they're essentially doing something that is punitive/educational, um, kind of voluntarily ahead of time in order to get the lesser, uh, the lesser plea is, is my understanding. [0:36:25] I'll, I'll lean into my, to my friends to my right if I'm wrong on this, um, but a plea is a admission- [0:36:34] Right [0:36:34] ... of guilt. [0:36:35] Right, but they have it, in order to, in order to get it- [0:36:39] Right [0:36:39] ... in order for the court to accept a plea of an admission of guilt at a lesser charge- [0:36:44] Yes, ma'am [0:36:44] ... you have to take this DUI course first. My concern is that people who, um, are, have, like a public offend- a public defender- [0:36:53] Right [0:36:53] ... they won't know and will not nec- necessarily even be able to afford to take the class ahead of time to qualify for the lesser plea. [0:37:04] The lesser plea of reckless driving usually costs, as far as fines and fees, much more than a DUI. That's, that's, uh, and I hate to use this frame, that's a trade-off. If you go into a courtroom, in a state court where the DUI would be handled, because, uh, unless it's a third DUI it would be a misdemeanor, if you go in there there's a, there's a pretty standard cost for DUI. To go in there and plead it down to reckless driving, um, you're going to, first of all, most cases, hire an attorney. And then, uh, what you're gonna find out for the court to accept that lesser charge, as it's called sometimes, the fee, the fines are gonna be substantially higher. [0:37:41] Because the courts understand, as everyone else, the reason an individual goes in and fights to plead a reckless driving is because they do not want a DUI on their record, they do not want a DUI on their insurance, and, and in other cases. I think for us, and this is my personal opinion, please understand that, for someone to go in and look for the convenience of pleading to a lesser charge, then I don't think we need to let them hide behind the fact that they're, they don't have to do this and that. I think they are being done a favor by being allowed to plead to a lesser charge than DUI. [0:38:16] I'm gonna add to that, uh, Senator, if I could. One of the challenges we have faced is we have habitual offenders who have pled down many times, uh, who are not showing what could be multiple DUIs on their record and, and likely losing their driver's license over it because they have pled down. And hopefully with them getting, uh, some training, uh, and some better understanding, we can alleviate some of that. I, I will tell you if I had my magic wand right now, I wouldn't let anybody plead down. If you're DUI, you're DUI, because I don't think we're capturing enough and we've lost enough lives on Georgia roads because of people who have behaved poorly. [0:38:50] However, I think this is a, a small incremental step in getting there. [0:38:54] I, I don't think they're quite catching, and maybe Senator Bearden can help – [0:38:56] And, and the third DUI- [0:38:57] ... with the factual- [0:38:57] I wanna point out a third DUI is a felony in Georgia. [0:39:00] Sure. [0:39:00] Yeah. [0:39:01] Yep. Yes. [0:39:03] Senator Jackson, let me see if I'm... I think I know what you're saying. So to be eligible for the plea, once they plea, part of that would be to take the class, and what you're saying right now is we're taking the class before we get to the plea. [0:39:15] Right. [0:39:15] And that's where you're having the issue on, on that end. [0:39:18] Right, and so I, I think what we're creating is for people who have the private attorney and have the excess cash, we are giving them a easier pathway to get to the lesser plea, even if the fines are more. They're able to plea down in a way that if someone is indigent and is using a public defender, they're not gonna have that plea available to them if they have to do it before, a- ahead of time. Right? If you have to take the class ahead of time before you see a judge and the judge tells you you have to take the class, I, I think we're just creating, I think we're creating a loophole where people who have access to money and resources are gonna be able to get lesser pleas much more easily than a person who goes through the system in a more traditional way using a public defender. [0:40:01] Um, yeah, you do, you do realize a public defender goes through the system in the traditional way. A public defender is just like any other attorney, and in many cases, in many jurisdiction, a public defender is a private attorney who gets paid to be a public defender. So the due process is no different if I have a public defender or if I have, uh, Senator Cowsert as my attorney. Uh, they're still, they meet with the solicitor general's office. They still go through the cases. They still plea. Uh, they still negotiate. [0:40:31] And at the end, the individual charged has the option of accepting a plea or, as we say, they also have the option of cranking up the jury. It's entirely up to them. Um, nobody w- with a public defender