House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 17, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:12:55

   All right, good afternoon. Welcome Judiciary Non-Civil here on this great St. P- St. Patrick's Day. If y'all wanna continue your conversations, you can go take 'em outside. We're here to do the people's work. We'll open in a word of prayer. Uh, Representative Fincher, if you wanna r- opens us up in a word of prayer. Which number are you? Go ahead.

2. 0:13:18

   Lord, we're just so ... Given such great opportunities to serve you, ask that you continue to bless us and guide us, that each person here will try to tell s- speak truthfully and honestly, and that they'll try to follow your word. We ask for it in Christ's name. Amen.

3. 0:13:35

   Thank you, Representative Fincher. Okay, uh, first up, uh, Senator Brian Strickland with Senate Bill 572. Come on down.

4. 0:13:49

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee.

5. 0:13:53

   Uh, Senate Bill 572, working off LC492741. Is that what y'all have?

6. 0:14:00

   Only the version that's-

7. 0:14:01

   Okay. It's the version that passed the Senate, and you will recognize this language. You had a similar bill, and I think you actually arrived on your final version as the same language, a bill y'all moved out of your committee that Representative Clark had a few weeks back. And this deals with some changes to our stand-your-ground immunity defense that can be raised in a criminal case. And I know a lot of the talk around the bill has been about these particular hypotheticals or particular cases that have happened.

8. 0:14:31

   I wanted to spend a second talking about what the bill actually does, and happy to dive into questions, 'cause we have to look beyond one case, um, one example when we do these bills. And I've always tried to been the type of person in my time in legislature to not draft bills just for one story, to make sure that it works for everybody in our state, and I think we hit the right balance with this bill. First off, in the first section, lines 24 through 26, I will also reference lines 87 to 88 when I say this.

9. 0:15:03

   Under current law, someone can raise a defense that you were justified in using the force that you used to protect yourself or a third party. The problem with the law is we don't have clarity right now as to how that procedure will work or when those hearings will actually happen. And so what this bill is doing is it's creating a rebuttable presumption. You will see there, um, on lines 24 through 26, that once you set forth a prima facie case that self-defense would apply under current law, then you move to ...

10. 0:15:36

    And that is referenced, by the way, on lines 83 ... Let me make sure I'm saying this correctly. Yes, lines 86 through, um, 87 and 88. Once you've raised that, um, prima facie case, then there's a presumption that comes into place that has to be rebutted by the state, and the state would then go and have to, um, show clear and convincing evidence that the immunity does not apply.

11. 0:16:07

    So this will be a pretrial-type process. You will then see ... And this bounced around, but make it flow, I'm gonna bounce around the bill a little bit. You'll then see on line 86 when that happens. That could be done at arraignment or as a pretrial motion. That'll confirm this can happen early in the case. You present your evidence that you have self-defense in the case, then the, uh, presumption then is built upon that, that the state must rebut by clear and convincing evidence. Related to this, there are certain areas of law we found that you can never raise this defense because the facts by law would not let this, um, defense apply.

12. 0:16:40

    And we've clarified lines 37 through 42 that you can't raise this defense when you have someone that's going against a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their official duties or properly identified in accordance with the law, and it's in a public place. Again, that is, to me, common sense. I've not gotten a lot of chatter about that part of the bill. It confirms, though, that you can't go and raise this defense if you're using force against an officer acting in the performance of their duties and when it's out in a public place. The other part of the bill, lines 81 through 85.

13. 0:17:12

    This has gotten a little bit of conversation about what our intent is here. I know our friends at the Sheriff's Association have asked some questions about this as well. All the intent is with line 81 through 85 is saying that when someone is gonna be arrested for a crime, that at that time the law enforcement officer must also consider, when they're looking at whether or not there's probable cause to arrest somebody, they must also consider whether or not the immunity would apply. We're not asking officers to have a hearing on the spot. We're not trying to say someone can't be arrested for a particular crime, and we're not asking officers to become, um, prosecutors.

14. 0:17:46

    We're just saying that's part of the probable cause determination that must be made before someone is actually arrested. Last thing, um, the last part of the bill, line 100, just clarifies that in civil proceedings where you have this defense that's raised to a civil claim, we're clarifying that someone's legal representative or heir can't get around that and not have that same defense apply. That is all the bill is doing, and I'm happy to answer any questions anybody has about it.

15. 0:18:13

    All right. Representative Panitch.

16. 0:18:16

    Hi, Senator. So we debated this bill when it was in the House version, and I, I come to this, A, as a criminal defense lawyer, but I was the chairperson of the Fulton County Grand Jury a while ago. I just got lucky.

17. 0:18:30

    Ah.

18. 0:18:30

    Um, and I saw when DAs were presenting, they would present a case that was clearly self-defense, and they still wanted to indict on it, and I pushed back and said, "This is ... We know how this is gonna end. Why put this person through it?" So I appreciate the desire to kind of firm up the statute. My question is, my understanding was this bill, or maybe the House version, was because people were sitting for so long, either in custody or out of custody, waiting on the trial or the immunity hearing.

19. 0:19:08

    如果那是同一个目标，是不是同一个原因，我们在这里 那个 那是其中的一个原因。我知道，如果这个故事，一些故事背后

20. 0:19:21

    的账单，特

21. 0:19:27

    别是你们听说过的一起布茨县的案件。 是的。 并且，嗯，有故事的个人坐着，等待一个机会。我认为它可能是电路 by电路，

22. 0:19:37

    并与地区检察官谈论这些听证会发生。但这是其中的一部分。我提到的法案是确保它在指控早期在案件中做到这一点。那是目标之一。 所以我不反对在指控时发出通知。我的问题是，当负担转移，本质上，呃，因为谁能说什么是 prima

23. 0:19:49

    facie 索赔，并且负担然后转移到国家证明它-以明确和令人信服的证据来推翻

24. 0:20:05

    它。

25. 0:20:09

    难道不是最好只设一个时间，这个，嗯，像通知可以给，然后必须在90天内举行审判，或者-或者在90天内举行听证会，而不是交换负担证明，嗯。 嗯，它们是两个不同的事情。你显然可以设定一个时间段。我们刚刚举行了指控或预审动议。你可以对此更加具体。但如果你去掉另一部分，那么你就不会有清晰了如何举行听证会。我理解他们现在如何发生是被告进去，有负担，基本上呈现证据的大量，防御，嗯，豁免将会适用。对于我来说，它有意义创建义务并回答你的问题，一名法官将决定你是否满足了 prima facie 案件。你是否提供任何证据证明豁免适用？我知道这是最低限度，对法律公平。这意味着我提供了一些证据，通常情况

