House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 11, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:16:55

   Are they signing up? Is that what they're trying to do?

2. 0:17:29

   All right, everybody, we're gonna go ahead and get started. We, uh, we managed somehow to get our very small quorum that we have to have here. So, uh, there'll be other members coming in and out. These committee work days are always somewhat scattered. We've got a lot of people trying to be in multiple places at one time. But, uh, we'll go ahead and get some of the work done that we can get done, um, and hear some of these bills. Couple of them are gonna be, I hope, pretty quick, and so we'll probably start with those. But, uh, I'm gonna ask our vice chair if she will open us up in a word of prayer to get started.

3. 0:18:05

   Representative New.

4. 0:18:06

   Thank you, Chairman. Let us pray. Dear Lord, thank you so much for this day and everyone in it. Please watch over us, lead us, keep us, and guide us while we do the work of Georgia. In Your name we pray, amen.

5. 0:18:19

   Thank you. All right. We are going to start off with Senate Bill 524, and, uh, Senator Harmon.

6. 0:18:39

   Chairman.

7. 0:18:40

   There we go. Sorry.

8. 0:18:41

   And so, uh, uh, and I say this is fairly simple, I think. We have some issues we're gonna have to work through, but, uh, thank you. Uh, we have two tags that we're presenting that are, um... First is 250 years of freedom and liberty, and it's a tag that is, uh... You think about this, Georgia was a part of the first two hun- 13 states, so there's 13 stars. And we're celebrating because there is no nation that's even come close to us in the years of celebration that have been there.

9. 0:19:12

   And so this is a, a replication of the Betsy Ross flag that was flown in 1776. And so it's a, a, really, a, a, I say freedom and liberty. The second tag is, uh, Girl Scouts, and the Girl Scouts formation was out of Savannah, Georgia. And so it's going to honor the s- the, um, Girl Scouts that, uh, have remained strong. They have the name Girl Scouts, and I was very, very proud of them to, uh, do that. And they said they were gonna keep that. I said, "I can support you on that." Um, just to kind of show you, uh, we've got enlargements.

10. 0:19:48

    This is Vanna White, I know it's not.

11. 0:19:52

    Of, uh, of what it looks like. And then, uh, there's also one for the Girl Scouts that, uh, so- someone can use and to support the Scout- Scout, uh, the Girl Scouts and in, uh, doing that, since that's a part of Georgia as well. So we have one that's the future and one that's the past, and I believe this is that we need to celebrate in a big way 250 years of freedom and liberty, because no nation anywhere has come close to us, and we have a phenomenal heritage to celebrate.

12. 0:20:27

    All right. Uh, Chairman Hitchens.

13. 0:20:31

    I don't have much of a question. I'm, I'm gonna give a statement. I'm from Savannah, Georgia, and I'm very familiar with the Girl Scouts and, uh, the thousands and thousands of them that come from all over the country down there to, to see the birthplace. And, uh, also, many of you know I was a state trooper for 43 years, and in 1976, I was on the color guard that went to Philadelphia and marched in the bicentennial parade. Uh, we marched the 13 original colonies. We marched in the order that we joined the Union, so, uh, we were fourth. Uh, some of our friends from the North thought that we ought to be subtracted four years for a little disagreement we had during the 1800s, but, uh...

14. 0:21:10

    Small skirmish.

15. 0:21:11

    Uh, I'm not for, really, for the proliferation of these tags because, uh, uh, there's so many different kinds now. Having been in the law enforcement community and knowing how that works, when a tag's called in, you have to... There's a different key for every different kind of tag.

16. 0:21:28

    Okay.

17. 0:21:28

    And we used to only have one tag.

18. 0:21:30

    Yeah.

19. 0:21:30

    And if you didn't have the key then, you just typed it in and it came up. But nowadays they've got a f- a book. It looked like a Sears Roebuck catalog, and they gotta look up what kind it is. But, but I'm for both of these. I think they're great bills, so.

20. 0:21:41

    Okay. Thank you, sir.

21. 0:21:44

    Thank you. Any other questions for the author from the committee? All right. Representative New.

22. 0:21:51

    At the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion.

23. 0:21:53

    Senator Harmon, do you have an appropriate time?

24. 0:21:55

    I'd like to make a motion we accept it.

25. 0:21:57

    All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussions from member of the committee? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

26. 0:22:03

    Aye.

27. 0:22:04

    All opposed say no. All right. You are on rule, sir.

28. 0:22:08

    Thank you.

29. 0:22:08

    Thank you.

30. 0:22:08

    Appreciate it.

31. 0:22:11

    All right. Next we're gonna go to Senate Bill 454, and, uh, my senator, Chairman Rick Williams.

32. 0:22:22

    There we go.

33. 0:22:22

    There we go. Thank you.

34. 0:22:24

    There we are.

