Senate Judiciary Committee, February 26, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1168495160 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1168495160#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-26/senate-judiciary 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. [0:16:16] window because we have a hard stop at 5:00, and we've got five bills that probably won't be done in five minutes each. So I'll briefly recognize our judge of the day. Mr. Chairman, now Your Honor, Barry Fleming. Would you like to come up and, and take some time from the committee? [0:16:38] Y'all are real busy, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't want to do that. [0:16:38] Yes, sir. Good to have you today. [0:16:39] Appreciate it. [0:16:40] Thank you. Good to have you with us. And we have sign-up sheets for the bills that have not been heard in subcommittee already if you want to come up and sign up to be heard on these bills. Otherwise, we're going to jump right in. And is Senator Setzler in the room? [0:16:55] Yes, I am. [0:16:56] Come on up. We are gonna start with Senate Bill 488. We're working off LC492614. If y'all could grab me the sign-up sheets, please. [0:17:12] Take the sign-up sheet. [0:17:13] Go ahead and, and you are on. Go ahead and get started for us. [0:17:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, bring before you today Senate Bill 488. Um, I've got with me Rob Elvelde. He, he's, uh, um, in lieu of having speakers, I was gonna let him be able to speak on behalf of the industry with me today if that's pleasing to the chair. [0:17:32] Please. [0:17:32] Um, are you hearing me okay, Mr. Chairman? [0:17:34] Mm-hmm. [0:17:34] Okay. Um, [0:17:38] there are four circumstances, um, in the last five years in which we've seen tragic outcomes, uh, with young people. [0:17:58] You can move forward. [0:17:59] Okay, Mr. Chairman. Um, what this bill does is it, it, it clarifies that artificial intelligence products that are, uh, promoted and sold and used by minors, um, can be held as products if harm happens to a minor with respect to product liability. Now, there are four circumstances, uh, in the last five years, um, one in Florida, one in Texas in particular, in which, uh, young people, um, have had life-altering, life-ending, um, encounters through the use of AI products. [0:18:32] The, the Garcia case in Florida, a young man, um, was engaged in a relationship with a, with an AI chatbot, took his own life. Uh, that was actually settled, um, but recognized a theory of product liability, uh, in the product that was sold and promoted to him. Another young man in Texas, um, was engaged with AI products and tragically, um, was advised, "Hey, you know, your, your parents are limiting your screen time. Um, maybe the answer is to kill your parents," and he took his parents' life. [0:19:04] He didn't take his parents' life. Oh, sure. He, he, he was recommended to take his parents' life. Y- y- yes, yes. Thank you. Yeah. He, he was recommended to take his parents' life. Um, but the, the recommendation of that with a child that, um, wa- was influenced in that way heightens to us the need to, to, to ensure that if there's ha- real, true harm that comes from the use of AI products, AI simply, it'll be clarified in Georgia law as it was in Florida, um, and is increasingly in the discussion across the country that a product liability theory of law to be able to be brought, and this bill is carefully and narrowly tailored to do that. [0:19:39] We recognize there's a, a, a desire nationally to not regulate AI products. This is not a regulatory bill. This is intended very clearly to not regulate AI, but simply clarify within our tort structure that if harm comes to a young person, um, that parents, um, can bring a case under a fl- product liability theory, Mr. Chairman. Um, glad to walk through the bill, but that's, that's what the bill does in general, and, uh, w- when we walk through this, Mr. Chairman, be glad to take questions. [0:20:09] Do we have any questions for the author about the bill? Senator Cowsert. [0:20:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So you're equating this to strict liability on products liability cases. Is that the code section we're sliding this into? [0:20:27] Yes, sir. Um, uh, 51-1-11 and 51-1-11.1. What we're doing is we're simply, we're taking this and trying to make it live within our existing product liability code. We're not trying to create new torts, new code. We're trying to let it fit within that, but clarify the particulars of AI products to make sure that it's, it's relevant and narrowly tailored for that purpose. [0:20:51] In those type of actions, you have to first have a finding that the product is defective or inherently dangerous or- [0:21:00] Right [0:21:00] ... et cetera. Seems like you're skipping that level here by just saying if a child is hurt or injured or sustains, you know, some kind of damages, then the product is deemed to be not merchantable or reasonably suited to, to use. [0:21:18] No, that, that's not what we're doing. I appreciate the question. Um, if the... You know, there, there's two theories of law that you can bring, obviously, product, for product liability. There's a, there's a common law approach, and there's a strict liability approach. [0:21:30] And this is strict liability. [0:21:31] This is for those subset of cases that you take a strict liability approach. Um, and if you're able to demonstrate that, that merchantable, um, language, so it's not merchantable or reasonably suited, if the... That's one of the findings in this, this sort of chain of responsibility to pro- pro- to prove product lia- a product liability claim. There's a whole chain of things that have to happen. That's one of the things in the chain. Um, the reason we're, we're, we're seeding this in the existing code section is we do not want to create new law and new case law. [0:22:03] We're trying to fit this within the existing structure but tailor it to, to, to the particulars of AI. And that, that's, that's one of the elements. [0:22:11] Thank you. [0:22:12] Any other questions from the committee for the author? [0:22:17] All right. Thank you. There's one person signed to speak on the bill. It's Tripp Richardson. Do you wanna come up? And yeah, if y'all please take a seat behind you, let him sit here from Front Line. Good afternoon. [0:22:32] Good afternoon, Chair. I just wanna say, uh... You can hear me? [0:22:41] Yes. [0:22:42] Thank you, uh, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Tripp Richardson with Front Line Policy Council. I'm here in support of SB 488. As we've seen, artificial intelligence has advanced at a very fast pace, and generative AI systems have also rapidly advanced prior to laws being enacted addressing the harms and real-world consequences. When minors interact with these systems, the risk can be significant. SB 488 ensures that if a generative AI system is defective and causes injury to a minor, it can be treated like any other product under Georgia's product liability laws. [0:23:16] This bill does not hinder innovation, and it does not presume wrongdoing. It simply clarifies that AI companies have the same responsibility as other product manufacturers to ensure their systems are reasonably safe and to warn off known risk. As technology evolves, accountability must evolve with it, especially when our children are involved. We are thankful for Senator Ed Setzler for bringing this bill forward, and I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration. Thank you. [0:23:45] Thank you, Mr. Richardson. No questions from the committee. Unless everybody, it's time