26. 0:20:58

    下，说这种防御应该适用。然后负

27. 0:21:06

    担转移到州。我知道有一些担忧

28. 0:21:15

    已经由检察官提出。他们必须在早期呈现他们的案件。但同时，案件将会接受审判，州必须证明合理怀疑。不管我们如何处理这个法律，你仍然可以提起这种防御在审判。所以陪审团仍然必须决定你是否犯有合理怀疑，这不适用。所以负担在陪审团审判中要高得多。对我来说，那清澈的令人信服的证据标准不是太多预审动议，知道如果你无法幸存，那么你肯定不会幸存陪审团审判。

29. 0:21:27

    我可以跟进吗？好吧，所以我猜我们会问

30. 0:21:35

    其中一名检察官，当他们，是时候谈谈了。但我理解的一种确认防御，可用于疯狂和其他一些，是被告提出通知，然后必须提交证据，然后州必须回来的，我认为是由明确和令人信服的证据，但其中一名检察官会告诉我，如果，你知道，通过合理怀疑，我看到头在你身后点头。 嗯。 在陪审团审判中，超越-超越合理怀疑。但据我了解，预审过程没有规范，我认为它是由案例法驱动的，并且被视为对被告的压倒性。

31. 0:21:54

    但我会让某人纠正我，如果我错了。被告现在没有这个法案就承担负担。

32. 0:22:04

    嗯

33. 0:22:06

    ，我知道州总是证明 beyond reasonable doubt 负担。 在-在审判。 正确的。问

34. 0:22:24

    题是

35. 0:22:33

    负担是多少。所以你

36. 0:22:36

    说没有，没有，嗯，没有方向对于法官来说，在免疫听证会上的负担。 我相信方向是案例法驱动的现在。它将是州，被告有负担证明在预审过程中。 我认为被告有负担生产。嗯，但是-但是，你知道，我们会只是 让我们检察官，是的，回答那个，当然。 好，谢谢。 好吧，嗯， Chairman Gunter。 你好。 你好，阁下。

37. 0:22:51

    嗯，我有一个问题是，呃，你是否担心法官，如果这发生在审判，如果-如果它不出现直到审判，他们只是会说，让我们只是统治和反对它，让它去陪审团，让陪审团决定。 好吧，这始终是他们的选择。我-我-我假设这就是很多法官现在要做的事情，如果是个接近的电话。嗯，但我意味着- 这就像我父亲，当他是一名法官，呃，它从不，永远错误反对动议总结重判。 对。 那是- 或者导向裁决动议。 我在民事诉

38. 0:23:32

    讼中看到这一点。 是的。 所以你让陪审团决定。所以我不知道，在我看来，我不认为这真的影响到那，但它做到了，它确保了那个真正有防御的人。我们有，我们在极端的世界里运营。我认为我们可能都同意，一些百分比，你可以

39. 0:23:45

    听到人们谁不成功与这些类型的防御。但对于那些有防御的人，一个人有机会在法庭上度过他们的一天早些，我认为这就是为什么我们通过了像这样的法案。嗯，所以我想它对于那些，也许我们称之为极端情况，稀有情况，有人真正有防御，它在伟大的陪审团阶段错过，检察官仍然提起案件。大多数检察官会说，"我不会提起那起案件，如果是这样。" 但让我们说他们做到了。这确保了对于被起诉的人有 due process。 它，我认为它与 House Bill 582 那我去年带来的。

40. 0:24:19

    我认为它很适合那。 所以。 嗯。 好吧。 我看不到其他问题。参议员，我们会得到，呃- 谢谢 ...down。如果，我知道你有一个委员会提到，所以如果你- 我想看看他们是否召唤我。否则，我会靠近。 好吧。呃

41. 0:24:29

    ，让我们看看。Mike Mitchell，乔治县警长协会。

42. 0:24:37

    来吧。 Mr. Chairman, I like your tie. 谢谢。

43. 0:24:47

    Mr. Chairman, 委员会成员，下午好。很荣幸今天能和您在

44. 0:24:51

    一起。呃，警长觉得这个法案是善意的。然而，我们担心可能会有一

45. 0:25:00

    些意外后果。作为结果，呃，警长有三个主要关注领域，呃，其中一个已经提到，那就是证明的负担。

46. 0:25:10

    Uh, we do have concerns with the burden of proof being placed on the state, uh, in order to prove that the, uh, use of force was unlawful. Uh, we also, uh, have strong concerns that, uh, by shifting this burden of proof, we may actually see the unintended consequence of self-deflect- self-defense claims, uh, spiking because, uh, the s- the state now has the burden of proving, uh, that it was, uh, not a self-defense case.

47. 0:25:43

    Uh, so we do have concerns about that. Uh, we have concerns about the immunity hearings, uh, evidence being introduced, witnesses being called, so that does expose, uh, the state's case, uh, to the defense. Uh, it could be used for discovery purposes. Uh, the second concern that we have is, um, I don't know if I'm working off the same version, but it was line 81, and it, uh, pertained to standard procedures when investigating use of force cases.

48. 0:26:15

    Uh, so standard procedures is not something that is defined in statute. Uh, you know, when I hear standard procedures, one of the first things that comes to mind is standard operating procedures, but, uh, standard operating procedures are not uniform among law enforcement agencies. We operate by policies, and sometimes those aren't uniform. They're certainly not codified. So, uh, our suggestion, uh, where, uh, it references standard procedures when conducting these investigations, that that be, uh, removed from the bill.

49. 0:26:50

    And then last but certainly not least, uh, probable cause determination, lines 83 through 85. And again, that may be from a previous version, but, um, we do think that, uh, this could be, uh, inferred as being some sort of determination that is made by a judicial official. It sounds like from the bill's author that's not the intent, um, but we would like to see that language, uh, cleared up, uh, so there's no confusion as to, uh, who is making this probable cause determination.

50. 0:27:25

    Uh, we, we fear that, uh, with that language, that, you know, would not be able to make a warrantless arrest if we needed to, uh, in a case. So that is, uh, something that is of concern to us. So I will say that, you know, throughout the bill, there's some new terminology that has shown up that I'm not accustomed to. Uh, clear and convincing evidence, I don't know what the standard of that is. I mean, we work off of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, beyond a reasonable doubt, so I don't know what clear and convincing evidence is.

51. 0:27:58

    Um, and then of course, uh, th- like I mentioned before, the, uh, probable cause determination. So I don't know if this language was borrowed from another state's statute, but, uh, I do see some language in here that, uh, is new to me. So again, I, I think the bill is well-intentioned, but we do have concerns. Uh, I think with some amendments, we could probably get into the neutral category. And that's all I have, Mr. Chairman.