35. 0:22:25

    Had to, had to, yeah.

36. 0:22:26

    Huh?

37. 0:22:27

    It changes it back. There was a little, uh, lapse in time on it. No, I was trying to hook my phone back into the carrier with my gun so I would be all right.

38. 0:22:41

    He woke Scott up.

39. 0:22:45

    There's a law over there. We are recording.

40. 0:22:52

    I bring before you Senate Bill 454. Let's see, LC63-0044.

41. 0:23:01

    Yes, sir.

42. 0:23:01

    Great. Thank you. You know, as a parent, grandparent, now a great-grandparent, all of us, with our children, we hope that they come home from school safely, and that's what this bill is about, is safety. This is just another tool in the toolbox for our teachers and schools to keep themselves and our children and grandchildren safe. This is a small, simple device that does not interfere with ADA or stops anyone from leaving a room.

43. 0:23:44

    This bill, this little device is to keep the bad actors out, to keep our children safe. Uh, I don't know if y'all have read over the bill, if you've looked at the, um, information. This, uh, this doesn't trap anyone in a room. Um, this is only to keep the bad actors out, to keep our children, grandchildren safe. It's no different than locking a door handle from the inside. All you do is twist that handle to exit, and this little barricade device just slips out, and you just walk out.

44. 0:24:19

    Uh, before any of these devices could be operated or utilized in any school, they have to be available for the first responders to know about them and to be familiar with them so they know how to deal with them. And I think, um, Chairman Hitchens, I think you and I have talked about this one, and I think you're familiar with this one, and I'd be glad to answer any questions or try to explain any more of them if you'd like.

45. 0:24:57

    Uh, Chairman McDonald, is that you?

46. 0:24:59

    Yes.

47. 0:25:00

    All right.

48. 0:25:02

    Um, looking through the bill, I did not see anything that ... I know you talked about public safety, um, y- be- having access or coming in from, I guess, the non-egress side, um, as far as signage that would be on the door or anything, uh, you know, that public safety would know that that device is on the other side.

49. 0:25:24

    W- well, before any of these devices can be operated, then all local first responders would be notified of this device being in the school, and this would be for drills, so they would be aware of this device being utilized in this facility.

50. 0:25:43

    But is there any type of signage or anything required that, that it be put in their CAD system or so that when they are responding, whether it's fire, EMS, police, that they do notify that these type devices are on that building? Like when you, in a, in a fire situation, you see the placards, uh, fire department connection, FDC, out by, you know, just even though we know what that, that device is or the, or the, the, the standpipe is, uh, you still, there's, there's lettering. We just passed a measure dealing with, uh, with, uh, with, uh, trusses.

51. 0:26:16

    Uh, and it was, passed that bill, and of course it was all about putting a placard on buildings that have that type truss system. And, uh, so I was just curious. I did not see anything in-

52. 0:26:25

    No, there's nothing in that bill, but, um, you know, if that's something that this committee would like to, you know, incorporate, I certainly don't see, think there would be any pushback from it. I have, uh, like I have some of the representatives here. If they want to come up and address this with me, they're certainly welcome to.

53. 0:26:46

    I mean, just a question.

54. 0:26:48

    Okay. No, thank you. I think it's a good idea, and maybe, uh, of course, as they, uh, train with this type of equipment, they will know that that equipment is utilized in that facility.

55. 0:27:02

    All right, I think, uh, Representative New, you had some commentary on that.

56. 0:27:06

    I did. On line 34, it says, "A temporary door locking device may be used," so it is not a shall, it's a may.

57. 0:27:14

    Right.

58. 0:27:16

    Okay, thank you. Um, all right, any further questions from members of the committee?

59. 0:27:22

    And no part of this bill shall conflict with the ADA, Americans for Disabilities Act.

60. 0:27:28

    Okay.

61. 0:27:28

    And the state fire marshal has approved this type of f- equipment.

62. 0:27:33

    Yeah. And I believe some of their representatives are here. Is that correct?

63. 0:27:38

    I think so, and they're welcome to come up and-

64. 0:27:41

    Okay

65. 0:27:41

    ... speak on it if they would like.

66. 0:27:44

    Yeah, I didn't have anybody signed up, but did y'all have any commentary on, on the bill or anything? Just here in case we need you.

67. 0:27:50

    Sure. Just if I have a question, I'd like one minute.

68. 0:27:53

    Perfect. All right. Thank you very much. All right, I don't see any further questions. What's the will of the committee?

69. 0:27:58

    Make a motion to pass.

70. 0:28:00

    Second.

71. 0:28:00

    All right, a motion to pass and a second. I am going to, um, I am going to make a motion that we add an amendment, and then I believe, Senator Williams, you, we've all discussed this, right? And we're all on the same page as that?

72. 0:28:15

    What? What are you talking about, Mr. Chairman?