is forced into taking a plea ever. [0:40:48] I'm saying the plea won't be available to that person- [0:40:50] No, the- [0:40:50] ... because they can't take the cla- they will not have taken the class ahead of time. I, I, I will yield my time- [0:40:56] But, but, but they, they would be [0:40:57] ... because I don't think I'm explaining it well. [0:40:58] They would be. Av- the class would be available to them prior. [0:41:01] How would they be able to afford it if it wasn't through a court order mandating it? [0:41:05] If, if that's the way we do it, then we w- we don't put conditions on anybody that may be related to fines and fees, because when, when a fine is given out for a DUI, it is the same whether you have a public defender or a, a, a, a paid attorney. [0:41:21] I, I'll yield my time. [0:41:22] Thank you. [0:41:22] I'm not able to explain it to you. [0:41:24] Yeah, thank you. [0:41:25] I'm looking over at you, Counsel, look like you got something brewing. [0:41:28] You don't want- [0:41:28] Let's hear from, uh, the minority leader. [0:41:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was, I would just say that the difference is what, um, what Jackson's talking about is the person who gets the fine or fees after they're sentenced by the judge, they get 12 months probation to pay that off. They're gonna get at least 12 months probation to pay that off. Here we're saying that they got to pay it before they actually even come to court, which number one, you have a, uh, you have a potential monetary issue. Secondly, I think you might have a potential constitutional issue. Also, it's not... I think we're kind of looking at it wrong. It's not a favor. I mean, it's the state determining that this is how they want to resolve that case. [0:42:02] It's not, it's not a hookup. It's the state saying, "I want to resolve this case by offering you a reckless driving, but now the only way I will offer this to you is you do this first." That's not, that's not how that r- actually works. We don't do that for any other, any other crime. For any other crime would we do that for- [0:42:17] Yeah, any- [0:42:17] ... a misdemeanor. [0:42:18] Yeah. [0:42:18] We, we, you would get, if you have to go to a shoplifting school, you go to a shoplifting school after you get sentenced. That's what happens. If a person wants to take that beforehand, they certainly can, and that might be part of their kind of negotiation. They can say, "Well, I went ahead and took the class." But for the state to say, "I can't prove my case, but I'm not gonna offer you this. It's the state's offer, unless you go do X before you actually can get this particular offer," it's just, it, it just doesn't fit with how we actually do things, not from a practical standpoint, but almost from a constitutional standpoint. [0:42:51] Well- [0:42:51] Because the state is saying they can't prove this case. [0:42:53] From a practical standpoint, I disagree. That's not the state saying they can't prove the case. I- in many cases it is not the state that recommends the plea down of reckless driving. In many cases, it's the public defender or the paid attorney coming into the courtroom requesting a negotiation under conditions in order to plead the case down to a reckless driving, even agreeing to pay a higher fine, which I think you will agree is always higher than the DUI. [0:43:18] Yeah. [0:43:18] Especially if it's a first or second charge. [0:43:20] And it's 100% the state's purview to make that, that recommendation. [0:43:23] It ab- [0:43:23] Absolutely. [0:43:24] It absolutely- [0:43:25] They, a defense attorney can ask me all day long. I always say me. I never left prosecution mentality. But they can ask me all day long for a reckless driving or for anything else. It's my determination whether I'm going to give that or not. It's not based on anything that they're necessarily giving me. It's what I d- determine is in the best interest of the people of Georgia or the people of Augusta, however I made that determination. It is not based on some defense attorney telling me, "This is the offer we're gonna do. You ought to take it." No, I'm gonna determine that it's in the best interest of the people of the state. [0:43:54] If the solicitor general in, in 99% of these cases had their choice, every one of them would be a DUI charge, and that's exactly what it would be from the time the citation was written to the time the case was adjudicated. The only time reckless driving gets brought into the conversation, it's brought in by the defense. [0:44:10] That, that fundamentally is not correct. It just, that is absolutely not correct. [0:44:13] It is, it, it is, it is, it is absolutely correct- [0:44:16] Okay [0:44:16] ... in every case I've been in, so. [0:44:17] I'm, I'm, I'm gonna reign this in a little bit, and I'm going to, uh, just had a quick discussion with our esteemed legislative council, and in the way that the wording is done on this, we've got a couple of thoughts and ideas to talk