to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? [0:23:56] Motion to pass from Senator Hatchett. Is there a second? [0:23:59] I'll second. [0:24:00] Second from Chairman Tillery. Any discussion? Senator Cowsert. [0:24:04] Yeah. I, I will just say, I'm gonna vote against your bill because I think you're making a sea change in our general tort law in Georgia by going to strict liability for these. Ordinarily, you have to prove negligence, and then you have to prove that the product's defective, and then you have to prove the causation of the damages and then prove the damages. You are skipping in line to go to strict liability, uh, which are not ordinarily used anywhere I know of for any type of computer programs or applications or whatever. [0:24:39] I think there's a better way to achieve your goal, which I applaud your goal. In fact, I've got a bill that is hung up in Family and, and Children committee right now that requires verification of age, parental consent before you download, download or use a product that I think is a better way of doing this. I just think this is a... [0:25:02] It's an extreme sanction to go to strict liability without having to prove all the other elements of a, a general negligence tort. [0:25:10] Mr. Chairman, if I could. I appreciate the, the, my, my friend, the senator from the 46 questions. Um, if you look on 22, again, if it's only for actions that are brought under theory of product liability, um, and then for those, those cases, um, it demonstrates that, you know, there's, there's, the, these, the elements that you talk about here. Reasonably affected by AI system, suffered injury to his or her personal property. All those elements are here. Um, sold. There, there's the requirement there to be the, the, the whole sale nexus that's involved in these kinds of, these circumstances. [0:25:46] Um, you know, you talk about there's gotta be a demonstrate that it's not merchantable or reasonably suited, even though it was represented otherwise, proximate cause. Um, and then, and then we're simply clarifying that a- a- again, in the use of the term personal property comes out of 51-1, um, dash 11, it becomes a product. It just opens the door for a product liability claim to be used if there's damage to a child. But again, we seeded it within, with the existing code so it doesn't create new law. We're, we're sort of living within the existing case law. [0:26:20] Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would just say this is narrowly tailored to the purpose. Um, we're not trying to open this too broad. It is very narrowly tailored. It's not regulatory in nature. This is not in any way trying to regulate AI. It just clarifies that if, again, if children are harmed, there ought to be this opportunity under our law to bring a case. [0:26:37] Any other discussion from the committee? We have a motion to pass. It's been seconded. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. [0:26:49] I count six, seven. Uh, any opposed? Seven, one, the motion carries. [0:26:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:26:55] Thank you. [0:27:02] All right. Let's, we're gonna skip down to Senate Bill 499 because it was already heard in subcommittee. Um, actually, is the, is the substitute ready? Do we have the substitute yet? [0:27:15] We will make the call. [0:27:16] All right. Let's hold. I'm just gonna knock these two out that were from sub. We'll jump on the other two bills. Let's go to Senate Bill 418. Senator Burns, you brought us a substitute. This bill was heard in subcommittee a couple weeks ago. We are working off of [0:27:35] substitute LC492743S. Is that right? [0:27:39] That's correct, sir. [0:27:40] If you will quickly remind us of the bill and tell us the changes you made. [0:27:42] Okay. So, um, Senate Bill 418 is a image protection bill. It protects Georgians, especially minors, from abuse by the use of unauthorized exploitation of their image. Um, it protects Georgians from being represented as nude or in a sexually explicit manner, and it prevents them from being subjected to embarrassment, ridicule, shame, bullying, blackmail or other types of exploitation. [0:28:16] It's a straightforward bill. Definitions are in line 12 through 26. It creates a civil enforcement mechanism in lines 23 through 34 And that is where any person knowingly uses an individual's image together with depictions of nudity or sexually explicit conduct with the knowledge that such use was not authorized is subject to civil enforcement by the attorney general of the State of Georgia. It stays any civil action if criminal action is pending, and it does allow a minor 10 years from the violation of, from the vi- 10 years of violation. [0:28:53] So you can bring, you can go to the attorney general, seek civil action within 10 years, and if you're a minor, 10 years of your 18th birthday. It does protect, uh, deceased individuals from exploitation, and it, uh, recognizes that internet service providers are not liable if they solely provide access or connection. And the biggest change from the original bill is we move from a cause of action in the tort environment to a civil action enforced by the attorney general. [0:29:24] Be happy to take questions. [0:29:25] Any questions for the author? [0:29:30] Senator Gooch. [0:29:30] Question. Non-lawyer question. Sure. Explain the civil action enforcement- All right. So- ... from the AG ... in this case, if you'll turn to lines 32 and 30 th- 34. So in a civil action, the attorney general would bring the action on behalf of the individual who's been violated, and they can seek either injunctive relief or civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation, or both. But the attorney general provides the enforcement. [0:30:07] Chairman Tillery. [0:30:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Why would you want to limit it to that, uh, Chairman Burns? I understand what you're going after. It seems like when they got a lot of other things to do- [0:30:15] That's right [0:30:15] ... you can't get an attorney general, or if the attorney general feels that that's not important- [0:30:20] Well, I- [0:30:20] ... how do you enforce this action? [0:30:22] I think you, the senator has a, a good point. Uh, I would suggest that, uh, civil action was not a, an effective alternative. [0:30:31] Yeah. [0:30:31] And I adopted the approach that, uh, Senator Anavitarte took in Senate Bill 540, and in that case, he utilized the exact same enforcement mechanism, which was civil action enforced by the attorney general, and, uh, that was from LC560577, and it's, it's lines 80 through 84 of that bill. It's essentially the exact language. [0:30:58] Follow-up question then? [0:30:59] Yes. [0:30:59] So would you consider an amendment that allowed enforcement to be brought by more than the attorney general, maybe the district attorney or the solicitor, to be friendly? [0:31:08] I, well, I'd be happy with that. I think that would be a, a friendly amendment, and certainly what we would like is enforcement. [0:31:15] If it went wider than that- [0:31:16] Yeah [0:31:16] ... still, you're okay? [0:31:18] What- whatever the committee, whatever the will of the committee is. [0:31:21] Okay. [0:31:21] We're trying to protect individuals from being abused. [0:31:24] Gotcha. [0:31:31] Are there questions from the committee? [0:31:35] All right, what's the pleasure of the committee? [0:31:37] Motion to pass. [0:31:38] Motion to pass by committee substitute from Senator Gooch. Is there a second? [0:31:42] Second. [0:31:43] Second, Senator Still. Any amendments? [0:31:46] I have an amendment, Mr. Chairman. [0:31:49] Okay. [0:31:51] On line 27, the attorney general, right now the line reads, "The