73. 0:28:17

    I know. Surprise.

74. 0:28:20

    Surprise. No, this is, I'm fine with it. Yes, sir.

75. 0:28:23

    Yeah, so just-

76. 0:28:23

    I think, I think all the parties are fine with it.

77. 0:28:26

    Yeah, just for clarity for the committee, um, we're gonna pass out this, this amendment here. Uh, and it's essentially the language from House Bill 1327, which was a bill that, uh, came through the House, and it is one of the, uh, as often happens, uh, on crossover, we have more bills that are really good bills that we can't get out because of the timing. Uh, and this is one of those.

78. 0:28:47

    Wow.

79. 0:28:47

    1327 was a bill that was sponsored by, um, Representative Jason Ridley, who's here, and if he wants to come up and talk about it, he, he's welcome to. But, uh- Essentially what it does is it requires a, um-

80. 0:28:59

    And you're saying-

81. 0:28:59

    Or it, it has a mechanism for board of educations, um, school boards-

82. 0:29:05

    I'm not sure

83. 0:29:06

    ... to put processes in place for first responders to be able to access the building in emergency situations, um, if they don't already have something in place. I talked to my school board superintendent, who was here, um, last week, and, uh, we already have a, a mechanism in place where they have a keypad and key code that, that all of the first responders are aware of, and so they can access that. This wouldn't require them to change that, um, but it would just make sure that there's, uh, key boxes installed, uh, to provide for access in a, um, emergency situation if first responders need to be accessed the building and now that they're, they're locked.

84. 0:29:45

    So, uh, Representative Ridley, you wanna elaborate a little bit on it?

85. 0:29:49

    I think you did a great job. Um-

86. 0:29:51

    Thanks

87. 0:29:51

    ... this, uh, it, it actually passed out of, uh, house education unanimously, went through rules. Of course, like I said, it gets caught up, um, on the floor with everything else, and so we didn't get to it. Um, but this is, the, the first responders have come and they've all supported this because there is situations where they need to be able to get in that building. Uh, some's got it, some don't, so this right here would just make everybody have some access, um, to it. And, and Chairman, as you said, if you've already got something, the keypad or electrical doors, that kind of stuff already in play, then it, it wouldn't affect you.

88. 0:30:23

    It'd just be, uh, working with your safety, the school safety program, putting it together, and the police will, will tell where to put the boxes, where they'll know where they're at.

89. 0:30:32

    Okay. And I believe, um, like I said, we'd had discussions, uh, with Chairman Williams and the, uh, office of safety fire has been consulted on it as well since we were doing this, and the bill, they were kind of behind it. I think y'all are okay with the language as well, and no concerns. Very good. All right. But that is a, that is an amendment, a motion I would like to make to amend that with this language that is contained in, uh, LC number AM630018.

90. 0:31:02

    Second.

91. 0:31:03

    All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of the amend- Oh, sorry, we got some discussion. Uh, go ahead.

92. 0:31:12

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question. I always pay attention to when we have liability carve-outs, and so in lines 33 to 37, there's an exclusion for if an employee were to act with gross negligence or bad faith. Would that be an instance where, like, somebody gave the code away, or can you give me an example of, of where that might be implicated?

93. 0:31:37

    I would think that that would be like w- if somebody did give the code away, gave an extra key to somebody that's other than supposed to have the key, um, I think that would be what that situation, but-

94. 0:31:46

    To get around the sit-

95. 0:31:47

    W-

96. 0:31:47

    The, the security.

97. 0:31:48

    Sure, because if, if you have somebody that, y- they give somebody else a key and they can get in there, and they're the one that's the shooter, then they should be, you know, held liable for, for contributing to that.

98. 0:31:58

    Exactly. That's what I was thinking. I wasn't sure if there were any other circumstances as well.

99. 0:32:02

    No, sir.

100. 0:32:03

     Okay.

101. 0:32:03

     And if you'll notice too, it does not say anything about more or less.

102. 0:32:10

     Well played. Thank you.

103. 0:32:12

     Thank, thank goodness for that. All right, any other questions on the amendment? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

104. 0:32:19

     Aye.

105. 0:32:19

     Any opposed say no. Okay, amendment carries. And now any further discussion on the full bill as amended? Seeing none, all in favor of the bill as amended say aye.

106. 0:32:30

     Aye.

107. 0:32:31

     Any opposed say no. Very good. Thank you very much for your cooperation. I voted too. I hope you didn't mind. Thank you. I got that. Fine. Appreciate that. All right, and- Committee, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And now we will move on to Senate Bill 116. We, uh, and we have a few people signed up to speak on that, so we'll, we'll hear from the bill sponsor first, and then we will, uh, hear from those wishing to speak in relation to the bill. So Senator Bearden, the floor is yours, sir.