52. 0:28:27

    Item 13, Representative Byrd.

53. 0:28:30

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Greatly appreciate you being here and testifying. Just kind of clear everyth- well, for me, there's oftentimes unintended consequences around the Capitol quite often on any bill-

54. 0:28:43

    Yes, ma'am

55. 0:28:43

    ... that is presented, that's for sure. And I also know that we've been discussing this bill for quite a while.

56. 0:28:49

    Yeah.

57. 0:28:49

    And no one... well, not no one, that's not true, because many people have come forward to, in disagreement to the bill. But up till now, the Sheriff's Association, I believe that's what you're representing, has not come forward with any kind of disagreements. So are you here as a, for the entire Associat- Sheriff's Association or just a handful? I'm just trying to get that clear. Please.

58. 0:29:15

    Yes. I, I, I'm here representing the officers of our board of directors, and we have five officers. Uh, before we come and testify on anything, before we take a position on anything, we get those, uh, approval from that executive committee of our board of directors.

59. 0:29:31

    So from the board of directors, it's, you've discussed it with all the sheriffs across the state of Georgia, and then y'all make that determination?

60. 0:29:39

    Yes, ma'am. We've discussed it with some sheriffs. We haven't discussed it with all 159.

61. 0:29:44

    Very good. Thank you so much.

62. 0:29:46

    Yeah. Thank you.

63. 0:29:47

    Okay. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, Mr. Mitchell.

64. 0:29:50

    Thank you.

65. 0:29:51

    All right. Next up, we have Alex Miller.

66. 0:30:05

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this chair is busted, by the way. This is now my fourth time testifying on behalf of enhanced stand-your-ground. I'm not gonna say the same speech over again. I'm gonna just talk about real quick math. We just heard that an executive committee of five is somewhat opposed, and would like to be neutral on the bill, but are opposed to this bill. I counted that math with 326,000. That is the number of emails in support that have been emailed in to this legislature since January 12th, to this committee, to the Senate's committee, to the House chamber, and to the Senate chamber.

67. 0:30:44

    326,000. And you can check every address and every name. They live in Georgia, and they are going to be voting in 63 days in the primaries. So I would just say that our members are strongly supporting this bill. That's why we asked Senator Strickland and others to bring this forward, and would ask for your favorable consideration.

68. 0:31:06

    Okay. Representative Panitch.

69. 0:31:07

    Thank you. I don't normally like math, but let's, let's go along with what you're saying. Um, I got... A lot of, I don't know that I got 326,000 of them, 'cause I stopped looking after a while. We put them in a... I divert them. I put some keywords in so I don't have to read the same email that is given-

70. 0:31:26

    Sure

71. 0:31:26

    ... time and time again. And in fact, when there's... Because I care about my constituents, none of these people were my constituents. Um, but how many voters are in Georgia?

72. 0:31:38

    There's a lot of voters in Georgia.

73. 0:31:40

    There are about 10 million.

74. 0:31:40

    But right now-

75. 0:31:41

    Let me finish my question.

76. 0:31:42

    Okay.

77. 0:31:43

    There are about 10 million, 11 million voters.

78. 0:31:45

    Mm-hmm.

79. 0:31:46

    Okay. What percentage, and this is the part I ha- I need help with, what percentage of 10 million is 326,000?

80. 0:31:53

    Let's not look at the t- 10 million-

81. 0:31:55

    Okay. That's, that's-

82. 0:31:55

    Let's look at the number of primary voters

83. 0:31:57

    ... as you were threatening us.

84. 0:31:59

    I was just saying-

85. 0:32:00

    The number of voters-

86. 0:32:00

    ... our members are voters.

87. 0:32:02

    I understand.

88. 0:32:02

    Yeah.

89. 0:32:03

    And there are 10 million other Georgians.

90. 0:32:05

    And that's not how many show up for primaries.

91. 0:32:07

    Uh-

92. 0:32:09

    We have 100% voter turnout-

93. 0:32:11

    I'm just making sure that you-

94. 0:32:11

    ... in the primaries?

95. 0:32:12

    I, I know you don't. I probably have an F-minus, uh, rating from whatever organization-

96. 0:32:18

    It doesn't go lower

97. 0:32:19

    ... runs that.

98. 0:32:19

    I wish it would. Yes.

99. 0:32:23

    Anyway, your powers of persuasion could use a little work, because that's not how you talk to members of the community that you want to vote for you. You don't threaten us.

100. 0:32:32

     I wasn't expecting you to vote for this bill.

101. 0:32:36

     Are you trying to threaten them?

102. 0:32:37

     I'm just saying that if you have a primary-

103. 0:32:39

     Okay. Yeah. Hold on

104. 0:32:39

     ... we have a lot of members.

105. 0:32:40

     Hold on one second, both of you. Stick to the policies of the bill if there's a policy question.

106. 0:32:46

     I do. Yes.

107. 0:32:47

     Go ahead.

108. 0:32:47

     Lines 86 through, I'm sorry, 81 through 85, are you familiar with the language? It's the one where-

109. 0:32:55

     I don't have my copy. I'm sorry.

110. 0:32:56

     It's the one where the sheriff said law enforcement, uh, had a concern with about standard procedures, and also that no, essentially no police shall arrest a person for using or threatening to use force unless a probable cause determination has been made that such force used or threatened was unlawful. My question is, an officer comes to a, to a, um, to a crime scene. There are two people. One is dead, one is not dead. Um, all the person then has to say is, "I acted in self-defense," and according to this bill, they can't arrest him.

111. 0:33:34

     So is that what you intend? That how does a police officer arrest somebody if the only living witness, um, can just say, "Hey, self-defense," and that now shifts the burden to the other side?

112. 0:33:47

     I'd love to answer the question.

113. 0:33:48

     Go ahead.

114. 0:33:48

     I would, I'm gonna do it in an analogy format. My wife is in a parking lot. She is being attacked. She uses her firearm in self-defense. The police are going to arrest the woman because she doesn't have eyewitnesses to prove that what she did was self-defense, and she's gonna be charged with murder?

115. 0:34:06

     Uh, first of all, your analogy is-

116. 0:34:08

     Representative Panitch, hold on. Let him finish.

117. 0:34:12

     The bur- No, I'm not. We are innocent until proven guilty in America, and to say that the prosecutor should bring the evidence to charge someone is, well, that's American. That's what... That is under their responsibility to do that. And to say that they can go to, that you can arrest somebody without evidence one way or the other, and by default they're allowed to be charged with murder, how is that right? 18 other states disagree.

