--- title: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 11, 2026 collection: meetings id: 2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil cite_as: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 11, 2026, video https://vimeo.com/1171886515 (machine transcript by Georgia Commons) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil/text source_url: https://vimeo.com/1171886515 date: 2026-03-11 status: machine transcript corpus_version: meetings-2026-10-23-8c15ead0f18d license: Machine transcript and summaries by Georgia Commons from the General Assembly's public video; the video stays on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-agriculture-and-consumer-affairs.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-defense-and-veterans-affairs.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md chamber: House body: House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee body_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/house-judiciary-non-civil.md meeting_kind: committee session: 2025-2026 Regular Session start_time: 2026-03-11T09:30:00-04:00 location: 132 CAP duration_seconds: 5387.0 video_id: 1171886515 video_title: 03.11.26 Judiciary Non-Civil agenda_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Juvenile Justice%2FJudiciary Non-Civil committee meeting 3.11.26.pdf bills_discussed: - SB 443 - SB 27 - SB 468 summaries_model: gpt-6.1-sol transcript_turns: 313 transcript_chars: 85322 parts: - https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=0 - https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=59658 --- # House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 11, 2026 House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee; March 11, 2026; 2025-2026 Regular Session. Video, on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel: https://vimeo.com/1171886515. Agenda: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Juvenile Justice%2FJudiciary Non-Civil committee meeting 3.11.26.pdf. > 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. ## Summary written by Georgia Commons Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the transcript below. It is not part of the record. Quote the transcript or the video, not the summary. The committee heard presentations and public testimony on [SB 443](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb443), concerning penalties for blocking roads; [SB 27](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb27), concerning doxxing; and [SB 468](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb468), concerning reporting and risk classifications for registered sex offenders. Testimony raised questions about protest rights, protected speech, individualized risk assessments and monitoring people without stable housing. The sponsor of [SB 468](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb468) expressed support for possible changes to its homelessness definition and classification language, but no amendments were adopted in the transcript. The committee lacked a quorum to vote, and no votes on the three bills were recorded before adjournment. ## Bills discussed (3) Each account was written by gpt-6.1-sol from the stretch of the transcript it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda. ### SB 443. Offenses Against Public Order; the punishment for the offense of obstructing highways, streets, sidewalks, or other public passages; increase [SB 443](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb443) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:08:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=539s), turns 0 to 63. The sponsor said [SB 443](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb443) would raise the penalty for obstructing roads from a misdemeanor to a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature, giving law enforcement stronger tools to keep roads open for emergency vehicles and other traffic. The sponsor said a Senate floor amendment restored language covering sidewalks and other public passages after its accidental removal, keeping those obstructions ordinary misdemeanors. In response to a committee member, the sponsor confirmed that the bill targeted blockages of highways, bridges and airport routes. A witness for the ACLU of Georgia opposed the increased penalty, warning that it could affect spontaneous protests whose organizers lack time to obtain permits. The witness asked for rejection or changes protecting those demonstrations. One committee member questioned whether existing language requiring refusal to remove an obstruction after an official request already addressed that concern. The witness said it addressed part of the concern, but argued that officials should offer alternatives that let protests continue while allowing people through. The chair deferred action because the committee lacked a quorum. No vote was recorded. ### SB 27. Stalking; offense of doxxing; penalties; protective order; provide [SB 27](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb27) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:20:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1212s), turns 64 to 157. The sponsor said [SB 27](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb27) would define and penalize doxxing, describing harmful sharing of identifying and location information as a growing problem. The sponsor said language preserving First Amendment rights addressed earlier concerns. A former state attorney general and a Front Line Policy witness supported the bill. The latter said it would close a gap in protections against online harassment. An ACLU of Georgia witness warned that the definition and reckless-disregard standard could cover negative business reviews without harmful intent. A second opposing witness said it could also cover criticism of public figures, identification of officers and campaigns publicizing someone's conduct. That witness argued that existing stalking and harassment laws already address intentional harm and that a constitutional-protection clause would not prevent people from avoiding lawful speech. Asked about changes, the second witness suggested removing significant economic injury as a covered harm, requiring intent rather than reckless disregard, requiring actual fear and reconsidering the separate aggravated offense. The sponsor, who reported experiencing two swatting incidents, disputed the opponents' legal interpretation and review examples, saying the bill required identifying information combined with a purpose to cause harm. The sponsor expressed confidence in its constitutionality. The chair deferred a vote until a quorum was available. ### SB 468. Sexual Offender Risk Review Board; reporting requirements of sexual offenders; increase [SB 468](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb468) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:48:17](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2897s), turns 158 to 311. The sponsor said [SB 468](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb468) would define homelessness for registry purposes, require reporting within 72 hours after release and 36 hours after moving, and allow ankle monitoring of certain homeless registrants on probation or parole. The sponsor said specified convictions would require at least level-two classification or classification as a sexually dangerous predator. One committee member questioned whether mandatory level-two language could prevent a higher classification. The sponsor said these were minimums and welcomed clarifying language. The sponsor said a prior amendment preserved 72 hours after release at the Department of Community Supervision's request. Two defense attorneys and a Restore Georgia witness urged preserving individualized risk assessments. The attorneys warned that conviction-based classifications could place people too high or too low, increase litigation and threaten the legal basis for monitoring. One attorney raised signal gaps and complications involving nonsexual kidnapping and out-of-state convictions. The second raised charging barriers for homeless people and proposed narrowing the homelessness definition. A witness supporting sheriffs endorsed stronger location tracking. The sponsor said monitoring would apply only during probation or parole, with funding available for indigent participants, and welcomed removing subjective housing language and clarifying classification discretion. No changes were adopted. The chair deferred voting for lack of a quorum. > The transcript runs 85,322 characters. A reader that cannot take it at once can read it in 2 parts: part 1 https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=0; part 2 https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-11/house-judiciary-non-civil.md?start=59658. ## Transcript (313 turns) [0:08:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=511s) All right, good morning, everyone. Thank y'all for being out so early. Thank you for breakfast from the, uh, GACCO this morning. Appreciate that. Uh, we'll start off with a word of prayer real quick if you bow your heads with me. Lord Jesus, thank you for this day. Thank you for all your blessings. We ask that you help us here today, Lord. Help us do what would be pleasing to your will and in your sight, Lord. In your name we pray, amen. All right. First up, I'm gonna call Senate Bill 443, uh, Senator S- uh, Cardin Summers. [0:09:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=542s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:09:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=544s) And just pull the microphone down when you decide which one. [0:09:11](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=551s) Okay. [0:09:11](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=551s) Don't matter. [0:09:16](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=556s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Um, I call this a common sense bill. Uh, I hope you guys, uh, with your, um, abilities to figure out what we did, we'll make it real quick and real simple here. Uh, this was passed by substitute. I'm working off SB443CSFA. That's what I, what I prayed off, okay? Uh, basically what this bill will do, we... I have no issue with anybody protesting. I think protesting's what we... Anybody wants to protest, I'm okay with, as long as you do it lawfully. [0:09:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=588s) And this is not the, the... This is not to make anybody feel like they can't protest. I mean, you wanna protest, go protest all day long. I don't care. Just do it lawfully. Uh, this bill basically changes the, if you're blocking a road or a passage, streets, that type thing, it went from a misdemeanor to a highly aggravated misdemeanor, which gives law enforcement a little bit more tool, a little bit more teeth in the thing to make people move when they ask them to move out of roads. We don't want to be blocking roads for ambulances, mothers taking kids to school, picking up kids to school, fire trucks, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. [0:10:18](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=618s) You wanna protest, protest the correct way. And if you'll notice on, um, uh, uh, the line 12, if you'll notice on line 12, we had marked through sidewalks and other public passage. Ledge council did that when I asked them to take sidewalks out, being highly aggravated, and it was a scrivener's error. And, um, we got it put back in on a floor amendment, uh, because what happened was is it was already a misdemeanor to block sidewalks or passageways. [0:10:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=649s) But by striking it, it took it out of law. So we had to put it back in as law on a, on, uh, with a floor amendment to put sidewalks and public passageway, it simply goes back to being a misdemeanor, not a highly aggravated misdemeanor. And that was the two changes, Mr. Chairman, in the bill. [0:11:06](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=666s) Okay. Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Representative Panitch. [0:11:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=672s) Thank you. Good morning, and thank you for the bill. Is this intended to prevent people from blocking roads, like to the airport or bridges or highways that stop the flow of traffic- [0:11:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=684s) Absolutely [0:11:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=684s) ... including people who have emergencies? I've heard some anecdotal problems of- [0:11:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=688s) Absolutely. [0:11:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=688s) Okay. Thank you. [0:11:29](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=689s) Yes, ma'am. [0:11:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=690s) This, I appreciate this. [0:11:33](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=693s) Representative Roberts. [0:11:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=695s) Yes, thank you for the chair. What does CSFA mean? [0:11:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=699s) I think that actually be for the senator. [0:11:41](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=701s) I was gonna ask you. [0:11:44](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=704s) Substitu- [0:11:44](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=704s) Substi- It's committee substitute or something, but I don't know what the FA is, so. [0:11:47](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=707s) Oh, got it. [0:11:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=708s) I know it's- [0:11:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=708s) Sorry. Thank you [0:11:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=709s) ... committee substitute 'cause it's passed by substitute, so. [0:11:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=711s) Thank you. [0:11:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=711s) Uh, yeah. [0:11:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=712s) Thank you. [0:11:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=712s) Uh-huh. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? Okay. Uh, that's all I see. Senator, if you want to- [0:12:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=720s) I raise committee substitute floor amendment. [0:12:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=722s) Okay. [0:12:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=722s) There you go. [0:12:03](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=723s) Yeah, all right. [0:12:03](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=723s) Committee substitute floor amendment. [0:12:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=724s) Got it. [0:12:05](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=725s) Senator, if you wanna slide over, I'm gonna get the testimony here shortly. Uh, let's see. If you wanna slide over. Uh, let's see. Blake Feldman on 398. [0:12:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=740s) Excuse me, not Feldman. Golly. [0:12:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=742s) 448. [0:12:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=742s) Sarah Hunt Blackwell. [0:12:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=752s) Good morning, Chairman, members of the committees. Good to see you all. Uh, my name is Sarah Hunt Blackwell. I'm senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Georgia. I'm here testifying in opposition to Senate Bill 443, uh, because of the increase in, uh, penalty for obstruction of streets and highways from a simple misdemeanor to an high and aggravated misdemeanor. Um, although the, the text of this bill doesn't necessarily directly mention protest, um, it's fair to say that protests could be significantly impacted by this legislation, and protests can arise in a number of ways. [0:13:05](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=785s) So, um, I think what the, the, as the bill sponsor said, there are protests that happen, um, where you submit a permit application, and the jurisdiction where you're protesting either approves the application or they don't, or they provide some feedback to that application asking you to make adjustments to it. Um, so pre-planned protests are widely recognized as protected by First Amendment, and the United Spra- n- United States Supreme Court has also made clear that spontaneous demonstrations are protected as well. So the concern that we have with this bill is when there are protests that come about as a result of a current event or some newsworthy, um, item that happens, and the organizers of a protest don't necessarily have the time, um, to go through the full process of submitting an application, um, getting the approval. [0:13:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=834s) They are responding to something in, uh, in the immediate that has happened. And a lot of times what that protest look like, looks like is being on sidewalks, being on streets, and sometimes being on the highway. Um, and this spontaneous demonstration is protected by the First Amendment similarly to the ways that lawfully permitted, uh, protests are protected by the First Amendment as well. So w- we think that there could be some unint- unintended consequences here, where really, uh, the only permit that be... [0:14:26](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=866s) or the only protest that becomes permissible by this bill is permit, or, um, sorry, are protests that are, um, permitted and have received approval from jurisdictions. So, um- We, we, we hope that this committee will be mindful of those concerns and, and remember that, um, not all protests have the luxury, uh, or the convenience of going through the, the full process, which can often be lengthy, very time-consuming, and sometimes expensive. So, um, we ask that you please oppose this bill, or at the very least, consider some amendments that would allow for spontaneous demonstration, um, where streets and sidewalks could be obstructed. [0:15:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=908s) Thank you for your time, and I'll yield for questions. [0:15:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=912s) Representative Panitch. [0:15:13](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=913s) Good morning. [0:15:14](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=914s) Good morning. [0:15:14](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=914s) Where has the court drawn the line between spontaneous... Where has the court drawn the line between spontaneous protests and time, place, manner restrictions? [0:15:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=924s) So the Supreme Court, I don't, to my knowledge, has not set a hard and fast rule about that. I think that it's per jurisdiction on the timeframe, um, with which a spontane- a demonstration would be considered spontaneous. Usually, it's between 20, within 24 and 48 hours of some newsworthy event happening. [0:15:43](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=943s) No, but I mean, does it, for, for, um, blocking a highway. [0:15:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=949s) Right. [0:15:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=949s) Um, has the court addressed those specifically, blocking routes of interstate commerce or to prevent ambulances from going by? I mean, has the court ruled on that? Or this is, like, your request based on what, what you believe spontaneous protests mean. [0:16:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=968s) So in the event that there's a spontaneous demonstration and, um, protesters are blocking a highway or a street, at that point, um, I'm, I'm pretty sure that various courts have said that the, the, the, the sticking point then is just following lawful orders. So if there are protesters in the street, it's not necessarily saying, "Hey, you can't be here," but it might be saying, "Hey, please get off of the street and come to the sidewalk." Or if there's someone trying to come down the sidewalk, "Hey, make space for this person who's coming down the sidewalk." So it's a balance of you still have the right to protest, you still have the right to be out here, but other people also have the right to be able to, um, get where they need to go. [0:16:50](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1010s) But doesn't this bill, Lines 12 through 15, address that? It says, "Obstructs any highway in such a way as to render it impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard, and fails to re- or refuses to remove the obstruction after receiving a reasonable official request or, or the order of a peace officer that he or she is now guilty." I mean, doesn't that address your concern in the bill? [0:17:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1035s) Part of it, yes. So the or, um, and then everything after or, yes. But everything prior to or, um, is still concerning, because if there's not an order given and then the protesters are then just instructed, "Hey, you have to leave," that's still, uh, concerning. I don't think that the courts have... The courts have not said that, um, unreasonable convenience is a reason to not protest or to not allow people to protest. Usually, any time, place, and manner restrictions that are imposed on protests have to deal with any unlawful activity, um, inciting of violence, uh, injury, and things like, of, of that nature. [0:17:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1072s) So you would be... One follow-up, Mr. Chair. So you would be okay if, uh, they were asked to leave and refused, and as a result of that, um, someone couldn't get to the hospital or, um, or couldn't get to their job and got fired. Are you saying that those are permissible under your reading? [0:18:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1095s) No. Excuse me. No. Um, it's, it's not that. It's the creating an alternative. So with time, place, and manner restrictions, one of the re- requirements is that there's an alternative offered to the protesters. So again, it's not necessarily saying, "Hey, you can't be here," but it's saying, "Hey, let's make way so that this person can get through." It's, it's not a complete shutting down of the protest altogether. It's balancing the First Amendment rights, like I said, of someone being able to protest, but then also balancing the need for people to be able to move through passageways. [0:18:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1126s) Thank you. I appreciate it. [0:18:50](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1130s) All right, see no other questions. Thank you. [0:18:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1134s) Thank you. [0:18:55](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1135s) Anyone else that arrived late and wanted to speak on this bill? All right, seeing none. Senator Cardin, w- we'll, we'll come back to you. Um, hopefully we'll have quorum here before too long, so. Do you need me here, Mr. Chairman? I think we're good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, w- we have one que- one question from the chairman. This could apply to flash dances as well, right? You know, I should have amended this bill and put that in there. Yeah, I should have put that in there. [0:19:26](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1166s) Thank you. Okay. All right. Or flash mobs, I'm sorry. Flash mobs, yeah. Flash mobs, flash dance, yeah. As long as they're singing good songs, right? Yeah, that's right. That's right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Uh, wanna take this time to welcome, uh, Chief Judge John Morris from the Eastern Judicial Circuit, um, and then Chief Judge, uh, Brenda Weaver, uh, from the Appalachian Circuit, and Chief Judge Scott Smith in the Cherokee Circuit, who I've had the, uh, honor and privilege of appearing before, and I have a first cousin who does that quite frequently. [0:20:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1200s) So good to have y'all with us. Uh, give my best to Alan, uh, when you see him, Judge, and give him a hard time, please. All right, so next up I'm gonna call Senate Bill 27. Senator Alberes, frequent flyer here in judiciary, non-civil. [0:20:18](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1218s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, it's always an honor to present before, uh, you and this august committee. Senate Bill 27, uh, uh, actually got the pass the, through your committee last year and, and through rules, and just didn't make it, uh, sine die. I think somebody wanted to leave early that day. But, um, we hope to, uh, we