108. 0:33:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Uh, Senate Bill 116. I hope you're working off LC630075. Uh, just to jump right into the bill-

109. 0:33:19

     Whoa, whoa, whoa.

110. 0:33:19

     The... Time out.

111. 0:33:20

     Yeah, we got-

112. 0:33:21

     Got the wrong one?

113. 0:33:21

     ... 630077S.

114. 0:33:25

     Yeah, it is S. I just messed around and said five instead of S.

115. 0:33:29

     Okay.

116. 0:33:29

     My fault.

117. 0:33:30

     777S, got it. All right, we're all on the same page.

118. 0:33:33

     Get the speed bump out of the way now. Uh, lines 28 through 33 is pretty much the meat of the bill. So if a person is charged with a misdemeanor or a felony and is subject to an immigration detainer, ICE is saying that we want to pick these individuals up when you're done with them.

119. 0:33:58

     ICE has 48 hours to pick these individuals up, and right now we have a good working relationship with this administration with ICE. If they do not pick them up in 48 hours, then we will take DNA. This is an ICE, of course, so it's an illegal immigrant. He's been, basically, um, the detention facility's been told that we're gonna pick him up, and if they don't pick him up in that 48 hours, then we'll take the DNA. In the process of ICE, when they pick up these illegals, they usually take the DNA, so we're just making sure we get it, get it in the database, make sure there's no, uh, crimes that's unsolved or future crimes that may go unsolved because of DNA evidence.

120. 0:34:39

     As we know, technology's changing quickly, and DNA is one of those things that help us tremendously when we're trying to make sure to bring justice to victims in this state and across the country.

121. 0:34:53

     Okay. Questions from the committee?

122. 0:35:01

     Chairman Hitchens. Well, I've been through this before with DNA, and I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna, uh, tarry too long here. But, uh, you know, the, the greatest advent of, uh, criminal justice and law enforcement in this country was the advent of, of fingerprints. And one of the reasons that they were so successful was we fingerprinted everybody. If you went in the military, you got fingerprinted. If you got arrested, you got fingerprinted. If you had a secure job, you got fingerprinted. And, uh, we had a database that was, it was sort...

123. 0:35:33

     I've been in the FBI's, FBI's office in Washington where they kept all the... And it was done by paper back then. We now get more DNA hits from other states because they have larger databases than we have, uh, because they take DNA samples from more people than we do. And, uh, you know, I don't know any better, uh, qualifier of guilt or innocence than, than a DNA test. You know, if you've got DNA... Uh, two years ago we started the, uh, cold case unit in, in the GBI, and there are about 4 or 500 people that have disappeared in our state that, uh, there's no record of and nobody...

124. 0:36:12

     About 50 of them who were coeds at the University of Georgia. And, uh, since we've started it, uh, within the last month we've gotten two hits finally, and solved cases that were over 20 years old. Now, I, I fully understand, uh, our freedoms and, and, uh, people not wanting to give DNA samples. Uh, you know, uh, my philosophy is if you hadn't done anything wrong, I don't know why you care. But, uh, the, um, the other thing is that, uh, you know, um,

125. 0:36:47

     I think if we're gonna have a, a good society and, and people are gonna abide by laws, and we're gonna be able to, uh, to, uh, arrest and, and, and take action against people that commit crimes, I just, I just think it's essential that we do these kinds of things. And what you're doing here is, is not from an innocent person walking down the street. It's for somebody who's been convicted of a crime and who is in this country illegally. It doesn't matter whether they're from Germany or Czechoslovakia or Hispanic or Russian. Everybody gets treated the same. So, uh, I think it's a good bill and I appreciate you bringing it.

126. 0:37:18

     And I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And, uh, one of the things that we've heard also is through Supreme Court decisions, uh, King versus Maryland, they look at DNA as just another, uh, identifier, just like we do fingerprints or mugshots. Right. All right. Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? Okay. All right. We'll go to our sign-up sheet here. And first is David Shafer.

127. 0:37:52

     Sometimes taller people use this microphone. I always have to bring it down a little bit. Yes, sir. Um, good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here on behalf of Common Cause Georgia and our more than 15,000 members across the state who care deeply about protecting democratic participation and constitutional rights. We have some concerns about SB 116, and I'm gonna be super brief 'cause I know there's a number of people who are signed up to speak on the bill. Wanted to raise two very specific things. Uh, we believe that this bill could harm the privacy of immigrant communities while further harming trust in law enforcement.

128. 0:38:28

     We also believe that SB 116 establishes an unfunded mandate for which localities would have to address both financially and operationally. So we have other concerns, but I think they're gonna be raised by subsequent testimony, so I'll stand down. Thank you. Okay. Any questions from the committee for this witness? All right. Don't see any. Thank you. All right, Jessica Stern.