118. 0:34:41

     I don't have any further questions.

119. 0:34:44

     See no other questions from the committee. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.

120. 0:34:47

     Thank you.

121. 0:34:48

     All right. Next up we have Amy Barnes.

122. 0:34:50

     Yeah. Uh,

123. 0:34:59

     here. My name is Amy Barnes. Pleasure to meet y'all. I'm a criminal defense paralegal with over a decade of experience in multiple counties, and I've worked on very high-profile cases, cases that have made worldwide news. Um, I looked at this, this bill, and regarding the officer at the scene, I actually have talked people out of traffic citations, out of arrests, just by virtue of being at the scene, and I know that I can have faith in police officers' ability to discern.

124. 0:35:45

     And what this bill does, it does put faith back into police officers' ability to say, "I see what is before me. I, my eyes work. My training has supplied me with the knowledge to be able to differentiate between what is considered probable cause and what's not." So this is the whole point of us having a post-certification process is for police officers, and I know it's in irony I do criminal defense, supporting police officers in this.

125. 0:36:26

     Um, but I've seen it happen where officers have seen a live person and determined that the live person was responsible for the death, and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Um, and now another aspect of criminal defense that's not brought up here is the financing, and there is a distinct division of labor that is afforded in this law that is critically important, and the division is labor we see here is pretrial and trial.

126. 0:37:06

     The danger in restricting this to trial is what I would call trial clutter, and this is where if you have 47 points made in a trial The possibility of an immunity defense is going to fade by the wayside and perhaps not be considered by a jury when their mind is filled with all the clutter from two, three, four days at trial.

127. 0:37:37

     And when you look at how a case progresses through our judicial system, it goes from arrest to warrant, your probable cause hearings are established, you have your arraignment just mentioned. The thing that is not mentioned, that I have not heard people talk about, is how Fulton County cases can take, oh, I don't know, eight years to get to trial.

128. 0:38:08

     Would you really want this defense sitting parked for eight years? This is an economic stripping from people. The system is so bad right now that in the practices I work for, the average caseload can run 100 cases, and these cases can take two, four, five years. There's a case in, in one of the firms I work for that's seven years old.

129. 0:38:44

     I have citations that have not been to court in eight years in Atlanta. No joke. So allowing people to, um, benefit from the flexibility that this law offers literally saves families, literally saves lives. Economic possibilities are afforded because we now have lawyers who specialize, and I know of one with a 100% motion to suppress grant rate.

130. 0:39:16

     She won 100% of her motions to suppress. And by having it at the beginning, you have what's called judicial economy, and this means one less case is going to clutter the docket up. This means one less family is sitting in the pew and wondering if their loved one is going away for life or not. And to afford this defense at such an early stage gives the judges room for more serious true crimes to be tried.

131. 0:39:55

     We have people accused of murder who are, have been in jail for four or five years who are not getting heard. So to allow these cases to quickly be resolved means that somebody can go back to work. It means someone can hug their children sooner. It means someone has the opportunity to pay a lawyer a lot less. So when you've got trial versus pretrial that this law offers, you're talking about a difference that could be $50,000.

132. 0:40:31

     $50,000 difference in trial and pretrial fees. Modern law firms, they charge a pretrial fee and a trial fee. So when someone is facing aggravated assault and they have that immunity defense, and if they exercise that in front of the beginning stages, they can save $50,000 in lawyer fees. So quite literally, this saves the taxpayers too, because the public defender is afforded an opportunity early on to clear a case, and it saves the tax base wastage.

133. 0:41:14

     It ta- it saves the tax base the money that would otherwise go to keep that person held in lockup longer. And it is $55 a day in Cobb County to house an inmate. So take $55 a day and figure out the difference in time that this law offers, this, this proposal for a law offers. That's money that you're saving, that you're not paying to house somebody if they can get this immunity through.

134. 0:41:48

     And again, it depends on what a reasoned, seasoned judge can decide. So this is not something that is going to stupidify the judiciary. It's going to strengthen the ability of the judiciary to solve these cases. So the flexibility is absolutely critical to have this available at arraignment and even earlier, because the economic advantage or disadvantage can result in someone's house being taken.

135. 0:42:24

     Their pets could go, their houses could go. DFCS will take their kids if they're out a year or two years. So we are affording people the ability to defend themselves early with this law. And I have been a crime victim. I have been raped, I have been assaulted, and I wish sometimes I could have been afforded a defense like this as strong as this, a shield, because people are out there causing people harm, robbing the entire community of safety and security.

136. 0:43:07

     And we hear about teen takeovers, but we don't hear about are the people bent and loose on the street shooting. I could have gotten hit. I was five minutes away from being victimized by a shootout in my own neighborhood. And crime is terrible. We have a right to defend ourselves. This law is a shield that people need. Our police officers should be trusted to make the decisions.

137. 0:43:39

     We pay them, we pay for their training, and we need to respect that with this law. Thank you.

138. 0:43:48

     Okay. Thank you, Ms. Barnes. I see no questions. Uh, we don't get many paralegals, so thank you for taking time out of your day.

139. 0:43:58

     Okay, next up, trying to make sure I've got this name right. Is it Ivan Walker or...?

140. 0:44:06

     Yes, sir.

141. 0:44:06

     Okay, come on down.

142. 0:44:17

     Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Ivan Walker. I'm a first-year political science major at Morehouse College, and I'm from Chicago, Illinois. I'm a community leader, and I'm an advocate with Student Demand Action. I'm here today to respectfully urge you to oppose SB-572. Georgia already has a broad self-defense protections. SB-572 goes far beyond protecting individuals. It would fundamentally change our justice system by making the use of deadly force justified before the facts are even known. This bill shifts the burden away from the person who took a life and places it on the prosecutors and law enforcement to prove that the killing was not justified.

143. 0:44:52

     This is not common sense to public safely. This is a dangerous legal standard that risks normalizing a shoot first, ask questions later society. As a young Black man who grew up in Chicago, I understand what it feels like living in a community where gun violence impacts daily lives. Many young people like me are not thinking about the philosophies of law. We're thinking about whether we will make it home safely. Policies that expand legal protections for the use of deadly force sends a cruel message to communities that already experience high levels of gun violence and fear. Research shows that these type of laws can increase homicide rates and are not applied equally across racial lines.