hope to get it through this time. And, uh- I want to thank, uh, you and your committee for helping perfect this legislation last year. Uh, and just to give you a brief, uh, review of, uh, this legislation, how important it is, doxing is really a contemporary and pernicious form of harassment, uh, where people are sharing people's personally identifiable information and location, uh, which, uh, a lot of people are doing to cause great harm. [0:21:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1262s) Uh, we have seen it, uh, everything from domestic violence, um, to a celebrity, uh, to a neighbor mad at one another, et cetera. Uh, and unfortunately, uh, it is continuing to grow with, uh, technology, social media, et cetera. Uh, so this bill just takes a comprehensive approach to combating doxin- doxing, makes sure that we've identified what it is. Uh, we have proven it to, uh, obviously be a threat to society, and we put the penalties around it. Uh, and then there was questions in the past, uh, of whether that would violate free speech, so we very specifically added in this bill, uh, beginning on lines 87, uh, that and this will no way impact someone's, um, First Amendment rights and freedom of speech. [0:21:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1309s) Uh, the penalties, uh, are outlined, and I'm happy to take you through section by section, but because we did pass this bill last year, I don't want to be too duplicative for you. But I think we struck a really great balance working with the Anti-Defamation League, uh, who is with us today, as well as our, uh, our good friend and former Attorney General, Sam Olens, who testified last year. Uh, and I'd be happy to yield for any questions, uh, Mr. Chairman. [0:22:13](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1333s) Okay. Uh, any questions from members of the committee? All right, I see none. Senator, if you want to just have a seat over there. [0:22:21](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1341s) Sure. [0:22:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1342s) We'll get through it. All right. Uh, ladies first again. Sarah Hunt Blackwell, had you signed up for this one? [0:22:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1352s) She got sick. [0:22:34](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1354s) Okay. Well, we'll go on to Attorney General Emeritus. Did you want to say anything on this? [0:22:41](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1361s) Uh, Chairman, I totally support the senator's bill. Thank you. [0:22:44](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1364s) Okay, thank you. Blake Feldman. [0:22:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1368s) All right, here, here she comes. Hold on. Come on. Come on. [0:22:56](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1376s) Hello again. Uh, I'm Sarah Hunt Blackwell, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU of Georgia. Um, we are testifying in opposition to Senate Bill 27. Uh, we definitely appreciate the sponsor's work on this bill. Uh, it has evolved, and the language has, has improved. Um, we're still concerned about how much speech could get swept in under this bill. Um, as, as defined and, and as laid out, uh, in this legislation, someone leaving a negative Yelp review or Google review, um, could potentially be accused of doxing. [0:23:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1415s) Um, based on the identif- identifiable information as it's defined in the bill, if someone has a negative experience at a restaurant or at a, with an organization, and they say, "You know, I was at, you know," insert name of, of organization, "and was serviced by," s- insert someone's name. Those are identifiable, uh, pieces of information that the person is just sharing, uh, their experience, but because of what is being shared, that could implicate this doxing legislation. [0:24:09](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1449s) Um, we also have concerns about, g- generally f- uh, First Amendment speech is protected up until the point that that speech either incites violence or has, is a true threat of, of any physical harm. And, uh, that reckless disregard standard is a pretty low standard. Um, seeing that speech that is not protected by the First Amendment really should only be restricted if it rises to the point of, um, concern for safety, uh, and, and lawlessness. [0:24:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1486s) So, [0:24:50](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1490s) posting information, sharing information about an experience or even personally identifiable information about someone, um, online and having that can be, be considered doxing with the person having no intent on acting in any unlawful or violent manner really could run afoul of the First Amendment. Um, I think that, again, the language has really been improved. Um, and I think that there's been a lot to kind of address these concerns. But even as written, it still could sweep in a lot of speech, again, unintended consequences. [0:25:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1523s) Um, and we, we ask that, um, you maybe take some more time to consider, uh, reconsider the language of this bill. I yield for any questions. [0:25:36](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1536s) Any questions from members of the committee? I see none. Thank you. [0:25:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1539s) Thank you. [0:25:41](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1541s) All right. Now, Blake, if you want to come on up. [0:25:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1553s) Good morning, Chairman Smith and members of the committee. Uh, uh, for very similar reasons, uh, that, uh, were just articulated, we, uh, oppose this bill. Uh, also at the, the last, uh, subcommittee hearing that addressed this, uh, used the Yelp review example. I think that it would be helpful, uh, for me to maybe list some others. But I do think that, uh, the scope of doxing, uh, as laid out in this bill, has, um, there've been conflicting representations of what that scope is. [0:26:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1592s) Um, so just to be clear, someone commits doxing when they post someone's PI without their consent with reckless disregard as to whether that will cause someone else- who reads that information to place that person whose PII was shared in fear of stalking, serious bodily injury, death, significant economic injury, or mental anguish. So that's what I was trying to, uh, illustrate and others have with the Yelp review example. [0:27:07](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1627s) But, uh, I think that, uh, there are other good examples. Uh, so on February 7th, 2025, someone posted on Truth Social, "Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post is incompetent. So sad to see him trying to justify the waste, fraud, and corruption of USAID with his pathetical-- with his pathetic radical left spin. He should be fired immediately." That is posting someone's PII, which is their employment, their employer. [0:27:44](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1664s) Um, and this clearly, uh, could lead to them being fearful of significant economic injury, uh, from maybe losing their job. Or, uh, because of the following of the individual who posted this, uh, maybe mental anguish. Um, and I think that it's really important to note also that the Supreme Court has consistently said that when the speech concerns matters of public interest or a public figure, uh, such as someone who works in the government, um, that that rests at the highest rung of the protections. [0:28:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1708s) So, uh, when we think of someone who has-- There's a controversy right now in this country of whether ICE agents should be able to wear a mask while they are, uh, conducting their duties. Um, some people have undertaken the effort to identify who these officers are and post on social media and say, "This is officer blah, blah, blah." Uh, now former, uh, Secretary of Homeland Security said naming officers is doxing. [0:29:03](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1743s) Uh, DHS has tried to subpoena, uh, records from Facebook, Instagram to try to figure out who these people are for the crime of doxing. Anytime those have been challenged in court, they've, uh, withdrawn those subpoenas. But it's important that under Senate Bill twenty-seven, that would be a misdemeanor offense, um, or possibly, uh, if they showed it, a felony, uh, one with a heightened mens rea. But, uh, at least that is naming someone, their employer. [0:29:36](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1776s) And the rationale for being masked is because they're-- they say that they're fearful of being harassed or stalked or even harmed if people know who they are. So clearly, that would satisfy the element of, uh, them being fearful, uh, for their safety. Um, there's-- And then there's another interesting thing. There's-- It's sort of colloquial called name and shame campaigns. Uh, so like, uh, after the Unite the Right March in Charlottesville, people-- Uh, after the January 6th, uh, insurrection, people combed through footage, tried to identify people, and then would post, "This is blah, blah, blah. [0:30:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1819s) They work at blah, blah, blah." [0:30:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1823s) Uh, after Charlie Kirk was murdered, people posted, uh, what a teacher at a high school in Georgia, uh, said that they thought was insensitive and posted the name of the school, the principal's email, and the principal's phone number. Uh, someone did the same thing with a professor at Emory Medical School. Um, [0:30:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1851s) there's a website, uh, Canary Mission, which just says profiles on people. Uh, and it-- usually, as of this morning, there's seventy-four Georgians who are profiled on this website. Um, it-- most of the profiles include a picture of them, their name, where they live, where they work, um, and then screenshots and links to evidence of antisemitic statements or conduct, uh, that they have said or been affiliated with. [0:31:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1885s) According to the website, Canary Mission believes that we all have the right to know if an individual has been affiliated with movements that routinely engage in antisemitic rhetoric and actions, promote it-- promote hatred of Jews and seek the destruction of Israel. Interestingly enough, under the language of the bill, the person who has created this website is not guilty of doxing. But if you take-- because of the definition of post, but if you take a screenshot or arguably if you share the URL to one of these profiles, uh, in a text or an email or on social media, you have committed a crime. [0:32:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1928s) Um, [0:32:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1932s) uh, also it's been stated that this doxing is a form of harassment, uh, so on. Harassment, uh, harassing communications in Georgia includes online communications, so does stalking. Um, and I think that those really address some of the intentional causing of harm, uh, that is, um, the intended target of this bill. [0:32:45](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=1965s) But those bills don't, uh, risk being, uh, unconstitutionally overbroad because they are sweeping in a substantial amount of protected speech. Um- And I, I think that it would be helpful very quickly to also just go through because Counterman v. Colorado, the twent twenty-three Supreme Court decision has been communicated as like a- You have the case cite on that? Uh, yes. [0:33:26](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2006s) Six hundred US sixty-six. Thank you, sir. Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead. Of course. Um, so in Counterman, Mr. Counterman was prosecuted for stalking. Unlike Georgia's stalking statute, which includes a purposeful mens rea element, there wasn't one in Colorado's. So in Colorado, all that the prosecution had to show was Counterman knowingly, repeatedly made any form of communication with her in a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and did cause her to suffer that emotional distress. [0:34:09](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2049s) Uh, in Georgia, it's, uh, stalking if your purpose is to, uh, harass or place them, uh, uh, fear, and then similar elements through, uh, repeated contact and things like that. The question before the court in Counterman, and he- his, um, defense that he raised unsuccessfully in the state courts was, "These were not true threats, um, and you have to show that I intended to threaten her." Um, Colorado Trial Court and Supreme Court said the objective standard that is in the statute was enough. [0:34:47](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2087s) So the Supreme Court, uh, granted cert to decide whether the First Amendment requires proof that there was some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his statements, uh, when prosecuting someone for communicating true threats of violence. This is talking about true threats in a stalking statute. We are talking about a doxing statute that concerns pure speech, not repeated unwanted contact, anything like... [0:35:17](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2117s) This is pure speech, uh, which is very different. Um, and that's why there's not a risk that the stalking statute is gonna sweep in a bunch of protected speech. There's absolutely a risk that a statute as written in twenty-seven will sweep in a lot of protected speech, which would, uh, make it run afoul of the overbreadth doctrine, uh, and have it, uh, facially, uh, successfully challenged facially. Um, the court held that the First Amendment does require that the prosecution shows some mental state, uh, of understanding and intent, uh, and they determined... [0:36:01](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2161s) The majority said recklessness is sufficient for true threats of violence. If you go through the opinion, they went through defamation, incitement, and an, and obscenity. The majority opinion, uh, and then they determined whether purposeful, knowingly, or recklessly, uh, was appropriate. Um, the majority, uh, did, uh, determine that [0:36:34](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2194s) in common, the majority reaffirmed that the First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker... For incitement, uh, unless the speaker's words were intended, not just likely to produce imminent disorder. S- Justice Sotomayor concurred, um, and she thought that they shouldn't have even, uh, settled on this. Uh, but she said to the extent that they did, that the mens rea element should be the same as for intent. [0:37:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2230s) She said incitement scope is defined in terms of both intention and effect, covering speech intended to produce and likely to produce imminent disorder. Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Thomas, dissented, and she said that the majority got almost everything wrong. But the one thing... But then she said, and I quote, "I will give the court this much. Speakers must specifically intend to incite violence before they lose First Amendment protections." So even though we have these, this majority, this concurrence, this dissent, every single justice who weighed in on this, because Gorsuch I think sat out the part of the concurrence that dealt with this. [0:37:56](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2276s) So we don't know how he feels. But of the eight, uh, justices who wrote in an opinion concerning incitement, they all agreed that it requires specific intent. Um, and then lastly, and I would just say I have reviewed all the different states that have enacted anti-doxing laws. Uh, the vast majority of them require purposeful mens rea, um, or specific intent to cause the harm. [0:38:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2311s) Um, thirteen of the nineteen states that have anti-doxing laws, and the five that don't, uh, they have very interesting anti-doxing laws. I think one of them is just civil. The other just, um, maybe it's just for peace officers and very narrow description of what the PI is, um, [0:38:55](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2335s) and things of that nature. I'm not saying that They don't have constitutional concerns, those other, uh, five, but nowhere near, uh, the amount of, uh... [0:39:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2350s) The, the scope of sweeping in protected speech also is not nearly as grave as it would be under 27. Um, and we don't think that the constitutional savings clause really has much of an effect. Uh, laws in Georgia are already supposed to be interpreted in a way that does not conflict with the Constitution as, uh, most states', uh, laws are, uh, by courts. Um, and the concern when we're talking about constitutional overbreadth is that people's speech will be chilled. [0:39:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2386s) People won't want to, um, identify, uh, school teachers or professors or law enforcement officers who have done problematic things and bring it to the public for conversation, uh, and discourse, uh, communications that are critical of our government. The idea of chilling that, uh, and we don't expect, uh, like that clause will not, uh, make the average everyday Georgian say, "Oh, no problem then. [0:40:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2424s) I'm fine." Uh, people are not constitutional scholars, and I would argue also law enforcement officers aren't, uh, First Amendment experts. Um, [0:40:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2435s) and I'm gonna answer any questions. [0:40:43](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2443s) Okay. Representative Roberts. [0:40:45](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2445s) Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there any language we could change that would make it constitutional in your mind? [0:40:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2454s) Um, I think... [0:41:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2464s) Uh, yes. I mean, there's... [0:41:09](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2469s) I think that honestly a lot of that protected speech is being swept in because of the additional, um, prong of like the harm that can be caused, including just broadly, uh, significant economic injury. Uh, I think like, uh, I would either strike that so it's just fear of being harmed or stalked, which is traditionally what, uh, these, uh, the interest, the state's interest in protecting people from is usually, that's what we're talking about when we're talking about cyberstalking, cyber threats, and doxing. [0:41:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2509s) Um, and then I would, [0:41:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2514s) I would incorporate the mens rea element of [0:42:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2530s) aggravated doxing in C1. [0:42:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2535s) Mm-hmm. [0:42:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2540s) So with the intent for such person to cause such-- such an individual, I think the, that as a minimum, so that's on line 59. I would replace the, um, mens rea element on 45 with what appears on 59. Um, and if you wanted, uh, I don't think that it's absolutely necessary constitutionally for an element of the offense to be that, um, [0:42:58](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2578s) the harmed party must have been placed in actual fear of stalking. I think that like that it should. I don't think that it makes sense really to be criminalizing, uh, this behavior if it's really not even causing, uh, the harm. So I mean, I would, I would incorporate that also into misdemeanor doxing. So I would get rid of aggravated doxing. And I think that if the committee did want to say like subsequent offenses of misdemeanor, doc- just subsequent offenses of doxing is subject to felony punishment, that is something that we have that is not uncommon in the other states. [0:43:42](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2622s) So to the extent that there is an appetite for that, I'm very cautious of saying that because, I mean, we're not fans of- [0:43:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2631s) I understand [0:43:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2632s) ... misdemeanor, uh, conduct being, uh, raised to the level of felony. But I think that, uh, that would be an option. [0:44:05](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2645s) Okay. Thank you. [0:44:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2668s) And just so the committee is aware, this is one of the more interesting, uh, I would say it's one of the more interesting, uh, combinations of those on the opinion. You had, uh, Justice Kagan, uh, I believe was author of the opinion, and she was joined by Justice, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Jackson. So very interesting combination there that you might not think if you don't follow too many Supreme Court opinions. [0:45:01](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2701s) So Just a little nerd note. All right. Blake, thank you. That's all the questions we have. [0:45:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2708s) Thank you. [0:45:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2708s) Anyone else signed up on this that I have not, uh, called? Yes, sir. Come on down. [0:45:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2720s) And just introduce yourself, tell your wisdoms. We didn't have you sign up. [0:45:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2723s) Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Tripp Peterson with Front Line Policy. As we previously endorsed SB-27, we continue to stand in support of this bill. As many of us know, in today's digital age, the sharing of someone's personal information online can unfortunately lead to situations of harassment, intimidation, and real threats to an individual's safety. When someone's home address, phone number, or other sensitive information is posted online with harmful intent, it can expose not only the individual, but also their family members to fear, stalking, potential harm, and serious disruption to their lives. [0:45:58](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2758s) SB-27 addresses this growing problem and helps close a gap in Georgia law by recognizing the serious consequences that online harassment could have in the real world. SB-27 strikes an important balance between protecting free expression and protecting the safety and privacy of Georgia residents. For these reasons, we respectfully urge this committee to support SB-27. Thank you. [0:46:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2780s) Any questions from members of the committee? You know, at my alma mater, if you showed up late, you'd have to do 30 pushups. [0:46:26](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2786s) Okay. I can do them. [0:46:27](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2787s) So we don't have to do that- [0:46:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2788s) Okay [0:46:29](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2789s) ... out here, so. [0:46:29](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2789s) Okay. We can do it after. [0:46:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2790s) You lucked out. [0:46:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2791s) Okay. Thank you. [0:46:33](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2793s) All right. Okay. Uh, that's all I see signed up. Senator Albers, I'll give you the last word on it. [0:46:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2799s) Thank you so much. [0:46:40](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2800s) And if I recall, you've actually been the victim of this. [0:46:45](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2805s) I certainly have, uh, Mr. Chairman. Um, I was swatted on two occasions, the day after Christmas and, yeah, the day after that. Uh, so this is a little personal to me, but I think to many members of the General Assembly, uh, as well as, uh, we had several of our statewide elect officials and members of Congress get swatted. And