attorney general may bring an enforcement action against any person." I would suggest that it could potentially read, "The attorney general, comma, district attorney, comma, solicitor..." And I, I'm looking at Michael 'cause he may tell me that there's a better way to do this, comma. [0:32:13] Probably have to make sure it's the one who has jurisdiction over it. Mr. Wal- Mr. Walker. [0:32:17] Thank you, Chairman. I, I think if we say, uh, a prosecuting attorney would be sufficient. Um, I think that's the term that we use in the code when we want to encompass. I'm, I'm looking back to the PAC folks to- [0:32:28] They weren't paying attention. [0:32:29] Okay. [0:32:30] They thought the attorney general had it handled, but everybody has faith in the attorney general. [0:32:33] Um, I would double-check, but I think prosecuting attorney would cover it. [0:32:38] Is funding coming down? [0:32:39] Probably not. [0:32:40] No. [0:32:40] It's coming from Senator Tillery, so. But he, he'll be- He'll be gone soon, too, so maybe. [0:32:47] It's a 4A prosecuting attorney. [0:32:47] The attorney general and the, and the appropriate prosecuting attorney. [0:32:51] And the appropriate prosecuting attorney is- [0:32:53] And then, Michael, my question would be- [0:32:55] Order [0:32:55] ... if I wanted to make it broader than that, where you bring a private action, do I have to change anything more than, say, any person may bring? Strike attorney general and say, strike the word attorney general and say person? [0:33:09] Uh, I don't know that- [0:33:10] Chairman [0:33:10] ... an individual could bring a civil enforcement action, Chairman. [0:33:13] Okay. [0:33:13] So I think that may need to be- [0:33:14] What kind of- [0:33:15] ... kind of pulled out- [0:33:16] Standing [0:33:16] ... to say a cause of action. [0:33:17] Okay. Could have a little standing issue there. [0:33:20] So any prosecuting attorney is the suggestion, then, from legislative counsel. [0:33:25] Appropriate, right. [0:33:26] So the appropriate prosecuting attorney, is that what you're saying? [0:33:29] Appropriate prosecuting attorney. [0:33:29] Would need to be repla- would need to be used to replace the attorney general on line 27 and then again on line 33. [0:33:36] But th- would that would be the attorney general or an appropriate prosecuting attorney, is that correct? [0:33:42] Yes. [0:33:42] Yes. [0:33:43] Yes. [0:33:43] Okay. [0:33:43] That's right. [0:33:43] And then that, or, and on line, what was the other one? Uh- [0:33:46] 33. [0:33:46] Or 33. [0:33:51] Does the caption need to be changed on line two? [0:33:54] Probably. [0:33:57] Yes. Yes, sir. [0:34:05] All right. Is there a second for the amendment, proposed amendment? [0:34:11] Second. [0:34:11] There is a second from Senator Gooch. All those in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise your hand. [0:34:20] It is unanimous. Any other amendments? Back to the motion to pass by committee substitute now as amended. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. [0:34:31] Thank you. [0:34:32] Thank you. [0:34:32] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Committee. [0:34:35] All right. Senator Ginn, come on back up. Senate Bill 499, we now have the substitute. You weren't even in the room. [0:34:44] Yeah. [0:34:45] What's more important? [0:34:46] District attorney was calling me. You're up. [0:34:47] Ah. They weren't opposed to my bill, were they? [0:34:50] They were not. [0:34:51] Okay, good. [0:34:52] Until he, uh- [0:34:53] Oh, is it your DA? [0:34:54] The, uh, was- [0:34:56] Oh [0:34:56] ... typical attorney. [0:34:57] Do you need to get a lawyer? [0:34:58] Yajour. I brought my money for Yajour, said the- [0:35:01] Were they warning you- [0:35:02] ... late year that I- [0:35:02] Were they warning you not to bribe the committee chair? [0:35:05] I'm covered, I'm covered for saying I'm not an attorney, but I do have one here on, on, on, uh, retainer. So y'all have to figure out which one it is. [0:35:11] I noticed that a lot. [0:35:13] All right. Please tell us how your bill changed. We are working off a substitute, which is LC492738S. [0:35:24] Well, that's the great news. The, uh, Mr. Chairman, the, uh... I'd like to call on my, my, uh, qualified, uh, member of the committee, who's also an attorney. Said they, uh, to give you those changes. [0:35:35] Leader Hatchett. [0:35:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it was brought to our attention during the last hearing that right now as the law stands, the federal law, this bill really would not have an immediate effect. The only section that would've had an effect was the section that decriminalizes using a suppressor during the commission of certain crimes, including burglary. What the substitute does is it maintains that if you are in the commission of a crime and are using a firearm equipped with a silencer or suppressor, that it is still an enhancement. [0:36:18] All right. Any questions for Leader Hatchett or the author of the bill about the substitute? [0:36:25] There we go. [0:36:26] You could've just asked him next to you, but go ahead, Senator Bearden. [0:36:29] Well, I could have, but, uh, we got some new language in here, I believe, about a bulletproof vest. What we got going on here? [0:36:36] The bulletproof vest was just a definition that was taken from the code section that we struck. The bulletproof vest is not an enhancement for the crime. The, the crime that was, um, gonna be changed in the original bill begins on line 79, and originally it was gonna strike the words firearm equipped with a silencer. But that paragraph does not have anything to do with the bulletproof vest. That's just a carryover definition. [0:37:08] Mr. Walker? [0:37:09] Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you wanna, uh, begin at lines 99 through 103, you can see that's struck out. That's the definition that we're talking about here. That definition was just moved up to subsection A so that all the definitions in this code section would be in one place. So that's not a new definition, it's just a relocated definition. We struck it in one place and added it back in another. [0:37:35] Any other questions for Leader Hatchett or Senator Ginn? Or what's the pleasure of the committee? [0:37:42] Motion do pass. [0:37:43] Motion do pass by committee substitute from former Leader Gooch. Is there a second? [0:37:50] Second. [0:37:50] Second from Leader Hatchett. [0:37:52] LC just moved. [0:37:54] And we are working off the motions for LC492738S, and we have a second. All those in... Is it discussion? [0:38:04] Yeah. [0:38:04] Discussion. [0:38:05] I, so I didn't catch your name earlier. The, the attorney for- [0:38:08] Knox Williams with the, uh, w- the President of American Suppressor Association. [0:38:12] Gotcha. Can- [0:38:12] Yes, sir [0:38:13] ... just 10 seconds, 15, 20 seconds. Might wanna make sure what I think we're doing. You tell me if I'm right. Because of changes at the federal law, we had to make sure that suppressors were still legal in Georgia, and because of change of a federal law, we would've accidentally had them be illegal, so therefore, we put them in our code to make sure they're legal. Am I correct on what we're doing? [0:38:31] More or less, yes, sir. That's correct. [0:38:32] Yeah, more or less. [0:38:32] Fix the more or less. So, yes, sir. [0:38:35] Okay. [0:38:36] This is, this is... Oh, sorry. [0:38:37] If the Big Beautiful Bill had've passed initially, it would've, would've taken away the, the requirement for the stamp and what was going on with it, and our sh- our law specifically called out that, uh, NFA regulation. So for me, we just said, "If it's illegal federally, it's