through. Uh, so, uh, if you would, introduce yourself for all the thousands of people watching at home. [0:44:35] Right. Megan Davidson from Legislative Council's office. Um, I'm hearing the discussion on this, and I do have some, uh, procedural due process concerns, uh, potentially with this provision as it's written, just because you're essentially, um, imposing a fine and a punishment before somebody has been convicted or entered the plea. But I think that perhaps there's a way that we could manipulate this language to make it, instead of saying you would have to, um, complete this course before the court could accept a plea, maybe make it that you would have to agree to complete this course as part of your sentence- [0:45:13] Plea agreement [0:45:15] ... in order to get this plea. [0:45:16] Or could we pay, could we change it to upon conviction? [0:45:20] That upon conviction you would have to have this as part of the sentence? [0:45:22] Well, I think it's part of the plea, though, right? So the plea w- you know, we're agreeing at that point to whatever the terms are. This would be part of the terms of the plea. [0:45:29] But, but what, what I understand, if you say upon conviction, then they realize if they plead down to reckless driving, which once they plead, that is a plea of guilty, that upon conviction, one of the conditions would be that they have to complete this course. [0:45:44] Yeah, you could... I mean, you could make it part of the conviction as well. [0:45:47] Counselor, I'm looking back over at you. [0:45:50] I mean, not necessarily say I'm in favor, but I think what you really would do is just make it like a DUI, 'cause a DUI you have to go to the risk reduction program anyway. To me, you would just say if the person pleads down and they're convicted of reckless driving, they go to risk reduction program. Now, whether the judges and prosecutors would agree with that, we're making new law here, but I think that's the only way you really could do it, is say, "If you plead to reckless driving pursuant to a reckless from DUI- [0:46:12] 40 dash 392 [0:46:13] ... then just like, just like you plead to a DUI, you have to go to risk reduction, you'd have to go to risk reduction, um, for reckless driving. Now- [0:46:20] And I think that takes away the constitutional concern, right? [0:46:23] It, um, yeah. [0:46:24] From the constitutional standpoint. [0:46:25] Yes. [0:46:26] Yes. [0:46:26] That's from a constitutional standpoint. [0:46:27] Yeah. So- [0:46:27] It would alleviate my constitutional concern. [0:46:29] This is great. This is why we have, this is why we have committees, is to deep dive- [0:46:32] Yeah [0:46:32] ... into these bills and work through these issues. I do have a question, though. Uh, I wanna make sure that part of this, if they do plea, it's not just anybody who did reckless driving, 'cause we don't wanna send somebody for DUI school who was driving erratically, necessarily. We want the ones that were actually, uh, somehow, uh, under an influence of drugs, alcohol, et cetera. [0:46:51] Mm-hmm. [0:46:51] So can you do us a favor and work on a little wordsmithing while we hear some testimony? [0:46:56] I, I think it would, would be based, based under a plea on a charge of, I think it's 40-nin, 40-5-392. Is that right? Is it 40... Is it... I know it's 43- [0:47:08] 40- [0:47:08] Yeah, DUI. [0:47:09] Two, th- [0:47:10] 391. [0:47:11] 40- [0:47:11] 40-5-391. [0:47:12] Yeah. [0:47:13] Yeah. [0:47:13] Yeah. [0:47:13] I'll go work on that. [0:47:14] All right. Thank- [0:47:15] Thank you. Been a while since I've done- [0:47:16] And just for clarification, Mr. Chairman- [0:47:17] Yes [0:47:17] ... I'm not necessarily saying I'm in favor of it, I'm just saying that might resolve the issue on constitutionality. I'm not saying I'm voting for it, I'm just saying that might- [0:47:23] No, no, it makes sense. We're certainly- [0:47:25] I'm just making sure we understand. [0:47:26] We, we, we got your disclaimer. Thank you. All right. Okay, any other questions to the bill's author before we hear some testimony? Uh, got a question from Senator Halpern. [0:47:35] Yeah. I, I just wanna go back to the part that you said, I guess I'm looking at the amendment, basically, I think lines 28, a clinical evaluation and risk assessment. You, I believe, said that the clinical evaluation and the assessment were duplicative efforts to some extent in your mind, but I thought that we heard testimony last week that the assessment that we do is really, like, the model and that many other states have followed our model on that, and that, that the assessment piece of the work that we're doing in this, um, DUI risk reduction space, that, that, that is the key to why the state has been so successful with our program and with helping people really identify if they've got, you know, a long... [0:48:32] If they've got actual i- issues that are gonna be longer term to help keep us from getting the first, the second, the third, the fourth DUIs, and really