144. 0:45:29

     At Morehouse, I am taught that leadership means protecting people, not creating laws that make violence easier to justify. We should be focused on preventing gun violence, supporting responsible gun ownership, and reinforcing accountability. Instead of expanding shoot first protections, lawmakers should prioritize proven safety measures such as banning dangerous devices like firearm switches and investing in community-based violence prevention. This issue is not about politics. It's about whether we are moving towards a safer community or more fear and uncertainty.

145. 0:45:59

     Young people across Georgia want to be a part of the solution. We want to grow, learn, and build futures in a state that values our safety as much as our potential. For those reason, I respectfully ask you to oppose SB-572. Thank you for your time.

146. 0:46:13

     See no questions. Thank you. All right. Next up, we have, uh, Sarah Japour.

147. 0:46:24

     Come on down.

148. 0:46:25

     Would it be okay for Ms. Boston to come with me?

149. 0:46:28

     Sure.

150. 0:46:28

     That way-

151. 0:46:29

     Sure

152. 0:46:29

     ... it's both of us at the same time.

153. 0:46:30

     Yeah, go ahead.

154. 0:46:37

     Thank you. Um, good afternoon. I'm Sarah Japour. I'm the district attorney for the West Georgia Judicial Circuit. Um, I cover Carroll County and Heard County, which is on the west side of Georgia.

155. 0:46:47

     I am Sherry Boston, and it's my honor and privilege to serve as the district attorney of DeKalb County.

156. 0:46:53

     And so we just wanted to take an opportunity to be able to speak with you today, um, kind of in opposition to the way that the bill is written as in form here today, um, but not necessarily in the full sentiment of the, the, um, thoughts behind the bill being presented. Um, understanding that, um, justice needs to be swift. There needs to be, um, a timeframe in which defendants are able to have their arguments heard in court.

157. 0:47:23

     Um, but I think we can give you a perspective of how currently the immunity motion, um, practice works within the judicial system. So in my jurisdiction, and I've been a prosecutor, I went to work, um, as an assistant district attorney in November of 2001, so this is my 25th year. Um, and in practice, um, I'm so sorry to hear of the representative's experience, but, um, when I get cases that come from law enforcement, we definitely look and understand and respect the, um, aspect of self-defense and, um, that that is something that is vetted and looked at when we are prosecuting cases.

158. 0:48:03

     Um, but in the process, the immunity motion that is filed by a defendant is always pretrial. Um, so it comes somewhere between the arraignment and a trial date. Um, there's not a timeframe for that, and a defendant is able to file that at any point in time during the criminal process, um, and then it is set down and it is heard. Um, one of the issues that I found with the bill when I read it and I did some research, this bill is exact language from the Florida immunity law that was passed, um, and it has standards within it that are not standards that we use within Georgia.

159. 0:48:42

     So from a practical standpoint as a lawyer, um, we're used to certain words meaning certain things. Um, they're in statutes and then they're vetted through case law when appeals happen, um, sometimes immediate review on a motion, um, and our court of appeals and our supreme court, um, decide what certain terms mean. And so the prima facie re- um, reference and the clear and convincing reference are not terms that we use within the current criminal system.

160. 0:49:13

     So those do give pause to lawyers that are practicing this every day. Um, I would also say that, um, to clear up some of the things that were talked about before, um, we use the preponderance, um, standard. So at an immunity motion, once a defendant, if they are arrested and they are indicted, um, by a grand jury, they file an immunity motion and that is heard before the superior court prior to a trial. Um, the defendant has the burden By a preponderance of the evidence to show that they acted in self-defense.

161. 0:49:45

     And, um, and so that is the, the standard that is used at this point. If they meet that standard, um, then the case is dismissed and the state is barred from prosecution. Um, this bill would then require us to meet a second standard. Um, not only at a trial, but at this level, we would then have to put on our case, which would be cumbersome. It would require victims to come to court an additional time other than the jury trial.

162. 0:50:17

     Um, it would take longer. It would require more preparation because then we would have a burden within this hearing, whereas today, that doesn't exist. But it doesn't exist because the defendant gets a free shot at coming before the court and proving basically by a fifty-one percent margin that they in fact acted in self-defense and the case is completely dismissed. Um, and so this bill as written, we believe, has the unintended consequence of burdening the court, um, with additional time that it's gonna take because in a normal immunity hearing, we aren't required to put up any evidence because it's the defendant's burden, but it's also the defendant's windfall.

163. 0:51:03

     Um, I also agree with what was said before. The way that the language is written, it leaves law enforcement in a position where I think they're concerned that... and, and based on, um, some of the testimony that we've heard today, that is the intent that an arrest can't be made on site. Um, and so if that evidence then has to be taken to a judge, I'm not sure if it then has to be presented for warrants to be given so there's no warrantless arrest, which is done every single day in Georgia for felonies. That would give up to seventy-two hours for someone to flee.

164. 0:51:35

     We're not just talking. The bill doesn't just address someone who is innocent or law-abiding or legally lawf- you know, lawfully carrying a gun. It addresses everyone, even bad actors. Um, and therefore, there would be a lot of time for them to be able to leave, um, the jurisdiction. So I'll defer to Ms. Boston.

165. 0:51:56

     So I will say that, um, I think we can all agree that justice delayed is justice denied. And one of the things I think we can all agree on is that coming up with a timeframe of specificity as to when these hearings should be held by the judicial officer, the court, um, is something I think we can all agree on. Um, and so, uh, we should, and I'd be... and we would openly and willingly support legislation that created a timeline for which judges had to schedule a immunity hearing upon that motion being filed by the defense, 'cause that's what triggers it, right?

166. 0:52:36

     Um, and so, and, and I said this before, I would gladly add on, uh, if we could codify that judges have to make a ruling within a certain period of time. I had several cases, several immunity hearings were, that were outstanding waiting on the judicial ruling for over a year in my circuit, right? Not at the hands of defense, not at the hands of prosecutors, but waiting for a judge to make a decision. I think the intention of that and making sure we can get these hearings before the court at the earliest possible time is the most important piece.

167. 0:53:10

     But what we should not do is wholesale change self-defense law for that one purpose when we can in fact achieve that purpose without, um, taking a sledgehammer really to what has become and known to understand as traditional self-defense. Let me just also say this. Um, I want to make sure we answer all the questions, first and foremost, what the standard is. Um, a judge in this ruling, the way this happens is, yes, it is an affirmative defense, so the defense must in fact state that they want to claim self-defense.

168. 0:53:45

     At that point, the burden is on them to put up that evidence, and the state can rebut that at a hearing, and the judge would make that determination, and the legal standard for that is preponderance of the evidence. That is in an immunity motion. It has nothing to do with reasonable doubt. And keep in mind that an immunity motion is final in the sense that if the judge grants immunity, there is nothing else that happens after that.