illegal in, in Georgia." And so that's where, to me, we, whatever the feds do to, to, to, we wanna make sure that, you know, if they move subject on it, subject matter on it, that's, that's what's happening. So I'll let Knox probably hit it better than I can. [0:39:06] Yes, sir. The way that, the way that our law reads currently, basically you have to be authorized and registered in compliance with the National Firearms Act, and if suppressors are removed from the National Firearms Act, uh, we wanna make sure that Georgians can still possess, uh, suppressors moving forward. Currently, there's about 270,000 in circulation in the state, and we just wanna make sure that, uh, any change to federal law does not impact Georgians' ability to own these items. [0:39:28] That's what I wanna make sure of. [0:39:29] Yes, sir. [0:39:29] Thank you. [0:39:32] Any other discussion from the committee? All those in favor of the motion do pass by committee substitute, please raise your hand. One. [0:39:44] Seven. Opposed? Two. The motion carries. [0:39:48] Seven were for, sir. [0:39:50] Yeah. [0:39:50] Yes. Thank you. [0:39:52] Thank you. [0:39:52] The, uh... I'm just making sure you can count the money at the end of the day. [0:39:55] Yeah, I'm not the best at counting. [0:39:56] Not a lawyer here. [0:39:56] Yeah. Thank you. [0:39:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. [0:40:10] All right, I'm gonna come down to present Senate Bill 572, and Vice Chairman Cowsert's gonna take over. Don't drink my Starbucks. [0:40:34] All right, Mr. Chairman, you're recognized to present SB 572. [0:40:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, we're working off LC492741, and currently under Georgia law, we have immunity for someone from prosecution in the event they either threaten force or use force against another when it's necessary for their self-defense or to defend a third party. And this would include the ability to use deadly force or, um, great bodily harm when it's being used to prevent deadly force against you or a third party or, um, great bodily harm against you or a third party. [0:41:14] The issue we have is it's not clear in Georgia law as to when this process will happen. This is a pretrial immunity motion that a defendant can file, and we've had examples of cases, in particular, it's a House bill very similar to this that was moving, that the House had some trouble in committee with, and we took a version of that and created a new substitute to try to address this sh- issue with the Senate bill. I think the House passed out a very similar bill today in their committee as well. But the bill really does two different things. [0:41:45] First off, it confirms that this is a pretrial motion that can be raised by a defendant either at arraignment or sometime prior to trial. Second, it confirms that once this issue is r- is raised by a defendant, that there is a, um, that we confirm how the process will actually work when it comes to as a burden of proof. So under the bill, you'll see on, in section one that once someone brings their case and raises the issue, and they set forth their case alleging their immunity, then the burden then will shift to the state, and the state then has the burden at the pretrial hearing to prove that the, that the immunity is not warranted. [0:42:31] In other words, the state now has the burden with clear and convincing evidence to prove that your justification was not warranted. What this will do is make certain that a defendant doesn't have the burden of proof at this pretrial process. It'll also make certain this issue can be decided on the front end, so a defendant is not waiting all the way to trial to deal with this issue as well. One of the concerns we've heard from individuals is that someone has this defense they want to raise, yet they wait years to get to raise that defense. They spend lots of money on lawyers trying to get to the point of a trial, not able to raise this defense in advance. [0:43:06] There's also what I would consider some cleanup that we're doing in this bill as well. You will see on lines 37 through 42, we're confirming that, that this force is not justified. Immunity does not apply when it's used against an officer that is operating in the line of duty, in the performance of their duties, identifying themselves as well, and so you see that on lines 37 through 42. You also will see towards the end of the bill, um, a little bit of cleanup on the civil side that someone can't bring a civil case in the event you could raise this immunity on behalf of an estate or someone else legally, an heir. [0:43:47] In other words, you can't do something through an heir that you couldn't do individually with this in a civil case as well. So it's meant to be some cleanup to confirm when this process will happen, but the substantial change really is the burden-shifting part itself. What prosecutors will tell you, I think some will be here today to testify, currently the way this works is the defendant has the burden. So the defendant, when this hearing does happen, has a preponderance of evidence burden to present evidence saying immunity will apply, and this does make a shift in putting that, that burden on the state. [0:44:21] So the state would actually have to present evidence once the case is laid out for immunity to rebut that immunity. So with that, if I haven't made that very confusing, I'll be happy to answer any questions from the committee. [0:44:34] Any questions from the committee? I don't see any. You explained it so concisely. [0:44:39] Or I made it so confusing that nobody knows what to ask. [0:44:41] I do have three people signed up to speak. Uh, Alex Darr, Georgia Gun Owners. [0:44:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for entering this bill, Senate Bill 572. I am Alex Darr, the political director of Georgia Gun Owners, and our members are in strong support of this bill. This bill addresses a very alarming concern with our stand-your-ground law when you compare it to 16 other states who have similar self-defense protections. As you know, we've had stand-your-ground since 2006, but in practice, citizens who act lawfully can still be arrested, charged, and forced to endure months of legal proceedings, six-figure legal costs and defense attorneys before ever receiving meaningful protections under our current immunity provisions. [0:45:42] This bill will restore balance to our self-defense law. The chairman explained it so well. I hate to be repetitive, but I will go over it again just to, to reiterate some of the high points. Uh, on page, on lines 24 through 26, again, you'll see that this bill changes the code to make the starting point reflect that the use of force presumed was lawful unless the state can demonstrate otherwise. There are, again, I said 16 other states at least who have this provision, uh, but most notably, I think, is Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and California. [0:46:21] They have replaced what it was called the reasonable man doctrine, where the burden of proof rested on the defendant to show that what he did was reasonable. But now these states, and hopefully Georgia, will switch that burden of proof to be on the prosecutor to prove that what you did was wrong or illegal, and you were not justified in doing that. This is America. You are innocent until proven guilty. I think it's not unreasonable to ask that the DAs bring evidence of charge before they charge you. [0:46:54] Uh, continuing on but not of importance like he said, uh, like the chairman said, on lines 81 through 85, we are just restating where you cannot use stand-your-ground law as a defense for criminal actions, and this is