put the assessment piece, from my understanding, is the piece that really helps people put themselves on a different path because they understand themselves better. [0:48:52] Yeah. The, the people that, that work for the vendors of the assessment model, they did testify to that. The evidence I used was from the Ralston School at the University of Georgia, uh, on research done by, um, Oren Mowbray, PhD. Um, and it was, uh, Dr. Mowbray that said it was duplicative and that there was no apparent advantage to it. They didn't see a substantial advantage to it if we, if storage law required the clinical evaluation that is done by actual clinicians. [0:49:27] And because I think something we may all agree on is everybody that gets a DUI is not an alcoholic or- [0:49:34] Right [0:49:34] ... or addicted to something. So- [0:49:36] Definitely always the designated driver. I do not drink. So, but I ac- so I, yes, I- [0:49:40] That's why we don't want you on the road. [0:49:41] No, no. I- [0:49:42] In the, in the, in the minutes of the meeting, shall note that. Uh- [0:49:45] No. [0:49:46] Yeah. [0:49:46] But- [0:49:46] I'm, I'm the guy that calls Uber. Um, drink it or not, I'm the guy that calls Uber. Um, but yes, I was basing it on research by the University of Georgia, and the fact that, uh, while we're raising money on one end, trying to, trying to make it a little more, um, favorable to the person going into the program, that they're not having to run... And, and one of the things is they have to pay for this eval before they can even sit down in the class. [0:50:13] Yeah. [0:50:13] And the person teaching the class is not a clinician. They're an expert, uh, in, in driving training and in s- in, in the DUI school curriculum, not in the clinical world [0:50:26] All righty. We're gonna hear some testimony. Uh, we're gonna get back to where we left off. Erin, if you wanna come down to the podium, we'll hear from you first. And, uh, we're gonna keep everybody to just a few minutes, please, uh, keep us on track. You can go right there if you don't mind, sir. And why don't you, uh, tell us who you are, who you're with, and, uh, your thoughts on this legislation. [0:50:46] Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hearing from me. My name is Andrew Hall. Uh, Ms., uh- [0:50:50] Oh, hang on a minute. I was calling up Erin. [0:50:52] Yes. Yes, sir. I just wanna tell you, she was not able to be here. [0:50:55] Oh, okay. [0:50:55] I have signed the sheet. I do, do not wanna jump the queue. [0:50:58] That's fine. You can take Erin's- [0:50:59] I just wanna let you know, since you called her name, I can st- sit back down and come back up. [0:51:02] Could you stay right where you're at? [0:51:03] Yes, sir. [0:51:03] Go ahead. [0:51:05] Should I just proceed you? [0:51:06] Go right ahead. [0:51:06] All right. Uh, thank you for hearing from me. Um, members of the committee, thank you very much for the time. Looking at this bill, um, my thanks. Um, I have three points I wanna make. Um, I'm gonna jump to my third one, because I wanna thank, uh, Senator Jones for raising the constitutional, uh, infirmity issue, as well as, um, Senator Jackson for also, uh, touching upon it and mentioning it. And so I think that legislative council sounds like that they are already, um, addressing some of those issues. Uh, do think that unlike many other statutes, in fact, any other statute that I can think of, uh, although I'll be the first to s- admit, and my wife will often tell you, "Often wrong," so it may be something I'm missing, but there, there's not a statute that imposes a burden on, um, a defendant pre-conviction, uh, in order to resolve a case to some other charge. [0:51:56] Again, I understand- [0:51:57] Let me pause that [0:51:57] ... this is be- been addressed and is being addressed. That was one of the things I wanted to mention. And again, my thanks to, uh, the senators, as well as the whole committee for looking into that. I'll add to that, and it's something that legislative council can also, um, cogitate on, is traditionally we've always had in the state of Georgia, it's the power of the prosecution, the power of the state to decide what to charge and whether the initial charges are appropriate or should be reduced or changed. Sometimes they, they start too low and they go up, sometimes they start too high and go down. Um, but we also have the courts. [0:52:28] And so in this case, because we're dealing with misdemeanors, it'd be the state courts of Georgia. This principle applies to all the courts of Georgia. The judges are always a checkup on that. They can never actually accept a prosecutor's decision, and only a prosecutor can decide to reduce a charge, but the judge is not obligated to, um, accept that change. And so I mention that only as we start looking at some of these constitutional issues. I think that, um, respectfully, there's also some concerns with, um, the prosecutor's traditional power to choose charges and change charges, as well as