169. 0:54:17

     It is done. The case is dismissed. The state effectively cannot go forward at all. That's very different than when we're at trial where the trier of fact, the jurors get to hear evidence and determine. Again, they get the chance to look at a self-defense claim with a different standard, right? But that's after there's been already this immunity hearing. Um, so I think that's really important to point out.

170. 0:54:47

     Um, I know there's been a lot of talk about hypotheticals and scenarios. What I can say is, and I said this before, um, I've been DA for ten years. We handle a lot of murder cases. Approximately a hundred murders happen every year in the County of DeKalb. So we're, we're seeing, yes, a lot of murders. There are usually two defenses. Either one, it wasn't me, I didn't do it, it was somebody else, right? Number one. Or number two, it was self-defense. So this is very, very common.

171. 0:55:17

     This isn't going to be a one-off situation. This is going to be every case, whether it's with a gun, whether it's mutual combat, whether it's with a knife or a machete, right? All of those types of cases would apply. This would apply to almost every murder case where someone is saying, admitting that they did it, right? That it wasn't somebody else. So this would be a significant change. Finally, I want to point out a really important real-world example that everyone is familiar with, Ahmaud Arbery.

172. 0:55:49

     If this were the law when Ahmaud Arbery was run down and killed in the streets of South Georgia, it would've been nearly impossible to get justice. And we know how hard it was to get justice even in our state of the law. But if we had, if the law had been flipped about self-defense, it would've been almost impossible for the prosecution to put forth any evidence at that point at an immunity hearing because those men said it was self-defense.

173. 0:56:21

     And we all know, because we've all seen the evidence now, that was not the case. And one, I just wanna say one thing of personal privilege. I just really want to openly thank the Morehouse man that was here testifying. I don't know if he's still sitting behind me, but as the proud mother, um, of a Spelman woman who is a freshman, I am so glad to see, uh, members of our AUC coming down here and using their voice, and I'm gonna make sure I give him a card so that he can, um, meet my daughter at the AUC.

174. 0:56:56

     Thank you.

175. 0:56:58

     Are there any Morehouse women?

176. 0:57:01

     No, sir. No, sir. Spelman women, Morehouse men.

177. 0:57:04

     Okay. All right.

178. 0:57:05

     That is the tradition.

179. 0:57:06

     Okay.

180. 0:57:08

     Actually, no, there's, there was once, there was once a one woman who's graduated from Morehouse College, and that was during World War II.

181. 0:57:19

     Oh, wow.

182. 0:57:20

     But that was it.

183. 0:57:21

     Bill and I-

184. 0:57:21

     She had to consolidate.

185. 0:57:22

     Wow.

186. 0:57:22

     Representative Panitch.

187. 0:57:23

     Thank you. Thank you both for explaining the standard. It was getting confusing, uh, between me and the author when we were trying to make sure, and I know he and I both also do civil work, and I think we were confusing clear and convincing, which is a civil standard, versus, um, versus what you're saying is pr- is preponderance of the evidence, which is also a civil standard. But-

188. 0:57:46

     Is there a question in there somewhere?

189. 0:57:48

     It is the lowest silver, civil standard. That's just more likely than not. Is that right?

190. 0:57:54

     Yes. Of, yes.

191. 0:57:56

     So the law is already, um, making it, if there's evidence of it, more likely than not, it already provides relief for a defendant who, uh, claims self-defense, if that's true.

192. 0:58:12

     Yes, and it would be a dismissal. As I said, immunity hearings is, is final. If the judge finds immunity, that means the state cannot go forward. The case is done.

193. 0:58:22

     Thank you.

194. 0:58:24

     Thank you. I see no more questions. Thank you, Madam DAs. All right. Uh, next up I have Ladesia Kimbrough.

195. 0:58:34

     And pr- correct my pronunciation.

196. 0:58:37

     You say it right. Thank you.

197. 0:58:43

     Ooh.

198. 0:58:46

     Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Ladesia Kimbrough, a senior criminal justice major minoring in psychology attending Clark Atlanta University. And I'm here as someone who has personally experienced gun violence. While attending school in Georgia, my friend Sterling was shot and killed near the community and my campus. And since then, there have been multiple instances of open fire, repeated shooting threats near my campus. Those moments aren't, they don't have momentary effects.

199. 0:59:17

     They conjure a kind of fear that stays with you, and it changes how you move, how you think, how safe you feel in the very places that are meant to protect you. And so that is why I feel so deeply about this bill and why I'm so concerned. Expanding shoot first laws to assume deadly force is justified, no matter how unintended it is, it makes it easier for people to hurt people first and face consequences, no consequences later. That doesn't make communities like mine safer. It makes them more vulnerable. And in fact, shoot first laws provide a legal shield for hate-fueled violence and bias.

200. 0:59:51

     In other states who have similar policies, homicides where white shooters kill Black victims are being justified four times as often as the reverse. In Georgia with this bill, it is inviting a surge of racially targeted vigilantism where the safety of communities of colors and communities like mine are put at an increased risk. We are already living in the reality of gun violence. My school is supposed to be a place where we learn, we grow, and we build career-ready professionals, but instead we're forced to live in a fear, uncertainty of safety, and witness horrific effects of gun violence.

201. 1:00:26

     Our lawmakers, as our lawmakers, we are asking you to take action and protect students. We don't need laws that make it easier to take lives. So I'm asking that you prioritize safety, accountability, and the lives of students like me. So please vote no on SB572. Thank you.

202. 1:00:46

     Okay. Thank you. I see no questions. And I believe last I have Brooke Vales. Come on, Val.

203. 1:01:03

     Good afternoon, Chairman Smith. It's always a pleasure to be in your committee. Uh, first and foremost, I wanna appreciate the, um, uh, um, um, what the sponsor is bringing to, um, to the f- the, uh, chamber here. Um, as a victim of violence, uh, um, um, in state, out of state, um, attempt, uh, attempts on my life, I appreciate the ability for, for people to ta- um, um, um, take control of their own defense. But this feels more like taking a sledgehammer to a situation that needs a scalpel.

204. 1:01:34

     In Tennessee, we actually saw a similar law passed in, uh, um, and in September, um, the, the, um, this defense was used in a Tennessee bar shooting in September 25th with a 24-year-old William Charles Thomas Sullivan Who invoked this defense after allegedly cla- uh, claiming his gun went off several times at the bar owner. And his case is still ongoing today, despite the fact that I think we can all reasonably agree most people's guns do not go off several times, um, riddling, uh, um, riddling the bar owner, um, owner's body with bullets.