I, I respect those who spoke against the bill, uh, although most what they said was factually inaccurate. Uh, Counterman very clearly says that, uh, uh, it, it is not protected speech when there is a, um, a true threat. [0:47:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2840s) Uh, so they actually have that case exactly backwards. Uh, and we've mentioned this before in this committee as well as your sub-committees. Um, saying in a Yelp review, that would be accurate is completely false as well, because it would had to be a combination of their personal identifiable information and specifically to do harm. Uh, so that is also factually inaccurate. Uh, and as far as constitutionality, uh, in working with this committee, our Senate Judiciary Committee, our former attorney general and legislative council, we are 100% confident that we have, uh, dotted our I's and crossed our T's, and I would gratefully ask for your favorable consideration. [0:47:55](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2875s) Okay. Uh, we'll have to take it back up once we acquire a quorum. [0:47:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2879s) All right. [0:47:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2879s) Thank you, Senator. You don't have to hang around. [0:48:01](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2881s) Might I leave this form with you in case it does pass and we can pick it up later? [0:48:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2884s) You know what? That's, uh, that's- [0:48:06](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2886s) All right. [0:48:06](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2886s) I like it. I, I like that energy there, Senator. [0:48:09](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2889s) Thank you. [0:48:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2890s) So- [0:48:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2890s) Cautiously optimistic. [0:48:11](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2891s) Uh, yes, sir. All right. Next up, I'm gonna call, uh, House Bill 4... or excuse me, Senate Bill 468. Uh, Senator Castle, come on down. [0:48:29](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2909s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Pleasure to be before you today. It's nice to have crossed over and, uh, see your side of the, the gold dome here. This Bill 468 is concerned with the sexual offender registry. It's aimed directly at making sure we keep better tabs on, uh, homeless people, where they are, to make certain that they remain 1,000 fee- feet away from the churches, schools, uh, places where minors congregate. [0:49:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2940s) Uh, it's become quite a problem, not just in Atlanta, but all over the state and really the nation, uh, the homelessness problem. And you know, there are just encampments and things everywhere, and they're very frequently changing locations. A number of the people that are homeless are mentally ill, and quite a few of those are also sex offenders and, uh, need to be on the sex offender registry. There's a pretty detailed program for how sex offenders are treated once they, registered sex offenders, once they're released from incarceration. [0:49:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=2972s) Within 72 hours, they have to report to the sheriff's department in their, whatever county they're residing in, and let them know what their location is, where their residence is. And obviously, they also have to tell their parole officer or their probation officer, whatever the case may be. They're classified in different levels by the severity of their offenses. Uh, and the higher the level it goes, level one, level two, or else a, a dangerous sexual predator, the more intense the, the probation and supervision, and also the longer that they have to stay on the sex offender registry after having been released from jail so that we can be protected from them. [0:50:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3010s) This deals with the situation of homelessness, and it, it directly... I need to grab my, the blue copy real quick. [0:50:27](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3027s) There's minor changes. Want to make sure I followed it accurately. But what it does, and it's kind of easier just to, um, start on line 17, the definition of homeless or homelessness, 'cause we didn't have that in the code yet. And it just shows somebody that's not, uh, you know, in a fixed place. And sometimes these can be a supervised or, or a public shelter where homeless are kept, but you need to let the sheriff know you're there, and you need to let the shelter know that you're a sex offender, so they're not mixing you in with families with children or whatever in the same shelter. [0:51:03](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3063s) They're able to, uh- Make sure everything is, uh, segregated, so to speak, so that they don't have, uh, that mix. It also allows in the event, so after you're out of jail, you got 72 hours to report to the sheriff where your, your, sort of the place you're staying is. And then if you change, you have 36 hours to let them know if you've moved from one shelter to another, one encampment to another, whatever, so they can make sure that you're a thousand feet away from minors. [0:51:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3095s) Uh, and that's a, a change in the law there to do that. Finally, on the, on the level two, uh, we listed specific, um, offenses essentially involving children. And then to be a sexual dangerous predator, if you had repeat offenses under the level two, then, then you would be a sexual dangerous predator. We need to keep you away from children better. Uh, that's the, kind of a brief over r- uh, a review of it. I'm happy to answer any specific questions that you may have. [0:52:08](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3128s) Okay. Chairman Gullett. [0:52:11](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3131s) Thank you for the bill. Uh, did a bill a few years ago, I did it for a number of years to, till a few years ago to actually get the thing passed, but related to sex offenders, especially the sex offender tourism we had in the state where people would come here from other states. Uh, and although we're very tough on you while you're a sex offender, we offer ways to come off the sex offender registry, um, where other states maybe would not have, that you wouldn't expect. Um, so people would find judges who either didn't like the sex offender registry lists. [0:52:43](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3163s) Um, anyways, a little background about why I'm extra sensitive to what we're trying to do here. I appreciate the homelessness part. I do have some questions on section three, though. [0:52:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3172s) Okay. [0:52:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3172s) Um, SORB, as I understand it, is in the business of hearing these people out based on the likelihood of their recidivism, is my understanding. I think that's mostly accurate. Um, and while I, I can say I don't always agree with their assessment, um, I think that is their, their job to look at the facts, not as a prosecution facts, but facts along the lines of a lie detector test, things that they can't be brought into, into trial. [0:53:27](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3207s) So they, they have additional information in order to look at the likelihood of recidivism for this person. What concerns me is not that we're sometimes making it tougher, I think sometimes we might be making it easier on some sex offenders, and here's why. Because if we ... I know of a case where there was, someone got charged with aggravated child molestation. They pled to child molestation. Um, I have zero sympathy for any child molester. [0:54:01](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3241s) They ... There's a special place for those f- those people. But I believe, I think that I would even think a child molester, um, should be sometimes considered a sexual, sexually dangerous predator. And so if I get, say I get aggravated child molestation, they pled down to child molestation, you're automatically making them a level two, whereas I believe SORB oftentimes, that's one that they get right, where they would usually make that a sexual dangerous predator depending on the circumstances. [0:54:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3271s) So if I read this bill correctly, uh, someone who got charged with aggravated child molestation, who I think we would all agree did aggravated child molestation, pleads down to child molestation, they're never gonna be a sexual dangerous predator. They're gonna be a, a tier two, a level two risk. So I think you're trying to make it tougher. I'm just not sure that's actually the way I'm reading this, uh, in a situation like that. [0:54:58](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3298s) I ... That is not the way it's intended, and I don't think it does that. I think this puts minimum requirements. If you're convicted of child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes, incest, or sexual exploitation of children, you must be at least in a level two. That doesn't prevent them from naming you as a sexual dangerous predator and taking it, taking it up a notch. [0:55:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3322s) Well, show me where you see that. So I, I'm reading, "In addition to the requirements of paragraph two of the subsection, the board shall apply the following standards when plac- placing a sexual offender convicted on or after the, you know, July 1st in risk assessment classify- classification level." Where do you see them being able to enhance that on, for like- [0:55:40](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3340s) On line 119, in addition to the requirements of paragraph two. Paragraph two gives them more. That's of course not on, on the paperwork in the bill, but back to the sexual offender, uh, 42-114, the risk assessment. [0:55:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3353s) Mm-hmm. [0:55:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3354s) That it says a sexual offender shall be placed into level one risk assessment classification, level two classification, or named as a sexual dangerous predator class based upon the board's assessment criteria and by information obtained and reviewed by the board. So this is in addition to that. It takes, essentially takes away discretion. I mean, they still have discretion on folks, but they must say somebody that's been convicted of child molestation or enticing a child is, is at least a level two. If they wanna call them a sexual dangerous predator, and at, at the bottom, uh, any, any second conviction of any of those I just went over makes you a sexually dangerous predator. [0:56:34](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3394s) Yeah. A- and I get, I get that part. Uh, that's not my concern. My concern, I, I just, uh, I don't know if I'd read it the same way. So you have the, you have what's in the current law today, and then on 119, in addition to requirements, this subsection, the board shall apply the following standards. Does it say shall apply the ... I, I don't read that as a minimum. [0:56:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3413s) Okay. [0:56:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3413s) I read that as not having any discretion. [0:56:57](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3417s) It's the in addition to, the first lines. So in addition to what's in the current law, if you have any of these convictions, then you shall be in a level two Or they can put you in a sexual dangerous predator if you've had a repeat offense, if it's not a, a one-time crime deal. [0:57:16](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3436s) But what if you haven't had a repeat offense? What if I, if my first time as a, as a sexual predator who aggravatedly molested a child, uh, you know, repeatedly, but I got charged one time, and I plead to a child molestation, not aggravated? [0:57:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3452s) I think the board has that authority. I would consider it a friendly amendment if