judges' discretions and powers in how, what pleas they accept and what pleas they do not accept. [0:53:03] What I'd like to focus on, uh, with my remaining- [0:53:05] We got about one minute left, so wrap it up [0:53:07] ... Oh, real quick. Yes, sir. I will quick. Uh, and I'm more, I am additionally worried about that this will cause clogging of the courts. Uh, and I think what will happen, uh, right now we have, when you plead to a reckless, as a traditional matter throughout the state, you almost always get, uh, risk reduction as one of the requirements. Uh, that's, um, administered by probation. Probation does a great job of that. And I have never in my 30 years of practice had a case reduced from a DUI to a reckless without risk reduction being part of that. And so I think that we're already doing a good job of making sure that folks who enjoy the benefit of having a charge reduced for whatever reason, uh, that they're getting risk reduction. [0:53:45] And my other concern about clogging the courts is if you set it up as it's currently set up as a precondition to resolving a case, you're gonna have cases rescheduled again and again and again, waiting for a defendant to receive, uh, or to complete that DUI course. And the ca- course are not gonna be able to resolve the case in a timely fashion, 'cause they're gonna be rescheduling it and rescheduling it, versus if they go ahead and take and resolve the case, it'll be shipped over to probation, administered, as traditionally done, over a 12-month period, where they can, um, then make sure that the risk reduction concern is being addressed. [0:54:15] Thank you for listening to me. [0:54:16] Thank you very much, Andrew. Appreciate your time. Next up, uh, we'll have Mr. Al Barber. [0:54:29] Mr. Chairman, thank you, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Senate Bill 473. Being the principal architect, uh, not the only, but the principal in what you find in the House, in Senate Bill 473, I'd like to speak a little bit to each of those component parts. But I want to tell you a little bit about myself first. I am the chairman of, of the Georgia Driving School Association. Each of you should have gotten in your packet the list of schools that we, I'm speaking on behalf of. And you can see they're from all over metropolitan Atlanta, east and west side, Athens, Gainesville, Macon, Albany, Savannah, all the way down to Tifton and Valdosta. [0:55:10] So I'm speaking on their behalf, not on my own. This is not, uh, something that we rushed into. Uh, this is a very well thought out plan, and we believe that it has merits. In addition to being the chairman of the Georgia Driving School Association, I'm also, uh, the owner of Barber's Driving School in Columbus, Georgia. We're a 62-year-old company. We're a family-operated business. My son has been with the company 24 years. My grandson started last year at the age of 17. [0:55:41] We have been in this business, I have since the age of seven. Both of my parents started the school in 1964, my father being a police officer and needing extra money. Any of you who are in law enforcement, you can understand that. And my mother ran the administrative side. There was not one meal that we had in our home that my brother and I did not have to hear driving school-related business. So we are indoctrinated from early age all the way up to my current age of 68. So from a practical standpoint, you could say pretty much all of my life I've been in and out of this business. [0:56:15] I've had two special appointments. Uh, first with a previous appointment from Governor Nathan Deal to serve on the Georgia Driver Ed Commission, which I did for three years. I was the principal architect, one of them that, that shaped the Georgia- Uh, GDAC voucher program for- [0:56:31] And now I, I apologize to cut off some of your, your bio, but, uh- [0:56:34] Okay [0:56:34] ... we need you to get right to the point of the bill here. [0:56:36] All right. [0:56:36] Thank you. [0:56:37] Will do. We are operating in the middle of a paradigm shift, and that's why you have two opposite sides on this bill. On one side you have the opposition, who believe the way to solve the problem is to keep the status quo and to continue, through inflationary, uh, increases, uh, to continue to raise what is now $360 all the way up to $525. That's absurd. It, it... You have to be able to stay within a price range where you don't create public safety issues. [0:57:11] Most people are having a hard enough time paying the two-issue, much less that type of increase. So when we looked at this, uh, bill overall, we said let's try to take unnecessary duplicated services, unnecessary expenses, and try to get some margin of profit for the schools that operate, uh, this risk reduction program, and have a modest increase on the top. This approach was not simply by my input, but w- by all the schools throughout the state that I'm representing today. It made sense to have a modest increase and cut