129. 0:38:58

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Jessica Stern. I'm a criminal defense attorney who practices in the field of crimmigration. So that's where there's any aspect of immigration law that's impacted by criminal laws, either federally or in the state of Georgia. Uh, I have been admitted as an expert in the immigration consequences of criminal offenses by the US District Court in the Northern District of Georgia here. Uh, and I appreciate the opportunity to share my concerns regarding SB 116.

130. 0:39:31

     My primary concern is that this bill authorizes DNA collection based on arrest alone, uh, for the most minor offenses on Georgia's books. So currently as the law is now, it does allow for the collection of DNA evidence for, um, immigrants who are arrested for felonies. This is adding in misdemeanor crimes. So I just wanna highlight the distinction. This is not for those who are convicted of misdemeanor crimes. They haven't been found guilty of anything.

131. 0:40:02

     This is for people who have been arrested for misdemeanor crimes and also have an immigration detainer on them. In Georgia, all traffic offenses are criminal misdemeanors. Speeding, taillight violations, driving without a license, those are all considered criminal misdemeanors and would fit under the scope of this bill. Uh, it would allow DNA collection for something as minor as a taillight violation if that person's also subject to an immigration detainer.

132. 0:40:33

     And again, importantly, this occurs before any adjudication of guilt. Um, I think it's important to note that an immigration detainer can apply to both documented immigrants in the United States, so people who have legal immigration status, green cards, visas, uh, and detainers can also apply to undocumented immigrants, and that's something I'll explain a little bit more, but I just wanted to, to highlight that because I think that's an important distinction that a lot of people don't quite understand the nuances of.

133. 0:41:07

     Um-

134. 0:41:09

     From the criminal procedure perspective, this is a dramatic shift from what's allowed in our law right now. It creates a pipeline where non-citizens, both undocumented and documented, can have their genetic profile collected and stored based solely on an arrest. This bill is also silent about what happens to that DNA if charges were dismissed, if the individual's acquitted of the crime they were arrested for, if the immigration detainer is lifted, right? Maybe there was a mistake in placing the immigration detainer, and maybe it was a US citizen, and now we've collected their DNA.

135. 0:41:44

     Without a clear destruction mechanism, the result could be permanent government retention of DNA profiles even when the underlying criminal case disappears. The second concern is the abandonment of longstanding constitutional guardrails. Historically, DNA collection laws were tied to serious offenses and often to post-conviction status precisely because of the significant privacy implications involved in collecting and storing a person's genetic profile. There's another bill, um, I th- I believe it's SB29, um, which allows for the collection of DNA for those involved with serious felony offenses.

136. 0:42:23

     Um, and so the severity of the offense usually is tied to the invasive nature and privacy concerns of taking a person's DNA. This bill moves away from that framework, and it creates a separate rule that applies only to people who are subject to immigration detainers. That distinction raises serious questions under the Fourth Amendment and equal protection principles. We are not requiring DNA collection from US citizens who are merely arrested for traffic violations or other, um, minor offenses, yet under this bill, non-citizens would be subjected to that requirement immediately upon their arrest.

137. 0:42:59

     Some presume that constitutional protections only apply to US citizens. I've heard that a lot. "Well, why are we talking about the Constitution if we're talking about people who might not be lawfully in the US?" But the Constitution applies to any person whose two feet are within the interior of our country, and the Supreme Court has interpreted the language of the Equal Protection Act as stating equal protection applies to all persons under the law, not merely all citizens. Some may view DNA collection as a minimal in- intrusion.

138. 0:43:29

     It's just a little swab in the cheek. But it's worth remembering that genetic information is fundamentally different from other identifiers. We heard some about fingerprints earlier. Um, we've learned that technologies we once viewed as harmless can carry risks we never anticipated. Social Security numbers, right? We thought that that was a good way to identify people. We never were able to conceptualize the risks to someone's identity theft and issues that are, you know, l- large problems in our country today. The long-term risks of large-scale government retention of genetic data is not simply s- something we can fully understand as we're sitting here today.

139. 0:44:07

     Third, the bill will inevitably extend detention and create operational burdens for jails, for local jails. This bill requires DNA collection before someone is subjected-- I'm sorry. This bill requires DNA collection before a person who has an ICE detainer can be released. So that means additional booking procedures, specialized evidence handling, and biological collection that's far more involved than just taking a fingerprint. Each sample requires the sheriff d- or the local, um, jail staff to put on gloves, sterile handling, documentation, and laboratory processing in order for that to be a legitimate sample.

140. 0:44:49

     Low-level traffic offenses occur in very high volume, I mean, especially these larger jails, and people are coming in and out with local, uh, low-level traffic offenses. Uh, and the counties and the local jails are gonna bear those costs with administrative burdens without any funding mechanism or liability protections that are built into the bill. The question for me, the most fundamental question, is why is this necessary at all? When someone is held in a Georgia jail and immigration authorities believe that they may be removable, ICE, I- Immigration and Customs Enforcement, files what is known as a detainer request, and this detainer request is part of the bill.