reaffirming that you cannot shoot... I don't even like saying that word. You cannot fire on police officers and later claim that it was self-defense. Um, if they are performing their duties in a public place, uh, they are, you are not justified. [0:47:25] Lastly, and this, I think is one of the most important parts, is this will grant that pretrial immunity hearing, but the burden of proof will be then put on the DAs. I'm gonna be honest, the preliminary hearings are less of a concern if we put the, the burden of proof on the DAs. There will be less malicious prosecution or political prosecution of law-abiding Georgians if the DAs actually have to bring the burden of proof themselves. So we would see less people being arrested in self-defense situations, and there is a current case in Georgia where this is happening, um, if there has to be evidence to the contrary that what you did was not reasonable. [0:48:07] With that, I'll answer any questions that anyone might have. [0:48:10] Any questions by the committee? Uh, seeing none, we'll call our next witness, Thomas Weaver. Thank you for being with us. [0:48:27] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. [0:48:28] Hello, Thomas. [0:48:28] To the members of the committee, in the interest of brevity, especially in light of the 5:00 hard stop, I'm gonna be very quick. I support the bill. Uh, I would ask that you do grant it a favorable do-passers recommendation. The only request that I would make is I don't know how a pretrial immunity hearing works across all of the different judicial circuits throughout the state of Georgia. If it should meet with the committee's approval, I would ask that maybe some language be put in the bill requiring that once a defendant makes that prima facie self-defense immunity claim, that the court consider and dispose of that claim within a certain timeline so as to shorten the months-long wait that we hear about. [0:49:09] Maybe like 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, something, just something, as opposed to just having to wait and wait, and we'll get around to you eventually, especially in counties that, in judicial circuits that may not be as pro-gun or self-defense as others. Thank you. [0:49:26] Thank you. Sully- [0:49:28] Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? [0:49:28] Yeah, sure. Got one question for you. [0:49:32] Sorry. [0:49:33] Thomas, I always value your insight. Where would you put it? [0:49:36] Uh, I don't have the bill in front of me. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. [0:49:39] Line 88. [0:49:40] On, on line 88, perhaps. Um, you know, some- [0:49:44] Do you agree? [0:49:44] Well, no. You're the author, um, Mr. Chairman. Uh, in all candid sincerity, Senator Tillery, lines 86 through 88 would probably be a good candidate. When a prima facie claim of immunity has been raised, maybe some kind of language that says that the court shall dispose of that claim within X blank number of time. [0:50:06] Oh, that's... I'm not sure that it's talking about timing of it. It gives you your option to make this claim of immunity during arraignment, which is- [0:50:16] Absolutely [0:50:16] ... the first notice if you want to, or else it's a pretrial motion. So I'm not, I'm not certain that this really is dealing with how fast the determination should be made by a court. The way I read it, if you are the defendant and you raise it- [0:50:32] Absolutely [0:50:33] ... then that burden has shifted. [0:50:34] Absolutely. [0:50:35] Okay. [0:50:35] And I, I don't dispute that, Mr. Chairman. [0:50:37] Yeah. [0:50:37] Um, I value and benefit from the wisdom and insight of the committee and submit myself to that. Thank you. [0:50:43] All right. Sully Sullivan. Got you on the right bill. [0:50:53] Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of this legislation. Um, this bill advances three essential objectives, which is clarity, fairness, and legal consistency. For clarifying justification standards, Georgia law already recognizes the right of individuals to use reasonable force in defense of themselves or others under Title 16, Chapter 3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. However, ambiguity in application can lead to inconsistent rulings, prolonged litigation, and uncertainty for both defendants and prosecutors. [0:51:33] By providing an additional statutory justification and articulation, a rebuttal presumption, this legislation strengthens clarity without removing judicial discretion. The rebuttal presumption ensures that individuals who reasonably act under intimate threat are not automatically treated as criminals. Defendants, while still preserving the state's ability to challenge improper claims where evidence contradicts justification. [0:52:05] Establishing clear timing and standards for immunity claims, the bill provides procedural clarity by specifying when immunity from prosecution must be raised, the applicable standard of proof, the burden placed upon the parties. This promotes judicial efficiency and due process. It allows courts to resolve immunity questions early, reducing unnecessary trials when the use of force is clearly justified under the Georgia law. [0:52:36] Such clarity benefits defendants acting in lawful self-defense, prosecutors seek consistent legal standards, and courts managing caseloads efficiently. And number three, extending civil immunity cons- consistently, the Amendment 251 11-9 ensures that civil immunity aligns with criminal justification findings by extending protection to include claims brought by legal repres- representatives or heirs of the individual against whom force was used. [0:53:11] If a court determines that force was legally justified, the individual should not face financial ruin through civil litigation arising from the same justified act. The provision prevents contradictory outcomes and reinforce legal consistency across criminal and civil proceedings, um, before preserving accountability while protecting the lawful. Importantly, the bill does not eliminate accountability. The rebuttal presumption maintains prosecutorial authority to present evidence when force was excessive or unlawful. [0:53:46] Courts retain oversight. The legislation simply ensures that the law-abiding citizens acting under reasonable fear of imminent harm are afforded the full protections the law intends. With in closing, at its core, the bill affirms a foundational legal principle, individuals should not be criminally prosecuted or civilly punished for actions the law recognized as justified in defense of life. It strengthens clarity in our statutes, supports victims acting in lawful self-defense, promotes judicial efficiency, and maintains proper checks and balances. [0:54:24] For these reason, I respectfully urge the committee to give this bill favorable consideration. Thank you. [0:54:29] Thank you. There are no questions. Ms. Sherry Boston. [0:54:45] Good afternoon. [0:54:45] Good afternoon, Madam DA. Good to have you. [0:54:48] Pleasure to be here, Senator. [0:54:49] Thank you. [0:54:50] Um, I am Sherry Boston. I am the district attorney for DeKalb County. Beside me, I have DA Sara Japour from the Western Judicial Circuit. She signed up after me, and we thought we would just tag-team it. [0:55:01] Great. [0:55:02] I know it's a late day, and we gotta get out of here very quick. I am going to be very quick. I will say, I, I really wanna thank Senator Strickland for taking, uh, uh, quite a bit of time out for the both of us this afternoon. We did meet with him in advance of the hearing to discuss through some of our concerns, and I just want to acknowledge that I appreciate him taking that time and working really hard for, um, us