unwasteful, u- unnecessary, overlapping services. [0:57:48] And we didn't just stop with our own opinions. We went outside and found the two sharpest professors we could, and Senator Robertson has already talked about the one, uh, from the University of Georgia, to address the needs assessment. From an operational standpoint, there's no absolute purpose to have that up front as a barrier to entry. Uh, the, the professor from the University of Georgia said there's not a problem having a smaller version that's inside the program. A 10-question free assessment could give participants the same level of information of where they may be on the spectrum of addiction. [0:58:24] So that's why we're saying remove that, because it's redundant. Because, as the senator said, they al- al- already have to have a clinical evaluation. The assessment that now is part of the risk reduction program was originally put together as a steering mechanism 35 years ago. It meant someone would come in and take the assessment. If the assessment score was zero, they didn't even have to take the DUI class. If it was under 21, they went to a 16-hour program, level one. If it was 21 and over point score, they went to a level two, 24 hour. [0:58:55] So with that being said, the law was changed, putting everybody into a 20-hour program. So that made that, uh, assessment obsolete, but it hung in there for vendor protection. And so we're trying to remove that to make the barrier to entry for students who need the program much easier. And our thought on this, um, plea down, o- our only thought was, how can we make people responsible for public safety? We're not a, a component of... We're not trying to make people take educational courses that may have a constitutional impact. [0:59:29] We simply want people who have been charged for DUI at some point to have the educational component which is necessary to get them back on the road safely. [0:59:38] Thank you, Mr. Barber- [0:59:39] Okay. Thank you [0:59:39] ... for your testimony. [0:59:40] Save you drive time. [0:59:40] I've got a quick question before you leave here. [0:59:42] Okay. [0:59:43] Senator- [0:59:43] Mr. Barber, to bring the temperature down, what's your feelings on section four, and would you be comfortable with that being taken out? Or would- [0:59:54] Is that on the plea bargain? [0:59:56] Yes, that's on the, that's on the section with reckless driving. [0:59:59] Oh, yeah. I'm, I'm totally comfortable with that, because I think there's too many questions, and our ultimate goal was to make sure the roads were safe. And the last, uh, person to testify said, in fact, many plea bargains, the attorney will say, "You should go take the risk reduction program. It'll help your chance to get the plea bargain." So we know that activity's already going on. [1:00:18] Okay. [1:00:18] Yeah. [1:00:18] Thank you. I appreciate that. [1:00:20] Yeah. [1:00:20] Uh, hang on a second, Senator Bearden's before you but we'll get you next. [1:00:23] Just a quick question. Uh, you mentioned the status quo. Um, is the status quo working? Is it working, the status quo that we're doing now? [1:00:33] No, it's not. It's not effective management, uh, the processes that we need to streamline the operation, and that's why we brought... And it's not just my opinion, Senator. It's from operators all, all over the place. We're not saying that that a- assessment up front doesn't have value. It does, but it needs to be with a clinical evaluator who can take that information, which is diagnostic information, and c- help them better determine what should we do with this client. Instructors inside of a classroom are not equipped to counsel with, um, people in the audiences and, and make any kind of a call. [1:01:07] That belongs with a clinical evaluator who's been trained to deal with and to interpret the findings in that, uh, assessment. We're all for the assessment. We're just saying it's in the wrong place. Put it with the clinical. [1:01:20] All right. We got a question from Senator Jackson. [1:01:23] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, who was the professor that you referenced? Um, what's, what type of professorshiping, what kind of doctorate do they have? [1:01:31] Oh, yeah. So- [1:01:32] What's their area of expertise? [1:01:33] Yeah. So, um- [1:01:35] Late in the day [1:01:36] ... we knew that we needed to get some expert opinion on the issue, so we went to the University of Georgia and found the director of the Rostin Institute of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities. His expertise is in addiction and assessment, and his findings have been read a couple times by Senator Robertson saying that there's a- [1:01:58] That's- [1:01:58] Yeah [1:01:58] ... that's what I needed. [1:01:59] Yeah. We're- [1:01:59] Thank you. That's [1:01:59] ... we're relying on that. [1:02:00] Yeah. [1:02:01] All right. Great. Thank you very much for your testimony. [1:02:03] Okay. Thank you. [1:02:03] And last person to speak, uh, my friend Bob