141. 0:45:30

     This is what triggers the application of the bill. A detainer is lodged when either there's suspicion of a person being undocumented, having no legal status at all, or a person who has legal status like a green card or a visa, but maybe they have some other suspected violation of immigration law, like maybe they already have a conviction that makes them deportable. Ultimately, this applies to those who have legal status and who also don't have legal status. By the time a detainer is issued, the federal government already has identifying information about that person being a non-citizen.

142. 0:46:07

     So at that point, there's already enough information about that person for the federal government to know who they are, and I think that's a, a big part of the reason for, for this bill is to make sure there aren't people around there who, you know, around the country who are unknown to the federal government. But at, in many cases, immigration authorities have already collected fingerprints, biographical data, addresses, and sometimes even DNA through federal enforcement programs. So in other words, the very condition that triggers this bill, which is the ICE detainer, means that the federal government has already identified that individual and is already tracking them through an immigration process.

143. 0:46:50

     So from a practical standpoint, the bill does not appear to provide meaningful new enforcement capability. Instead, it places Georgia into an immigration-adjacent role that courts have repeatedly cautioned states about. I'm almost done, I promise. Um, ultimately, SB 116 creates a separate and more punitive criminal procedure for non-citizens triggered by arrest rather than guilt. From a crimmigration perspective, which is the hat I'm always wearing, it magnifies the consequences of minor offenses, it erodes the established constitutional protections for all people in this country, and it increases detention time and exposes counties and the state to litigation risk.

144. 0:47:31

     These concerns appear to be structural features of the bill rather than unintended side effects. For those reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to reconsider this bill altogether. Thank you for your time.

145. 0:47:43

     Okay, any questions for this presenter? I don't see any. Would you like to respond to any of that, Senator?

146. 0:47:52

     There's a lot going on. I would just say we're not deporting anybody. These individuals will be turned over to ICE once they're re- released from us, and if ICE don't pick them up, we're just getting the DNA. It's a very simple bill, and, uh, that's all I got.

147. 0:48:07

     Thank you. I have just a couple of quick questions. And, and you and I-

148. 0:48:10

     Yes

149. 0:48:10

     ... had discussed a little bit of this the other day when we were talking. Um-

150. 0:48:16

     Yes

151. 0:48:16

     ... you said that the, the issue about, um, how long it's kept and where it's kept and, you know, whether it's destroyed or not and that sort of thing, none of that's being changed in the current legislation, right? And so we're already collecting those who have been, um, convicted of a felony and are subject to an immigrated or- immigration detainer notice, is that right?

152. 0:48:43

     Yes.

153. 0:48:44

     What is the process for the removal or destruction of that DNA?

154. 0:48:48

     I don't know. But what I know that's different- ... is that those people have already been found guilty of an, of a crime and of a higher level offense.

155. 0:48:56

     Mm-hmm.

156. 0:48:56

     And so it, it matches with other constitutionally recognizable collections of DNA when there's a higher level offense and proven guilt. But this would be for anybody who, who gets arrested for a low level offense, so long as you're not a citizen. Me and you, no.

157. 0:49:14

     Okay. And you also mentioned that there could be times that there's an ICE detainer on somebody who is here legally.

158. 0:49:20

     Yes, that's correct.

159. 0:49:21

     Can you-

160. 0:49:22

     Sure, I can explain that

161. 0:49:23

     ... give an example?

162. 0:49:24

     Yes. So there could be someone who's here on a student visa. Uh, and so they have legal immigration status.

163. 0:49:32

     Mm-hmm.

164. 0:49:32

     They're arrested for an offense, um, but something is within the records of the Department of Homeland Security that suggests that maybe that person's school status might not be completely, uh, above board, or m- you know, there's some suspicion that there's some violation. Maybe they worked without authorization or something like that. So there are people in a- in addition to those who have green cards, you know, permanent legal residents, maybe married to US citizens and have US citizen children, who, uh, may have some other suspected violation of immigration law.

165. 0:50:04

     Maybe they had a prior conviction that makes them deportable. But they are traceable by the government. I mean, they know who they are, they know where they live.

166. 0:50:12

     So, but as far as a permanent legal resident with a green card, have you seen ICE detainers placed on-

167. 0:50:19

     Yes

168. 0:50:19

     ... on them?

169. 0:50:20

     Yes, if there's some other violation, alleged violation of immigration law.

170. 0:50:24

     So-

171. 0:50:24

     Not just that arrest alone

172. 0:50:26

     ... so there's a chance that they may not be here legally, and that's why the ICE detainer is put in place?

173. 0:50:31

     There's no finding of that. A court would have to find that, an immigration court. So at the time that they're there, they are legally present in the United States and still subjected to an ICE detainer.