there's a way to, for you to change this to say or to make that clear that it doesn't prohibit them from naming him a sexually dangerous predator. [0:57:43](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3463s) Okay. And I got some stuff here. I might have a question in a minute. I'ma, I'ma look at this, but I, I just wanna make sure, one, that we're... Uh, what is SORB gonna do if basically we're, we're stating minimums for them? I mean, do we... Is there, is there a place? Are we... Do... I guess you'd probably say you don't agree with SORB's recommendations oftentimes, which is why you have these minimums. [0:58:06](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3486s) I'm not complaining any, about any particular cases. I'm just saying these are, these are minimums that I think ought to be standards. [0:58:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3495s) Okay. Thanks. [0:58:17](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3497s) Yeah. I had, I didn't hear particular complaints about SORB and how they're classifying people. I just wanted to make it certain, um, that these folks are being able to be tracked. That was the other trigger I didn't really mention there in my summary, is that if a offender fails to notify of their location, the sheriff can then let the probation officer or the parole officer know, and they can put an ankle monitor on them to monitor their location. If they're failing to report it, it gives us a possibility of tracking it. [0:58:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3531s) Number seven, Representative Roberts. [0:58:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3532s) Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just curious now that I know what CSFA means, um, what was the floor amendment that was made to this bill? [0:59:01](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3541s) I agreed at the request of the, uh, Department of Community Supervision to change it from 72 hours, uh, to... Well, I changed it from 72 hours to 36 in two places in the bill. [0:59:14](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3554s) Okay. [0:59:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3555s) One was when you got out of prison or jail, you had to report within 72 hours, and then I said any time you change, it needed to be within 36. They pointed... I had originally drafted where it had to be 36 hours either way, and they said, "You know, when you getting out of jail, you may not have your residence lined up within 36 hours. Let's keep it 72 there." So I just reverted back to 72 when you get out of jail, but still 36 otherwise. And that, I considered that a friendly, uh, amendment. It was at the request of Community Supervision. [0:59:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3586s) Thank you. [0:59:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3588s) Okay. Senator, that's all the questions from members of the committee. If you want to just slide over, we'll take- [0:59:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3593s) Be glad to [0:59:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3593s) ... testimony now. [0:59:54](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3594s) Thank you. [0:59:55](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3595s) Uh, first up, I'm gonna have, uh, Jessica Stern. [0:59:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3599s) Mr. Chairman. [1:00:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3600s) Yes. [1:00:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3600s) Okay, there's another attorney here who does have a, a timeline. Can they- [1:00:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3604s) Well, come on down. Come on down. Just introduce yourself, who you with, or if you're just by yourself. [1:00:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3612s) Well, um, good morning, members. Whoa. Um, my name is, uh, Mark Juracek. I'm an attorney in Atlanta. Um, for those of you considering doxing me, I will not be spelling my name. [1:00:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3625s) Um, but, um, uh, Mr. Chairman, I've been invited by GACTL to come down and speak, uh, about this bill, and I speak with a pretty good background on the issue. Um, the court can... Or sorry, the committee can refer back to a couple of cases that I've handled on behalf of registrants in the state, including Park versus State in 2019, which was the case which said that ankle monitoring, uh, could not be done past the point of a person's government supervision. [1:01:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3660s) Um, I've handled a lot of other case on be- cases on be- behalf of registrants. There was also a case involving the Butts County Sheriff who was, uh, trying to put signs out on registrants' lawns on Halloween. Um- [1:01:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3672s) Do you have the case then on Park v. State? [1:01:14](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3674s) Um, I don't know it off the top of my head, sir. Uh, I, I apologize, Mr. Chairman. [1:01:18](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3678s) Georgia Supreme Court or a court of appeal? [1:01:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3679s) Georgia Supreme Court. [1:01:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3680s) Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. [1:01:21](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3681s) 2019. Um, and it's Park, not Parks. Um, I also worked on a, a case, uh, where we got an injunction against the sheriff in Butts County, who was trying to put signs out on the lawns of, um, registrants during Halloween season. Um, and that was more recent vintage. Uh, so I, I do have a background. I, I work routinely against SORB. Uh, I can't remember a time when I've worked with SORB. Um, so I am familiar with the statutes that we're dealing with today. [1:01:57](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3717s) Um, I'd like to comment on a couple of things if I could. Um, uh, I'm not gonna touch too much on the, the homeless aspect of this bill, the Section A, but I would like to mention that with respect to ankle monitoring, and this is a problem in general with the, with the GPS monitoring program, uh, most of the sheriff's departments in the state who use GPS monitoring use a GPS monitor that, that is tethered to cellphone towers. Um, now, in rural parts of this state, and even in downtown Atlanta, I live less than two miles from here, and I encounter this problem. [1:02:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3759s) There are dead spots, and there are places where registrants who are required to have GPS monitoring can go completely legally but cannot be detected, and those dead spots will set off the monitors. That's something that needs to be addressed in general, and particularly with the homeless population who do tend to be, uh, as the senator mentioned, um, sort of exiled to the places where nobody else wants to go and where dead spots perhaps are a big problem. [1:03:14](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3794s) Um, so I think that's something the committee probably needs to consider and look at. Um, uh- With respect to classification, I'm, I'm more concerned about that. Um, the, the proposed legislation, uh, I would agree with the chairman, uh, does not completely eliminate SORB, but it comes pretty close. Uh, I take note that the, uh, the statutes that are listed are not a comprehensive list of statutes that can get somebody required to register. [1:03:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3826s) There's a lot of them, but there's-- it's, it's not total. So then we're left to wonder what, what, what happens with the other convictions. Um, what happens if you're convicted of both? What happens if I, I get a child molestation conviction and an enticing conviction? I don't believe enticing was in there. Um, you know, am I a one or a two? Uh, you know, this, this ends up being somewhat of a hybrid with the federal SORNA statute, which does have a-- it, it, it classifies people based on conviction. [1:04:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3859s) Um, Georgia, as I understand it, does not participate in SORNA. Um, and there's a reason for that. SORNA's not a great law. Georgia's registry scheme has its faults, but the one thing that I will give it credit for is that the registrants are, before they are classified, given at least nominally individualized consideration. What that enables the state to do, among other things, is to affix ankle monitors on certain registrants. [1:04:56](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3896s) And if you take that individualized consideration away, even in a handful of cases of what we consider the worst of the worst perhaps, then you're gonna jeopardize your ability to ankle monitor those folks. Just a word to the wise. There's plenty of law out there about that. Cases where GPS monitoring has been struck down in other states, off the top of my head, I can tell you South Carolina and North Carolina, which are not bed-wetting liberal states, um, you know, uh, have struck down GPS statutes based on the lack of individualized consideration of those monitored. [1:05:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3939s) So a thing to consider. Um, additionally... [1:05:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3952s) Let me just check my notes for a second. Um, [1:05:57](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3957s) I noticed that kidnapping remains, uh, in this bill in the statute. I can tell you that right now I am res- representing a woman who was convicted of stealing a baby from a hospital ward, and obviously she had some things going on mentally, um, but she took a baby because she wanted a baby and was caught and was punished, uh, served I believe ten years in prison. Um, she was also made to register even though the facts of the conviction, the indictment, the police reports, there's absolutely nothing sexual about that. [1:06:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=3995s) Now, I, I'm confident I'll be able to get her removed. There's actually a specific provision in forty-two one nineteen for kidnapping, but I don't understand why kidnapping remains-- uh, not only kidnapping, but we're now elevating kidnapping to you're an automatic tier two, um, which means you never get off the registry in this bill without any qualification. Um, so I think-- I, I, I really think kidnapping in general needs to be looked at, but kidnapping in this bill, um, certainly needs some consideration. [1:07:07](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4027s) Generally speaking, automatically tiering these folks I think is a bad idea. Um, as many complaints as-- And, and I, I have sat before committees in this building and said that SORB needs to be eliminated entirely. But I will say for sure that replacing it with this I think creates its own problems that you guys are gonna have to go back and fix, but please go ahead and do it because, you know, I'm building an addition on my house for the business I'm gonna get working on that. [1:07:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4059s) Um, [1:07:42](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4062s) I am concerned that if you're automatically placing people, not only does it take individualized consideration away, it, it will place-- it will misplace people both too low, like you said, and sometimes too high. There will be people that end up, um-- A- and actually I mentioned enticing, but I think enticing is in this group. I can share with you anecdotally another client of mine who I was able to remove from the registry several years ago who got convicted of enticing because he dialed a wrong number, one digit off from a phone number he was calling, and left a sexually explicit voicemail message for who he thought was his girlfriend, um, in the early days of cell phones before you had people's names saved in phone book and all that, uh, but was actually a fifteen-year-old girl whose parents were highly religious and extraordinarily offended by-- And, and I, I'm not saying that they shouldn't have been, but, um, that guy had to register for over ten years before we got him off. [1:08:47](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4127s) I, I, I