Dallas. Come on down, Bob. And everybody knows your commitment. Uh, no, come, uh, come on up to the podium. We know your commitment to, uh, keeping our roads safe over these many years. [1:02:16] I've got something I forgot to stop by. [1:02:17] Uh, thank you very much, uh, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bob Dallas, and you may know me as a former director of the Go- Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety. But here today I'm representing MADD Georgia. As you know, Mothers Against Drunk Driving is absolutely opposed to any impaired driving, and the goal is zero impaired driving, and until we reach that goal we won't stop. And to that end, I just wanna thank this committee and the legislature over the years for moving Georgia's laws forward- With respect to our behavior on the roadway, I'd put Georgia at the top when it comes to having good laws on the book. [1:02:50] Um, specifically looking at, um, this, the thing that I look at as director and as an advocate for highway safety is what's the data say and what are the best practices to achieve outcomes? And when I look at this program, and I'm very familiar with the PRI program that you heard about before, its data and its, uh, assessment of how it's doing shows positive outcome. And, and that's important because there's no point in funding programs that don't work. And as you heard, PRI is in all states, so to the question of if you are in the military somewhere else, you can take PRI in person at those locations. [1:03:28] Um, so that addresses the non-Georgia citizen, and I think that's an important thing, military and, and otherwise. I'll also note that the program has been updated and kept current over the years at no cost to the state. And, and that's a key component of any of these programs, is that they are maintained, and I think the PRI has demonstrated its ability to do that. My understanding in getting to the assessment itself is that's about $8 for the assessment to, uh, be put forward, and what it provides is a baseline for that individual. Is it perfect? Probably not. [1:03:58] Not much is. But having said that, it does then allow that instructor to get an idea about that individual as to how they come out on an assessment. So while maybe not a clinician, an instructor's certainly a highly trained person, as we have heard, who can use that as part of their pedagogy while working with the students. And so they can communicate with each other and understand each other perhaps better. I will note that the in-person component that we think at MADD is important is, you know, we look at what happened during the pandemic where we all went online, and we see some of the impact, for example, in our school outcomes, and we- you all are talking about that in other fields. [1:04:35] But it also applies here. We think that that in-person communication between the instructor and the fellow students helps to make this a better program. And understand, this is not a lecture, but it's engagement, and I will close with this point. Um, one of the things that I learned as highway safety director about DUIs, how many of them became reckless. And at some point you ask yourself your question, why do we even have DUIs anymore, because they all become reckless. I think when I look at the, uh, requirement that there be instruction for the person that goes from DUI to reckless is important. [1:05:11] It's not punishment. It's helping to better that person to be better on the roadway. So co- overcoming the constitutional questions that have been raised here, I think that's a very positive thing. Thank you, sir. [1:05:22] Thank you for your thoughtful comments as always, Bob. Okay. Here's the posture of the committee. Uh, in talking to Senator Robertson, he has agreed that he, uh, when we get to the amendment process, will strike section four, which I think addresses several people's concerns. And we also have the amendment in your folders, which is AM39-0503. In order to do that, we'll need a motion and second to begin the amendment process. Uh, what is the will of the committee? [1:05:53] One motion. [1:05:54] I got a motion due pass from the minority leader. Do I have a second? I have a second from Senator Wicks. Now we will, uh, open it up for amendments. Uh, the first one, uh, I would consider would be AM39-0503. Does somebody wanna offer that as an amendment? [1:06:12] Offer. [1:06:12] I got an amendment from Senator Payne. I had a second from Senator Dickerson. All those in favor of amendment one, please raise your hand. All opposed? Amendment one is adopted. We're gonna go on to a potential second amendment. Uh, who would like to make the amendment to strike lines 147 to 153, which is section four in the bill? All right, we're gonna call that the Jackson amendment. Uh, do we have a second? [1:06:40] I'll second. [1:06:41] I got a second from Senator Wicks. Uh, well, she got it first. [1:06:45] Yeah. [1:06:45] Uh, all those in favor of the Jackson amendment, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Okay. We now have a new committee substitute as amended here in our committee. [1:06:57] I make amendment. [1:06:58] Do you wanna make another amendment? All right. Well- [1:07:00] I, I lost my amendment that we, that I was about to amend. [1:07:03] You lost your amendment to amendment. I'm gonna recognize Senator Bearden. [1:07:08] Yeah, I'm looking at 4902, and there's an amendment somewhere- [1:07:11] Uh- [1:07:11] ... that we just adopted. That's why I was going to amend. [1:07:14] You're gonna adopt- [1:07:15] Amending [1:07:16] ... AM- [1:07:16] Amending the amendment [1:07:17] ... 