205. 1:02:17

     And I can tell you now that the burden of proof that we currently have in Georgia, as many of my family members, um, I'm definitely more hesitant to stand, stand their ground. And we're, we're Jewish. We, we certainly understand the need of self-defense and the Second Amendment, but this is not the solution to that problem. So I, I, I recommend and, um, h- hope that the committee comes to the right decision. And also, I wanted to an- um, answer, um, um, Rep Panitch's question before.

206. 1:02:49

     There are two million registered Republicans in the state for the primary purposes.

207. 1:02:56

     Okay. Uh, I see no questions from members of the committee. Thank you. Senator, uh, we don't have a quorum yet to vote, so, uh, if you want to come add one last word or couple words.

208. 1:03:09

     Yeah. I appreciate everyone that spoke on the bill. I, I think everybody has the same goals. Um, nobody wants more gun violence. Um, what we're trying to accomplish here is make sure we have a system that works for everybody. We have due process built in to those that are charged with crimes, where they can get, um, justice, you know, quickly in our state. And so then we all want the same thing, and I believe this bill hits that right balance and, and sets forth the process that, as mentioned, has worked in other states that we can have here in Georgia.

209. 1:03:39

     I will push back on one thing. I said this is not about a particular case, and I know someone mentioned the Arbery case. I just want to be clear. In that case, um, if, if this law was in effect, then a judge would've seen that video. We all know what happened in that case. We all know, we all began to draw our own conclusions because of the video that we saw, and there was no self-defense, in my opinion. I think everyone agrees with that. And as a result of that, in 2020, we came together as legislators. Some of us in this room led on repealing our citizens arrest law, um, led on a hate crimes legislation in response to that.

210. 1:04:12

     So I just want to make sure, um, that we don't let a narrative get out there that somehow this bill undoes that or tries to justify anything that was done to Ahmaud Arbery. Um, this law would still make sure those guys were in jail, in my opinion. So happy to answer any last questions anybody from this committee has, but I know once you have a quorum, I'd love y'all's consideration of this bill.

211. 1:04:34

     Representative Fincher.

212. 1:04:36

     Do you see anything in between 81 and 88 that should, should or could be changed that would make this bill more acceptable?

213. 1:04:45

     I, I know someone, I think, was trying to work on some language that could clear that up. I'll... If, if y'all have some language y'all want to look at, um, uh, the goal, as I said, it matches what Mr. Mitchell said. We're not trying to have law enforcement officials play a judge on the scene. We're not trying to say you have to have a hearing before somebody can be arrested just because they say, "No, it was self-defense." So if there's something that committee wants to do there to clear that up, I'm fine with that. My... But look, two lawyers read something and get two different conclusions. I believe we have that balance there, because probable cause determination is already being made by an officer on a scene before an arrest is made.

214. 1:05:18

     But if we wanted to clear that up, then obviously we could look at some language there.

215. 1:05:22

     Follow-up question, please.

216. 1:05:23

     Yes.

217. 1:05:23

     What about, uh, clear and convincing evidence being changed to preponderance of that evidence?

218. 1:05:28

     I mean, that, that's a policy decision for this committee to make. And as we discussed earlier, as was confirmed by the district attorneys, right now it is a preponderance of evidence standard. The burden's on the defendant. This does flip that and puts the burden on the state with a higher standard. I believe that is acceptable because the state can meet that burden if they're gonna take a case to trial and prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Um, but that's a policy decision. That, that... The first question you asked is a matter of getting the words right. The second question is a policy decision for this committee. Do you want a higher standard in these cases for the state, if the state's gonna have the burden to meet, or do you want to have the 51% standard?

219. 1:06:06

     And one, one further question. Be- uh, between 81 and, uh, right there on line 83, you say, "Shall not arrest the person." I mean, do you see a, a place where the, you put the officer in position of being in fear of arresting somebody for fear they might be sued?

220. 1:06:25

     Mm-hmm.

221. 1:06:25

     Yeah, but it, but it being a very dangerous, turning a dangerous person loose and, and, and them being free. And I, I wa- I, I was, I was thinking you might want to put language in there that would say that there would be a motion hearing within, in, in, uh, within 72 hours, something like that, or...

222. 1:06:44

     There already existing law that allows you to have that initial hearing to challenge a charge, um, uh, when it comes to any civil suits. This does not impact any immunity that a officer already has. Again, the goal of this is just to say that for the initial probable cause determination, whether that be an officer on a scene or whether that be, um, at that, that first appearance hearing, uh, the probable cause hearing, I should say, that, um, that you have consideration for this immunity. That's all we're trying to do there.

223. 1:07:14

     So again, I'm open to massaging that language, though.

224. 1:07:18

     Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. All right.

225. 1:07:22

     Thank you.

226. 1:07:22

     Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for the courtesy you've shown members of this committee and yours as well.

227. 1:07:27

     Yeah.

228. 1:07:27

     So we'll see you again tomorrow.

229. 1:07:28

     We'll see y'all soon. That's right. Thank y'all.

230. 1:07:29

     We'll see you on this afternoon. All right.

231. 1:07:36

     Uh, Cardin Somers, come on down, Senator. Thank Senator Hatchett. Had to step out. He's got a meeting, so he'll have to come back to that. Uh, just very briefly, because I think we're in posture of a vote on yours-

232. 1:07:49

     Yes, sir. Yeah

233. 1:07:50

     ... but as we don't have a quorum, just remind us of the 30,000-foot view

234. 1:07:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of committee. Um, as we discussed this bill last week, very simple common sense bill, um-

235. 1:08:01

     Senate Bill 443

236. 1:08:02

     ... 443, um, um, committee substitute four amendment. Um, yes, sir, we, uh ... Actually, Senator Hatchett was actually called this. Uh, when we struck on line 12 where it says, "Sidewalk and other public passages," we actually removed that from law. So we put, we put that back in law with the floor amendment back where it was originally, as simple as a misdemeanor. That's all it does. That's all it ... Put that back in there. The part about blocking streets and roads and bridges and airports, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, beca- ...

237. 1:08:34

     is now a highly aggravated c- A person can be charged with a high and aggravated misdemeanor, which that's still up to the courts to decide, or the DA. But it gives a little bit more tooth in the, in the law to tell someone, "We don't mind you protesting. Protest all you wanna protest, just don't, you know, lie down in the streets and, and block a mother, or traffic, or fire engine, or ambulance, or all the above." And basically that's it, Mr. Chairman.

238. 1:08:58

     Okay. Seeing no questions from members of the committee, uh,

239. 1:09:05

     Representative Panitch.