to see if we can understand what the concerns are. I do wanna point out, um, a couple of things, um, in talking about where we're at and making sure I can really just educate this panel on, um, self-defense and understanding that everything that happens in this bill is gonna affect every self-defense case in the criminal system. [0:55:45] And I think that's important to make sure that we know that when we are making these changes, it's not in a wholesale few examples. It will reflect what happens in all cases, and that is very significant. I know that GACTL is gonna get up, um, after us and also speak in opposition, and I just wanna note that anytime you have criminal prosecutors- ... and the defense bar on the same page, um, that should tell you for those folks that work in the system, we understand that there may be some things that we can talk about, um, that the bill as drafted, um, we, we have concerns about for different reasons, but concerns nonetheless that I hope that you will consider. [0:56:23] So very quickly, I just wanna p- point out four things. Um, I, I, the bill I don't think accomplishes the, uh, uh, the fully stated purpose. I have heard people talk about, um, the delay in immunity hearings and findings, and as Senator Cowsert just pointed out, um, this bill does not necessarily reflect that, but that is an issue. And I would like to just state, I will tell you that, um, I think of the 51 DAs in our state, every DA would probably agree if we could have a bill that required the judges to hold a hearing within a certain amount of time after it's filed by defense counil- counsel, we would agree to that. [0:57:05] And I wanna add on that I would like to have, um, some firm rules for the judges to rule on those. I had two immunity motions last year that we had to wait 365 days for a ruling. That's not great for prosecutors, and it's not great for people accused of crimes. So we would be in favor of some notion of that. Um, but getting back to the main issue, this bill really flips the burden. Um, and let me just note, all affirmative defenses in the state of this law are, um, affirmative defenses, meaning that that burden is on the defendant, so this is nothing new. [0:57:43] Um, and this bill flips the, the burden after defendant makes a prima facie case for self-defense, but it doesn't set any type of evidentiary standard for the showing by that defendant, and prima facie doesn't mean anything without a standard. It could be as simple as, "I claim self-defense," and that can't be and should never be enough. Um, the prima facie concept combined with the presumed to be reasonable language means that in practice, an immunity hearing would be required in every single shooting case, no matter how weak the claim of self-defense might be. [0:58:20] Combine that with the state's higher proposed burden at immunity hearings, and this would ba- basically result in two trials in every shooting case. Not just death cases, every shooting case. Um, a bench trial on immunity followed by a jury trial on the indictment, and this is unnecessary and unmanageable. Un- and it would significantly burden the courts. And let me just say, in my jurisdiction and, and across the board, most of us as prosecutors, when we see shooting cases, there are usually two areas of, uh, reasons that people assert. [0:58:55] Either, A, it wasn't me, I was not that shooter, or the second, I did it in self-defense And that happens in mutual combat cases, in cases where people end up in situations where there's multiple guns, and we're trying to decipher who was the aggressor, what happened, did someone lessen the aggression, did someone ramp up the aggression? That's the normal course. And with this bill, what we would see is we would be having full-blown trials twice every time on cases. [0:59:29] Um, and then finally, lines 81 through 85, which prohibit law enforcement from arresting a person who claims self-defense until that claim can be investigated, it would be virtually impossible to arrest anyone on the scene of a shooting. And this would have a huge and negative impact on public safety, especially in those cases, um, where people are likely to flee the jurisdiction. And I want to just state that this bill makes no distinction between lawful gun owners or unlawful firearm possessors, right? [1:00:04] So just note that those circumstances mean that this would apply to everyone with a firearm. [1:00:12] We're happy to take any questions. [1:00:14] You've got a question. Senator Hatchett, you're recognized. [1:00:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, [1:00:23] uh, help me understand. I don't think this bill would be, or this defense could be used in any shooting. Um, when you look at, I guess, line 27 where it says, "A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances, or under the circumstances specified in this subsection A, uh, if they initially provoked it, if they're attempting to commit, committing or fleeing after the commission, was the aggressor." I mean, there's, there's a list here in my mind. [1:00:57] Those are all findings of fact, right? Those are all findings of fact. So, um, for example, let's just take the first one, which is initially provokes the use of force. Well, who's to say who initially provoked the use of force, right? If we're in a, if there are two people in a bar fight, right, um, and there is an altercation whereas there's a shooting, if both people point to each other and say, "No, he was the aggressor," or, "No, he was, no, I wasn't, he was the aggressor," that's a finding of fact. [1:01:30] So in that case, a police officer, there's, it's not clear who is the aggressor. And I can tell you as a prosecutor, we have cases all the time where someone says they were initial aggressor, and it comes down to evidence of trying to figure out, well, who actually started the fight? And then even beyond the fight, who amplified the force? Um, so these are not issues that are readily clear, um, at the time, which is why it's imperative that prosecution sometimes with police, but sometimes initially after we get cases, my office gets cases all the time that we end up dismissing because we determine that perhaps the person that was arrested, um, or the, that was declared the defendant might have actually been the victim because the other person was the aggressor. [1:02:21] So these things are not easily identifiable. [1:02:25] Okay. Thank you. [1:02:26] Any way we could accelerate that timetable? I mean, part of the concerns here is, let's say, you know somebody, you've arrested them, they said, "Nah, it wasn't me, it was them." But there's no shot clock on your determination. This is trying to give them a chance to raise that early and maybe not have to spend that 100,000 in attorney defense fees and, you know, have it hanging over their head. Is there a way we could trigger it sooner or a, you know, basically a finding on the, the findings of fact you're talking about? [1:02:58] Well, I guess, I don't know if my mic's on. [1:03:01] I think it, you're good. [1:03:02] I talk pretty loud. [1:03:03] Yeah. [1:03:03] Um, I'm Sarah Jepore. [1:03:05] Yeah. [1:03:05] I'm the district attorney in the West Georgia Circuit, um, in Carroll and Heard County, so I'm out in the rural, um, West Georgia area. Um, we, we deal with that kind of in two ways. One is, you know, I, I can say as a career prosecutor, I've been a prosecutor for 25 years, um, when we get these cases, we're looking at them and we're, um, reading over the scenario and looking at the evidence, and, um, lots of cases where we do find that there's self-defense involved we don't go forward with. Um, but I do agree with you, and we