39053? You might be a little late in this process, but what do you have, uh, Senator? [1:07:25] Do you, uh... [1:07:30] It would be on line... It's gonna be an unfriendly amendment to my friend from the 29th, on line 36, [1:07:39] where it says, "An instruction shall be provided through in-person instruction." [1:07:44] This is operating on which one? [1:07:46] He is operating off the- [1:07:47] It's off the amendment [1:07:48] ... amendment 39. [1:07:49] 0503. [1:07:49] Okay. [1:07:53] After the word instruction, strike the remainder of the sentence. [1:07:57] Okay, so your amendment is to strike out the remote participation platforms- [1:08:02] From or remote [1:08:03] ... utilizing in-person instruction providers. [1:08:06] Yeah. And replace it with a semicolon, provided, comma, however, comma, that if the in- that if the instruction is to be provided to active duty military personnel, comma, such training may be provided through remote participation platforms utilizing in-person instruction providers. [1:08:33] Okay, so for the committee to make sure we understand what his proposed amendment is from Senator Bearden, I'm gonna call that the Bearden amendment, is that rather than having it open for everybody, he is isolating that to those who are serving currently in the armed forces. [1:08:47] Correct. [1:08:48] Okay. Uh- All right, so that's the Bearden amendment that he is making. Um, is there a second to his amendment? [1:08:59] Second. I've got a second from Senator Payne. Further discussion from the committee members? Uh, Senator Robertson? [1:09:06] Yes. I, I think it goes straight to Senator Jackson's concerns while it goes. So what we're gonna do is we're gonna take people who have jobs and who have temporary driver's licenses and have to get to places, and we're gonna tell them now that they cannot have live instruction on their computer, iPhone, or whatever device at home, but we're gonna require them to work with their job schedule, if they're on second shift, heaven forbid, that they have to drive in to their school on a temporary license, on a v- in, in their vehicle, park in a parking lot, and go sit in a classroom. [1:09:38] Again, these are not typical online meetings. Um, I had somebody from over in the House approach me with, with something similar to this, and, um, at that time I told them that, um, I think it's counterproductive for the people that we're trying to help. And so, uh, I would, uh, strongly oppose this amendment. [1:09:57] All right. So I've got a motion and a second on the third amendment. We're calling the Bearden amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. One, two. All those opposed, raise your hand. Uh, that motion fails. All right, so we are back to, uh, the committee sub as amended. Any further amendments or discussion from the committee members? Seeing none, I'm gonna call the question. All those in favor, please raise your hand. [1:10:31] One, two, three. Are you yes or no? Yes. Four, five. All those opposed, please like sign. [1:10:43] No. We are not allowed to abstain in committee, Senator. Okay. Th- that is five to four. Uh, the bill, uh, carries. Uh, congratulations, Senator. Best of luck to you in the Rules Committee. All right, so very quick housekeeping before we adjourn, ladies and gentlemen. W- so today was the last day that anyone could drop a Senate bill for consideration in committee. We have one more committee meeting prior, uh, that bills can then be favor or vote out of a Public Safety Committee, uh, in order to be eligible for crossover day the end of next week on Friday. [1:11:20] That committee meeting is going to be on Monday, and that is a committee day. Uh, keep your eyes open right now. I'm not sure if we're going to be at our normal 1:00 time or if they're going to adjust the calendar based on it being committee day. Uh, we will get back to you as soon as possible. We did just get a whole bunch more bills. We're gonna go through those. We'll try and get those out to you as soon as possible, especially if there are substitutes, uh, to stay ahead of that. And if you have any questions at a time, please contact myself, uh, Will Spencer, or Kiki behind me in order to get you the proper information. [1:11:51] Is there any other comments or discussion from the committee members? Thank you so much for coming. This meeting is hereby adjourned.