174. 0:50:42

     They're possibly here illegally, though.

175. 0:50:44

     No, it's not that they're here illegally.

176. 0:50:45

     Okay.

177. 0:50:45

     They're here with lawful status.

178. 0:50:47

     Mm-hmm.

179. 0:50:48

     But there's some sort of alleged violation that would have to go through due process in front of an immigration judge to determine if they did violate the status of their, um, of their immigration status. So there's no legal finding, so that would be completely subjected to-

180. 0:51:01

     Right, which is why I said it's possible they could be here.

181. 0:51:05

     It's possible that they could-

182. 0:51:06

     Illegally

183. 0:51:06

     ... then have their status taken from them. But it wouldn't mean that as they're in that jail-

184. 0:51:10

     Mm-hmm

185. 0:51:10

     ... they're there without legal status. They are in lawful status as they sit in the jail.

186. 0:51:15

     Okay. All right. And lastly, you, when we talked about this the other day, the difference between fingerprints and, and DNA, um, you didn't really highlight any specific concerns with that. I guess your concerns are just what if we ... somebody decides to clone people or something? Is that-

187. 0:51:33

     Well, I mean, we, we can't, I don't think we ever considered that we'd be talking about, like, AI pornography in, in this session. I mean, how many years ago-

188. 0:51:42

     That's a true statement

189. 0:51:43

     ... we can't, we can't foresee those things in the future about how somebody's information is gonna be used. There is a difference, though, with fingerprints and, and DNA. I mean, fingerprints, you're rolling your fingers over something. You don't have to preserve ... You know, once it dries, it's fine. You're reaching into someone's body. I mean, it might just be for a second, but you're reaching into, into someone's body, collecting a DNA specimen that in order to be preserved properly has to go through certain scientific steps. And so there's inevitably gonna be not only a, a difference in privacy, but just in collection and the burden of, of the staff having to take those steps versus just rolling fingers on a fingerprint.

190. 0:52:24

     Yeah. I mean, it, I, I would consider that to be minimally, very, very minimal, minimally invasive. A lot, a lot less invasive than those swabs we had to have that everybody made us get during COVID-19. So, um, all right. Thank you very much.

191. 0:52:39

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

192. 0:52:41

     All right. And now we have Zachary Perry.

193. 0:52:51

     Yes, sir.

194. 0:52:51

     How y'all doing today?

195. 0:52:52

     Good.

196. 0:52:53

     Uh, my name is Zachary Perry. I'm a public defender here in Atlanta. Um, and I just wanna focus on the language of the bill as it exists, and I just wanted to point out that some confusion and consternation it might cause. So the language that I have, and I don't have the most recent version, it may be the same, um, differs from what the sponsor just said it says. So the language here says that, uh, "Provided that such individual is not taken into custody by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement division."

197. 0:53:24

     Hey, sorry. Zachary?

198. 0:53:25

     Yes.

199. 0:53:25

     Will you tell us what line you're reading from when you start to do that?

200. 0:53:28

     Oh, I apologize.

201. 0:53:28

     It's easier for us to find that way. Thank you.

202. 0:53:30

     Uh, line 30 of the copy that I have. Um, and that's provided that ICE doesn't, uh, ta- not taken to custody by ICE within 48 hours of detention. Uh, what the sponsor just stated was that, um, and what may be the intent of this bill, is that, that 48 hours that someone is being held after receiving a detainer from ICE, if s- ICE doesn't pick them up within that 48 hours, you would then take the DNA.

203. 0:54:00

     What this says is that within 48 hours of detention, so that's 48 hours of arrest, or if you're being strict, you know, 48 hours of being stopped or placed in the back of a patrol car at a traffic stop, uh, that would count as detention. But so under this language, this could be read, or my plain language of it would, pr- plain reading of it would be that within 48 hours of being booked in the jail, if ICE has not picked them up within that first 48 hours, that's when you would then administer the DNA swab.

204. 0:54:31

     Um, the intention that I heard from the sponsor and may be, um, incorrect, is that it would be release that 48 hour period then where you're holding someone to see if ICE is going to pick them up begins and then that DNA swab. So you could have, you know, a week before that 48 hours starts to run and if they're not picked up within that, you know, second after that week, 48 hours, that's when the swab is taken. But the language here says that if they're not picked up within the first 48 hours of detention.

205. 0:55:02

     The point being that a strict reading of this could differ from what the intention is and because of the criminal penalties that go along with non-compliance of the detention laws, there's going to be a lot of just very tense moments of people trying to make sure they're complying properly. A lot of law departments are going to have different opinions. If you get five l- lawyers in a room and ask their opinion, you're going to get 10 different opinions and probably a couple of it depends. So, uh, that language is just in, I think I heard unfunded mandate.