had conversations with Chairman Strickland about, um, I think as Ms. [1:03:40] Boston stated, um, all prosecutors would be happy to have a timeframe. Um, once the case is indicted and it is put on a calendar and arraigned, um, there isn't a specific timetable. This is one of the motions that defendants can bring up at any time. Um, sometimes they bring it up at arraignment. Sometimes they don't bring it up until, you know, right before trial. Um, but we're happy to have a timetable once they assert that immunity, uh, motion that it be set within a certain timeframe. [1:04:12] Um, I do think that if we have to have the, the presumption or the burden shift back to us, um, that timeframe might need to be a little bit longer, 'cause it's basically a trial, so we're gonna have to subpoena everybody. Um, but I do think that that is reasonable and I, I, you know, in my practice of doing this and having had an immunity motion in a murder trial not that long ago in Haralson County, um, and going through all of that, um, I do agree that having a timeframe where you can get that fleshed out sooner than later, um, is better for all parties. [1:04:47] It's better for the victim's family. It's better for the defendant. It's better for justice. And I do think that that's somewhere, and we had that conversation with Chairman Strickland, that we could agree. Um- [1:04:57] Okay [1:04:58] ... I, I will say, though, um, that the way that it is written, um, with the presumption, it doesn't carve out, um, a A presumption that, um, only certain people are gonna be considered. You know, this doesn't define that. It basically says that there is now a presumption that if you shoot and kill someone, you were reasonable. And I can say this, in my practice, probably eighty percent of the shooting cases result in it was a self-defense. I mean, it is a huge number. [1:05:29] And so now, it doesn't matter if you had, you know, something that maybe was reasonable or you had, you know, two people that get into it in a, a drug deal on the corner and then somebody shooting somebody. They're gonna-- they're presumed, the way that it's written on lines twenty-four to twenty-six, as being just as reasonable as your lawful gun owner that's defending their house from a home invasion. Um, and I, I'd like to say, just for whatever it's worth as my testimony, in my experience, you know, most law enforcement officers and most prosecutors that I have been around, they want justice. [1:06:05] And so it got asked to me about, you know, we have this whole process where we have an immunity motion, and it is prior to the trial, and that is a, um, a pres- um, preponderance of the evidence standard. And, and if a judge finds that more than fifty-one percent that it was self-defense, then that is justice, and the result in that is that we're barred from prosecution. So there are protections for defendants. I, I feel like it's the timeframe that we're talking about. But the way that it's written would stay everything for everyone who claims that it's self-defense, regardless of whether they're otherwise bad actors. [1:06:43] Isn't that defense often, though, sort of deliberated at the jury trial on the underlying charge? [1:06:49] It is. So if, if I go-- if there's an immunity motion and we go through the immunity motion and the immunity motion is denied, then we have a jury trial. They can continue to raise their self-defense, um, and then a jury makes that decision beyond a reasonable doubt. [1:07:04] Right. [1:07:04] The immunity motion allows a defendant to be able to present all of that with no risk because nothing from the immunity motion can be used in the jury trial. [1:07:12] If they win, game over. If they don't, they get a second bite at, at trial. [1:07:16] Correct. That is correct. [1:07:16] Okay. [1:07:17] I did also wanna mention just, um, if we agree to disagree on a lot of it, another concern that I had personally, um, on line eighty-eight was the clear and convincing evidence. I don't do civil work. Um, I think those are civil words just from talking with Chairman Strickland. Um, I'm not sure what that standard would mean. It isn't something that I know that we're held to in any other criminal action. Um, you hear about it when you're in appeals and doing appellate work, but I'm not sure what I would have to do to, to overcome by clear and convincing evidence. [1:07:51] I'm not sure what that would mean for us. [1:07:53] Okay. Got two more of y'all. Gotta have about three minutes each. Maisie Lynn. I've got a bill that I am chairing and presenting in regulated industries in six minutes. Uh. [1:08:09] This is-- My name's Maisie Lynn Guertin. I am the executive director at the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. This is my colleague, Andrew Hall. He's a private defense practitioner in Decatur, um, having formerly been, um, an assistant district attorney actually in the office that, uh, Sherry Boston is now. No? Yes, in leadership now. [1:08:30] In DeKalb County before she became the district attorney. [1:08:32] Right. Didn't work for Sherry, but... Um, I certainly agree with, um, Ms. Boston that it is rare for us to all come to a body like this, the prosecutors and the defense lawyers saying, "We're not thrilled with this bill." We have differences about what we're not thrilled about, as you might imagine, but there are some, um... So I'm-- It's not as if I'm gonna be duplicative here, right? Because it would be very disingenuous for me to say that I don't like a rebuttable presumption of justification. One hundred percent I do for my clients. [1:09:02] Um, but at the same time, we do have some concerns, and one of the ones I wanna highlight first and foremost is in Georgia, we have-- there's a common law right to resist unlawful arrest. So we're talking, you know, several hundred-year-old, uh, right that has been actually very recently acknowledged again by the court here in twenty twenty-five, last year in twenty twenty-five. Um, and when the common law holds its position of power when there is not another statute that preempts it. [1:09:34] And so one concern we have that is just potentially, um, an un... What's my word? What's the word? Um, unintended consequence. Thank you, Senator Tillery. Um, is that the, at lines thirty-seven through forty-two, by codifying the way that, um, force is handled vis-a-vis a law enforcement officer, you would be, um, basically removing the right to resist unlawful arrest because now this would be what controls those behaviors. [1:10:05] Um, I, we do believe that there's some ways to, to work around that, and I've reached out to Chairman Strickland ahe- just ahead of today's conversation and, um, hope that what we've sent is mostly friendly. I mean, he's friendly, and we're friendly. But, um, we haven't had a chance to really discuss the substantive re- um, recommendations that we made. So I, I just wanna say that that's, um, that's on me. Our timeline was pretty tight. Um, but we do believe that there are some ways to, to manage that. [1:10:37] For instance, in lines thirty-seven through forty-two, um, one thing would be tightening up the language around what the officer is doing by removing performance at the end of line thirty-seven, replacing it with lawful discharge of his or her official duties. That will bring this language, that would bring this language in line with the language that we have in the obstruction code section, which then when this is interpreted in the future, there'd be just a lot more language and case law to apply to what that means when an officer is in the lawful discharge of his or her official duties. [1:11:14] Um- And then we would add some language at the end