don't think that's appropriate, and if you automatically place him in tier two, under the current state of the law, he automatically has to stay on the registry forever. He doesn't get off. I mean, that's-- presumably that's legislation some of you passed previously. That's a problem. Um, it just-- Uh, the, the individualization is maybe the one thing that is good and positive about the registry scream-- scheme that I can tell you. Um, it's not great. [1:09:20](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4160s) There are-- The, the, the registration, SORB's consideration, they will testify that their consideration is driven largely by static factors, factors that don't change throughout the life of the registrant. So no matter what kind of reforms they do, what kind of, uh, things they do to better their life, they're stuck for the worst mistake they ever made in their life. Um, I recently was able to get a client removed from the registry, and I'm actually very proud of that because 20 years ago when he had a extreme drug problem, he engaged in sexual activity with a 14-year-old girl. [1:10:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4202s) Um, he was 30 years old. Served, I believe, 15 years for that in Florida. Got out, and ever since then, he got clean. He found religion. He got mentorship. He started a side business. He works a full-time job. He is a homeowner in this state, a taxpayer. He got married. He reformed his life. And because of that, we were able to persuade SORB that he was a level one, and then persuade the court that he was worthy of removal. [1:10:40](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4240s) The last point I'm gonna make, as I said, that client lived in Florida. He came here not because of sex offender tourism, which I've... a term I've heard, um, but I, I think is potentially overblown because they still have to register in the state they came from, especially Florida, which is considered... I mean, if you wanna say sex offender tourism, Florida's called, what's called a flypaper state, which means no matter where you go, you have to continue to register there. If you come to this state from out of state, the conviction that made you register will not line up perfectly with crimes in Georgia very frequently. [1:11:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4282s) The names might be the same, but often the elements are different. The problem that the statute has now, and would b- be exacerbated by this, is that there, uh, there is nobody in this state right now that makes the decision about whether someone from out of state or with a foreign conviction should or should not register in this state. There, that, that does not exist, and that's a pro- I have a case that's being argued in the Supreme Court next month where that's, that's exactly the subject matter. [1:11:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4319s) The problem that, that will at some point confront this body, and has already confronted the courts, is I get convicted of a, a crime that matches up pretty close with simple sexual battery in Georgia. I come to Georgia. I migrate to Georgia. Do I register or not? Well, the first conviction for sexual battery in Georgia does not require me to register here. But if it requires me to register in another state, what's, what do you do? [1:12:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4350s) There needs to be somebody who's, who's able to resolve those issues. And I will tell you that in the suit I'm in right now, the, the defendants are the GBI and the sheriff's department of the locality where my client lives. Those are the two law enforcement entities that are named in 42-1-12, and those entities have filed pleadings pointing the finger at each other as the one responsible for classifying someone, or certainly saying, "It's not our problem." So there's, there's issues. [1:13:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4384s) There, there, there's underlying issues with the entire scheme, but I, I wanna point out that this doesn't fix them. It, it may even exacerbate it. So I think I'm happy to take questions. [1:13:15](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4395s) Um, number 12, is that Chairman Silcox. [1:13:21](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4401s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank you for this- [1:13:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4404s) Is it working? Yes, there we go. Uh, thank you for your testimony. Sure. [1:13:27](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4407s) Um, and I was just curious, isn't it true that, um, that SORB really looks at, um, the likelihood of re-offense? [1:13:37](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4417s) Yes. [1:13:37](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4417s) Um- [1:13:37](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4417s) That's what they're supposed to do. Um- [1:13:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4419s) That's their prime- [1:13:40](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4420s) That's, that's by statute what they're supposed to do. And I believe the, the senator, and I'm sure he misspoke, but the senator said that it's based on prior convictions, but that's not the case. [1:13:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4428s) It's likelihood- [1:13:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4428s) Now- [1:13:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4428s) ... of re-offense. [1:13:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4429s) Yeah. Someone in my position would argue that SORB is largely driven by prior offenses and, and criminal record. The things they look at are all static. It's, it's all different facets of prior convictions. The fact of conviction, prior arrests, um, like the chair- like, like the chairman said, sometimes you get into things that, that, w- the, that are not available to the public, like previous arrests, that kind of thing, for, for charges that were never prosecuted. And SORB will take those and say that that in- indicates a likelihood to re-offend, and it seems for, from someone from my perspective- [1:14:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4465s) Mm-hmm [1:14:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4465s) ... that seems like they're dressing up, "We're punishing you further for, you know, you didn't get punished enough, so we're gonna give you a little bit more," you know, ankle monitoring, registration requirements, your name published, re- you know, living restrictions, et cetera. Um, so I agree with you 100% that that's what the statute says, is that SORB is supposed to be considering the- [1:14:49](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4489s) Re, likelihood of re-offense [1:14:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4491s) ... likelihood to re-offend. [1:14:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4491s) Right. [1:14:51](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4491s) But I would argue that boots on the ground in practice, that's not really how it shakes out. [1:14:56](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4496s) Okay. Um, also on lines 122 and 131, doesn't the shall control there, 'cause it's a shall? "A sexual offender who's 18 years of age or older at the time of offense shall be placed-" [1:15:10](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4510s) Yes, and that's problematic. [1:15:12](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4512s) Okay. And also at line 131, um, "sexual offender who's 18 years shall be classified" [1:15:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4519s) That's shall. [1:15:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4519s) Yeah. [1:15:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4519s) That, that seems to have taken the bat completely out of SORB's hands. [1:15:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4523s) Okay. [1:15:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4523s) Now, mind you, this does not even come close to the comprehensive list of offenses which can get one classified. And by the way- [1:15:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4531s) Mm-hmm [1:15:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4531s) ... one of the- ... listed offenses that can get you forced to register is any offense or any conviction which, I don't want to get it wrong, but it's, it's a catch-all. It's essentially, um, you know, sexual, a, a s- a sexual offense in nature. [1:15:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4552s) Mm-hmm. [1:15:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4553s) So, I mean, you know, there, there's a lot of different ways that can end up- [1:15:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4559s) Sure [1:15:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4559s) ... getting someone made a sex offender where it's really not practically a sex offense. [1:16:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4564s) Okay. [1:16:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4564s) Um, so it's, it's problematic. I, I mean, some of these now shall be classified as something, so I guess SORB doesn't have anything to do for those. Um... [1:16:16](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4576s) Are you okay with the bill except for section three? [1:16:22](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4582s) I'm never gonna be okay with, uh- With, with these kinds of bills. I'm the wrong person to ask about that. [1:16:26](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4586s) That's fair. Thank you. [1:16:28](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4588s) See no more questions. All right. [1:16:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4590s) Okay. [1:16:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4590s) Thank you, sir. [1:16:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4591s) Thank you so much. I do have other business, so, uh, but, but I appreciate it. [1:16:34](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4594s) Yeah. We won't keep you here in the torture chamber any longer. Um, just kidding. We love it. We thrive in the fire. Uh- [1:16:44](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4604s) That is to a different torture chamber [1:16:46](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4606s) ... now, Jessica Stern. [1:16:47](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4607s) Yes. Thank you, Mr. [1:16:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4612s) Chairman. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Jessica Stern. I'm a criminal defense attorney, uh, who has represented individuals navigating Georgia's sex offender registry system starting here in Fulton County as a public defender in 2008. So as you can imagine, yes, I have, I think I've seen it all as a public defender in Fulton County. Um, I want to focus on one core issue with this bill, and it is fundamentally misunderstanding how risk assessment works. And then we touched on it a little bit, but I, I think that that's the main point that I just really want to stay focused on. [1:17:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4644s) Under the law as it is, SORB is conducting individualized risk assessments. And so those assessments are looking at both static factors, things like criminal history, um, and other things that do not change, and then dynamic factors, things that do change, like treatment participation, time in the community without re-offending, and psychological evaluations. That individualized analysis is the entire reason that the classification system exists in the first place. So this bill moves away from that science and instead ties risk levels directly to the offense of conviction. [1:17:59](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4679s) From a risk assessment perspective, that's backwards. Uh, decades of actuarial research show that the crime someone was convicted of does not actually reliably predict their risk of committing another offense. And in fact, SORB has testified repeatedly that offense category alone is not a predictor of future dangerousness. And many of us criminal defense lawyers have seen this play out in real life for our clients. You heard some examples sh- before from the attorney who testified, and in his example, where an accidental ph- phone number dial reached a 16-year-old, if it had reached a 12-year-old by accident, I don't know if 12-year-olds, I guess 12-year-olds do have phones these days, uh, that would be considered under this bill as requiring a level two risk assessment. [1:18:45](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4725s) Um, and, you know, with SORB's ability to look at specific factors of that particular crime, of the person, it allows a decision to be made that's based on the true risk of re-offending. Um, and the way that that is handling, is being handled is not risk assessment. It's an assumption, and it's based upon a label. And once the system stops being individualized and starts labeling, two things happen. First, it will over-classify people, um, and in some examples we heard today could even under-classify people. [1:19:17](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4757s) Um, but if we're over-labeling people, it's going to force restrictions upon people who truly don't have a higher risk. And second, those individuals will turn to the courts to challenge those classifications. And so Georgia law already allows for petitions and appeals related to registry status under Title 42-1-14. And if classifications are imposed by offense category rather than individualized evaluation, we will see significantly more litigation, namely in Fulton County where, where these are litigated. [1:19:48](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4788s) That carries real costs for the state and clogs already overburdened courts. Uh, I also want to briefly mention the bill's provision about homeless registrants and ankle monitoring. Uh, electronic devices require reliable charging. So if we think about somebody being homeless, uh, and somebody who does not have stable housing, access to electricity, transportation to get somewhere to charge it, the bill creates compliance requirements that may simply be impossible to meet, um, especially during severe weather or emergency conditions. [1:20:21](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4821s) And there are real concerns about specific lines in this bill, lines 18 and 19, where it says, um, adding to the definition of homelessness is lacking a fixed, regular, or traditional nighttime residence which can be considered safe, sanitary, and decent. Very subjective and more of a morality determination about what feels okay about somebody's residence than what is really determining whether somebody can be found or properly located. [1:20:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4852s) So we, I suggest, uh, replacing with language simply stating lacking a fixed or regular nighttime residence. That's addressing the ability of locating somebody. The registry system works best when it's grounded in individualized risk science, and once we move away from that model, the classifications stop reflecting actual risk and start reflecting only the charge. For those reasons, I, I urge the committee respectfully to reconsider these provisions and preserve the individualized assessment process that Georgia currently relies on. [1:21:23](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4883s) Thank you. [1:21:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4885s) Any questions from members of the committee? All right. Jessica, you're our lawyer of the week. Thank you for being with us- [1:21:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4891s) Oh, thank you [1:21:31](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4891s) ... uh, very much. See no questions. Thank you. Uh, next up, we have Brandon Bowen. Bowman, I'm sorry. [1:21:38](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4898s) Yes. [1:21:38](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4898s) Bowman. [1:21:43](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4903s) Good morning. My name is Brandon Bowman, and I represent Restore Georgia, a organization that looks at policies, uh, regarding sex offense laws here in Georgia. I just want to reiterate the individualized risk assessment piece. So I, my day-to-day job, I am a cybersecurity professional. I help small businesses stay in business. Part of my job is cyber risk management. In that, I identify risk using different things, not just one event alone. Look at all different, uh, vulnerabilities, uh, configurations, user behavior. A lot of things that I- we could put, put into together to find the appropriate risk or w- what control we can put into place. [1:22:19](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4939s) Look at it from that aspect. The board takes into consideration person's behavior, their familiar support, what their life's doing, and makes a appropriate determination of what their risk level is to commit another offense. Let's keep that intact. So and I hope that makes it a better analogy of how important these risk assessments are. So, um, can you give back everyone's time? Thank you. [1:22:47](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4967s) Any questions from members of the committee? All right. Seeing none, uh, Senator Castle, I'll give you the last word. Uh, Mike Mitchell, you wanna testify, you can just come sit by him real quick. [1:23:00](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=4980s) Chairman, I, I don't have any testimony, but I do want to say that we strongly support the bill. Uh, registration of sex offenders in our communities is the unique responsibility for the sheriff. Uh, and with the issue of homelessness, I think this is gonna be a tremendous enhancement for us keeping tabs on those individuals. I just want to say we strongly support it. [1:23:21](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5001s) Okay. Thank you. [1:23:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5004s) Thank you. [1:23:24](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5004s) Go ahead, Senator. [1:23:25](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5005s) Chairman, thank you for giving me an opportunity just to sort of close up. Uh, I'll geek out with you on this, uh, I'll give you the citation on Park versus State. It's 305 Georgia 348, or if you have Southeast 2nd, it's 825 Southeast 2nd 147. It's a 2019 case that addressed this underlying statute 42-1-14. The initial version of the statute required lifetime ankle monitoring or location monitoring if you were a sexually dangerous predator, and the court there found that you cannot continue to supervise somebody. [1:24:02](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5042s) You invade their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure if they are not under community supervision, probation, or parole. So the bill was drafted to avoid any conflict with that, and I can just point you to where we, on lines, uh, 99 and 100, where we were discussing this Department of Community Supervision may fit a homeless sexual offender while he or she is on probation or parole. So this bill does not violate that constitutional prohibition. [1:24:32](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5072s) It only applies if somebody is on probation or parole, they can be, and they're failing to report, uh, where they are or for other reasons are found to be at risk, can be placed in an ankle monitor. We learned in the course of this that there i- this is of course at the cost of the, uh, the predator, uh, the, the sexual offender, but there are, there, there's money in the budget for Department of Community Supervision for indigents, uh, that if the person, which you would imagine a homeless probably does not have the financial resources to pay, uh, there's grant money available to pay for the cost of that monitoring just to address that. [1:25:09](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5109s) One other thing that I, I just caught that the, um, the last speaker, uh, mentioned on the definition of homeless or homelessness at lines 18 or 19. I considered that a, a friendly, uh, amendment, um, because Department of Communi- Community Supervision also was okay taking off the, uh, which can be considered safe, sanitary, and decent to the extent that that is subjective. Uh, you could change that to lacking a fixed or regular nighttime residence. [1:25:41](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5141s) That, that is... She raised that thing, and it reminded me Department of Community Supervision also had no objection to removing the portion that says, "Which can be considered safe, sanitary, and decent." Um, so that would be fine with me from this standpoint. Back to the question about does this limit the, uh, sorb to say and if, if somebody is a sexual offender from one of these child related things that they cannot make them a sexually dangerous predator. [1:26:17](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5177s) That is not the intent of the bill. I'm sitting here looking through it while this discussion's going on, and I would also consider it if the committee feels it's, uh, required on line 123 where it says, "You shall be placed into a level two risk assessment classification." If you're convicted of any of these, it's fine with me if you were to insert after classification or sexually dangerous predator. I don't want to limit them from finding somebody that has molested a child from being found to be a, a sexually dangerous predator. [1:26:52](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5212s) That was the other floor change that we had, uh, down on lines 144 and 145. We built in that if you have committed child molestation, enticing a child for indecent purposes, incest, or sexual exploitation more than once, uh, then you should be a sexually dangerous predator if you have a pattern and history of, of doing that. Um, so we're just trying to make certain that if, if there's somebody that's been convicted of child molestation or enticing a child for indecent purposes or incest or sexual exploitation, that they, they need to be at least a level two, uh, risk assessment. [1:27:30](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5250s) And the same thing starting on one line, 131 on down. If you have been convicted of any of these offenses, you are a sexually dangerous predator. They shouldn't... The other factors are pretty much moot. If it's aggravated assault with intent to rape- kidnapping where the victim is less than 14 years of age other than by a parent, trafficking, I mean sex trafficking, rape, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, or any second or subsequent convictions for sexual battery or for these, uh, child-related offenses. [1:28:04](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5284s) I mean, that is the definition of a sexually dangerous predator, and they should be classified as such. Um, but, but I'm happy to, uh, entertain a change there on line 123 to set, to make sure that it's not limited to a level two if you've had one of these child sex offenses. You could change that to, or a sexually dangerous predator based on the factors of the, of the SORNA. I have the underlying code section here if you invite, if you need a copy of it, but I think it's pretty clear that it lets, uh, SORNA still has their discretion. [1:28:39](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5319s) All those factors that all the witnesses have been mentioning are still considered when they're initially classifying a sex offender. [1:28:53](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5333s) Okay. Thank you, Senator. We'll have to, uh- Thank you ... bring this back up for a vote when we get quorum. All right. So- Thank you. Senator Hatchett, I'll give you the option. I mean, you, we've gotta be out of here by 11:00, so if you want plenty of time and/or split it up, I'm just- I'm very sure this is- Okay. All right. Well, our apologies. Uh, we have, uh, another committee that's got the room at 11:00, so- I understand ... uh, what we'll do is we'll call you first up Monday. Okay. If that'll work for you. To my friend that spent a little time at, uh, fellow Sokan College and, uh, Senator Cowser, uh, don't ever doubt the power of the Southern Conference, uh, and the Georgia Legislature. [1:29:35](https://vimeo.com/1171886515#t=5375s) With that, ladies and gentlemen, we're adjourned.