206. 0:55:35

     Another aspect of this that differs a little bit from the detention language is that exclusion of weekends and holidays that doesn't run into this. So a very, uh, preferable, you know, to detention reading of this could say that this is adding a separate although often concurrent 48 hours you have to be held in order to see if ICE picks them up. If you read it that way, someone gets arrested on a Friday in December, Christmas is on a Tuesday, so Friday night you're arrested, Monday is 24 hours, Tuesday doesn't count because it's Christmas, Wednesday is the next 48 hours, and then so the earliest that release is going to be able to happen and that swab be taken is Fri- is that Thursday.

207. 0:56:17

     So then if someone, even if they paid their bond or there was no probable cause found and they were released for any other reason, maybe on Friday or Saturday, that jail has now had to hold somebody an extra six days, feeding them, paying for their detention, which depending on, as the, as Gacdal pointed out, this includes traffic offenses. So City of Atlanta, for instance, in their detention center, they have intake of about 50 to 60 people a day on traffic offenses. If a handful of those are brought in and you're adding this extra time, that can get expensive over pretty quickly.

208. 0:56:52

     Um, not to mention the litigation that might come out of this because of the confusion here that I think is present in the current language. Um, and yeah, I think that's really my concerns here is exactly when this 48 hour runs, if it's concurrent with that extra 48 hours, and then if the swab is being taken afterwards, I'm, admit my ignorance on exactly who can take DNA and because it is this pretty specific process in order for the chain of custody be, to be consistent and be usable, I imagine there's a certain training and certification that goes along with it.

209. 0:57:27

     If you're in a smaller jail, then not everybody's trained in that and that person only works every other day, every couple days. Does that mean that you have to hold that person until someone who is certified to take the DNA comes? So is this now 48 hours turning into 72 hours, 4 days, 5 days and waiting until that person who can take the DNA comes? So it's, there's just some concerns that this would not only, not just minimally extend some detention, that it could cause a lot of consternation, especially I think in smaller jurisdictions that don't have the same resources as some of these larger jurisdictions who may have someone on staff all the times of doing this and so on.

210. 0:58:06

     Okay. Representative Holcomb.

211. 0:58:10

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have any sense of the numbers that we're talking about? My sense is that, a- and you mentioned some in terms of just traffic offenses, but that would be in total and not necessarily those were s- that were subject to, um, immigration detainers. But it, it seems to me that the universe of those who would be convicted of a felony would be dramatically lower than the universe of just charged with a misdemeanor.

212. 0:58:43

     Significantly, and I think one of the biggest con- uh, contributing factors to that is, as stated previously, traffic offenses are considered misdemeanors. So City of Atlanta, you know, average 50 to 60 people arrested a day on traffic offenses and low level offenses. We have, I'd say probably between two and maybe s- five a day that either require an interpreter, may be foreign born, um, could be subject to a detainer. Not that many that get detainers, but raise that flag that it could be an issue.

213. 0:59:14

     And that also reminds me, I did want to point out, I have seen United States citizens be subject to a detainer. It got cleared up, we figured it out, but for whatever reason, when they're fingerprinted and brought in, a detainer flag was added to that case, and they weren't detained longer than that, but that does happen. Those confusions do happen. So if you're to having a situation where someone's just charged with a traffic offense ah, clerical error occurs, you're now invading the privacy and, ah, subjecting someone to a search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, um, under this bill.

214. 0:59:49

     But to your question, yes, the big thing is the charge, and also we're including misdemeanors here. So you're gonna, I'd say probably with larger jurisdictions, up to 10, 15 a week that could be this. And I don't know how much it costs to take DNA and retain and maybe extra training to people to be able to do it, but it could add up.

215. 1:00:11

     Okay. Thank you.

216. 1:00:15

     All right, any other questions from members of the committee?

217. 1:00:20

     I don't see any. Thank you.

218. 1:00:22

     Thank you very-

219. 1:00:24

     All right, that looks like, uh, all of our witnesses that had signed up. Is that everyone? Very good. All right, Senator, you wanna wrap us up?

220. 1:00:35

     We'll go real quick. Number one, the weekends, holidays, that's federal law. That's why it's in there. It's also the clock does not start ticking on that 48 hours until they're scheduled for release, so there should be no confusion there. Um, they have 48 hours to pick them up. If they don't pick them up, then we take the DNA. Again, we're not deporting anyone, we're just getting the DNA. So I just ask for your favorable consideration. Thank you.

221. 1:01:01

     Okay. All right. What's the will of the committee?

222. 1:01:09

     Move the appointment to pass.

223. 1:01:11

     Second.

224. 1:01:12

     All right. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

225. 1:01:18

     Aye.

226. 1:01:18

     Any opposed say no.

227. 1:01:21

     No.

228. 1:01:21

     The ayes have it. And that is our last bill. We are adjourned. Thank you.

229. 1:01:25

     Thank you very much.