of, um, of sub, of paragraph four that would be suggest- we would suggest, um, provided that such force was not reasonably necessary to resist unlawful arrest or detention, which- [1:11:38] Go ahead [1:11:38] ... which is the language that, um, has been carried forward when the court discusses that common law right to resist unlawful ar- arrest. Did you want to add something? [1:11:49] No, I wanted to say that. [1:11:50] Oh, yeah. I'm not there yet. Yep. [1:11:51] Okay. Sorry. [1:11:52] So then, um, one other concern we had about that same section, 37 through 42, is it appears to us, and, and, um, we were in the hearing yesterday when this bill was presented, a House bill was presented that was very similar and passed out of the Judicial- Judiciary Non-Civil Committee. And part of the conversation there was that one of the goals of lines, what's 41 and 42 here, is to make sure, and I think we've even heard it today, that this is about behavior that occurs out in the public. So like, like for instance, you don't see private residents included here, but a place of public accommodation is a term of art, and it includes places like hotels, which we all know peop- some people do rely on as their residence. [1:12:36] Um, I think the vice chairman certainly has talked about that in other contexts here just this year, that there are, um, I mean, people that do have to live from time to time in hotels. So to the extent that that is the goal, we would suggest putting a period behind public and striking or a place of public accommodation if the goal is to prevent this from happening in places where people live or applying to places where people live. Um, that's it. We, that's all our suggestions. [1:13:07] All right. [1:13:07] And like I said, we've sent them along. I don't know that, um, the chairman's had a chance to decide whether they're friendly, but to the extent that they are, we would welcome your adoption of them. [1:13:18] Thank you. Heather Hallett. I got that right? [1:13:22] Hallett. [1:13:23] Hallett? [1:13:29] Thank you so much. Um, I am Heather Hallett, sorry, I didn't scoot in, um, with Georgia Majority for Gun Safety, and just wanted to provide, um, our comments on this legislation. We oppose this legislation and, um, uh, I guess getting back to the purpose, um, you know, w- why this bill was brought up, um, d- I just wanna echo the comments around, um, it seems I've, I've heard testimony in the House side that, you know, the, the issue is this prolonged legal process to establish immunity, and there was an amendment on the House side to just create a 90-day period for the immunity trial, and that seems like that is an adequate fix for the problem. [1:14:16] And then I, I just w- want to, I mean, I, I appreciate the DAs talking about the number of times that defensive use of force is, is attempted to be u- used, but from 2003 to 2012, the GBI, um, recorded only 21 cases of justifiable defensive use of force, um, involving homicide. So that's over a nine-year period, 21, 21 times. Um, that's less than three a year. [1:14:48] So, um, while it may be an, you know, an attempted, um, legal method, it's not something that is happening all that often. So I, I guess I'm just, m- uh, hoping that it sounds like there are some severe public safety concerns if this bill were to pass. It, we are gonna be hamstringing our law enforcement, gumming up our legal system, which I think we all know that's a concern. Um, and if there is a way to not have those public safety concerns, which it sounds like there is, if we just have a 90-day period for the immunity trial, um, I certainly think that the public safety should trump, um, that, that should be our, our top concern, and that's what we do, Georgia Majority for Gun Safety. [1:15:40] We want our public safety to be top concern. So- [1:15:43] Thank you [1:15:43] ... thank you. [1:15:44] Appreciate it. [1:15:44] Can I ask a question? [1:15:46] Uh, uh, hang on one second. We got a question for you. [1:15:49] Oh, yeah. [1:15:49] Your, your stats were from 2003 to '12? Is that- [1:15:53] Yeah. Yeah, that- [1:15:53] Do you have any current, more current data than that? [1:15:55] That, that was, is what I could find. [1:15:57] Okay. [1:15:58] Um, and I, I will say that that is definitely a concern keeping stats on things like that. I mean, uh, the CDC sometimes will be able to, um, categorize things like that, but that is, it, it's really helpful when you have that data. But that's, that was the only data that I could find. [1:16:19] Thank you. [1:16:19] Mm-hmm. [1:16:21] Okay. Mr. Chairman, would you like a vote or action today? Or you wanna- [1:16:25] Yeah [1:16:25] ... take some of that into consideration and bring it back later? [1:16:29] So let me briefly address one thing I should have said in my opening remarks, too. It was brought up about lines 81 through 85, and that's the part that talks about initial probable cause determinations. The intent of this is not to create another probable cause hearing on the front end or to put law enforcement on the scene in, in a difficult spot. That's reiterating the fact that the initial consideration by law enforcement, which is a probable cause determination they make at that time, has to also consider this immunity defense if it's raised at that time. [1:17:00] But it's not something we're trying to add on officers, not meant to be another hearing along the way. And also to clear up one, one other part, too, the intent of this, if you look at line 87, and the way the law is written, you have to piece this together a little bit. Line 87 talks about the prima facie ca- facie case of immunity being raised. And so that's the idea. You would initially, as a defendant, would have to set your case on the existing law of standing your ground, which we don't change. So you gotta present some evidence to the court initially, looking at lines 18 through 24 Look at these exceptions that exist in our current law, lines 27 to 36. [1:17:36] Your burden as a defendant, at least that's the intent of how we're writing this, is you would still have to make your case. Then, if the prosecutors are correct, the burden would shift to the state to then present evidence, clear and convincing evidence, to rebut that. And so that's the process we're trying to set forth. The hour is late, not just today, but also in session. My request for the committee would be to not amend this now, and to go ahead and move the bill into rules, knowing that this bill still has a long ways to go. And obviously, I started talking with prosecutors today, and also the defense lawyers today, working on potential concerns they have. [1:18:11] Um, and so I know I'll commit to keep doing that moving forward in the event we see some concerns we need to address. So I'd ask the committee to still move the bill today as it is. [1:18:19] What's the pleasure of the committee? I've got a motion from Senator Still. [1:18:25] I'd like to make a motion do pass Senate Bill 572, version LC492741. [1:18:33] Is there a second? [1:18:35] Second. [1:18:35] Got a second from Senator Hatchett. All right. Any proposed amendments or discussion? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. Got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. All opposed. One, two opposed. It passes 7-2. With that, I'm afraid we're gonna have to adjourn your meeting. [1:18:59] Real quick before you guys- [1:19:00] No, I'm already six minutes late for my own meeting and, uh- [1:19:03] We'll wait on you [1:19:03] ... my bill, but we'll have mine first on your next meeting, okay? [1:19:06] Yeah, Monday. [1:19:06] We'll just go ahead and announce that now. Thank you. We're adjourned. [1:19:21] Thank you.