240. 1:09:06

     Thank you. Are you open to striking street and leaving highway? I understand and I supported the House version of this bill.

241. 1:09:14

     Representative, you can pull your microphone closer to you.

242. 1:09:17

     Oh, I'm sorry. I, I supported the House version of this bill. I understand what you're trying to do. My concern is street, um-

243. 1:09:23

     Wait, which line are you reading?

244. 1:09:24

     I'm sorry, line 12.

245. 1:09:26

     Okay.

246. 1:09:27

     Are you open to striking street and leaving highway?

247. 1:09:32

     I'm not quite sure I follow it. Street, highways, roads, et cetera, dirt roads included, I guess, is what I was getting at. I'm not sure.

248. 1:09:39

     Well, I, I'm concerned about protests that, um, that are in the street as op- I mean, I get blocking a highway, blocking, you know, a train, or blocking ... Well, probably shouldn't do that, but, you know, blocking, uh, interstate commerce from going through. I, I feel like street may be s- like, too close to, um, that it could be a peace- a peaceful protest.

249. 1:10:06

     I'm not sure I'd answer that because I, you know, I guess you think about it, it could be a dead-end street in your, uh, y- you wouldn't have that, or a dead-end, you know, or small street here and there. But I guess the reality of it is, is, is they shouldn't be blocking any thorough passageway. That's, that would be my ... I guess that'd be my back thing.

250. 1:10:24

     Yeah.

251. 1:10:25

     I, I, yeah, you know.

252. 1:10:26

     Thank you.

253. 1:10:29

     Thank you.

254. 1:10:29

     Representative Holland.

255. 1:10:31

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I was ... So looking, uh, from line 18 to the 21st line, um, and I know that this is probably written to address behavior pertaining to a protester. Uh, I was wondering in what way does this differentiate between, uh, someone likely to be guilty of protesting and someone who was guilty of vagrancy?

256. 1:11:03

     That would be up to the courts to decide that, or the DA. But I think the, uh, the, the intent of the bill, Representative, is to simply say, you know, you can protest. We ... I, I support your First Amendment. I support all, all First Amendment. I just don't think that you should be able to protest in passageways that block transportation, and that was the, that ... bottom line. So I can't, I can't go into the part about what the DA, how he would codify that or classify that.

257. 1:11:27

     And, and, and only because, uh, it ... Just further. It's only because, um, if this law were, if this law were on the books today-

258. 1:11:37

     Well, I think it is on the books, sure, but-

259. 1:11:39

     Oh, right. I, you're right. I mean, in terms of this extension that's being, uh, added to it, um, that there'd be, um, loads of violators across the street at the church.

260. 1:11:50

     No, sir. Uh, because they're all ... We're not ... The sidewalk law was already on the books.

261. 1:11:56

     Mm-hmm.

262. 1:11:56

     The sidewalks and blocking, that's at the discretion of the police officer and, of course, the DA once again, and that's still a misdemeanor if they wanna be charged. That, that law is not changing. That's just putting it back in the law because when it was struck out, uh, by, uh, Scribner's area from El- Le- Leg's Council, it, it took it out. They just simply put it right back in. That was it, 100%. Nothing changed on all that. The only part about the highly aggravated thing was is, if you remember a couple years ago, we had people laying out in the street right across the road here. It, uh ... And, and when, uh, law enforcement came to us they said, "All we have is a misdemeanor charge and, and they get slapped on the hands.

263. 1:12:32

     There's no way to stop them from, from doing that." So that's why it went to highly aggravated, so it gives them a little bit more tooth in the, in the, in the code. That's it.

264. 1:12:40

     Last time.

265. 1:12:40

     Yes, sir.

266. 1:12:42

     Okay. All right. See no other-

267. 1:12:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman

268. 1:12:45

     ... questions. Thank you. Uh, if you-

269. 1:12:47

     Do you want me to come back or how you want?

270. 1:12:49

     I'll just, uh-

271. 1:12:50

     Hail it?

272. 1:12:51

     I'll, I'll notify you-

273. 1:12:53

     Thank you

274. 1:12:53

     ... uh, once we get enough numbers to-

275. 1:12:55

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

276. 1:12:56

     All right. Um, let's see. Brooke Myles, were you signed up for this one as well? Come on down. And if you've already testified to this bill, just keep it short. I'll indulge you a little bit, but if the testimony's not going to change substantially from what it did last time, keep it to a minimum. You have not testified yet on this one, so go ahead.

277. 1:13:22

     Thank you, Chairman. I, I appreciate it. Um, I appreciate the intent of, uh, of the author here. Um, we certainly do have, uh, the occasional disruption to tra- um, transportation and transit that can endanger, um, first responders and that can be a, be a real problem. But the lack of nuance here, uh, um, um, has to put me in the position of, of being o- in opposition to, to this bill, especially with the- Um, um, reasonable inconvenience, uh, um, standard in there that's not immediately clear in relation to sidewalks, because that could be applicable to a whole plethora of situations.

278. 1:14:01

     Just a few weeks ago, uh, former Senator Colton Moore held a demonstration in support of our president, um, here in Georgia, uh, uh, um, with signage on a sidewalk. It was definitely enough that would potentially trigger this standard of unreasonable, um, um, um, um, hindrance and obstruction, uh, um, when they were waving signs in support of the president or even, um, recently the March for Life, um, uh, um, um, march outside of the Capitol here.

279. 1:14:33

     Uh, recently, uh, the street was definitely obstructed. It would've, um, um, hampered the ability of law enforcement, first responders to come on through. And while it's, while it still leaves a degree of finesse up to the DA, it's, it, it, it clouds up the waters a lot more than it clarifies. So I think this is the wrong solution to the problem. We need something a lot more nuanced and a lot more, more detailed.

280. 1:15:03

     Okay. See no questions. Sarah, did you want to add anything to your testimony from the other day on this? Okay, come on down.

281. 1:15:15

     Thank you so much for letting me come before you again, Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Sarah Hunt Blackwell, senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Georgia. Um, just want to reiterate and, and respectfully, um, respectfully, very respectfully disagree with the, the bill sponsor that, um, it, it's not about agreement about whether where someone should be able to protest. Our First Amendment protects our right to be in the streets. So, um, while the ACLU of Georgia is, is not fully supportive of this legislation, we would, uh, it would be a little bit better if this committee and the sponsor could, would consider, um, Representative Panitch's suggestion in striking street and just allowing highways to be included, um, in the restriction.

282. 1:15:59

     So with that, um, I will, I will get out of your hair. Thank you again for your time.

283. 1:16:05

     I see no questions. Thank you. Okay. All right, next we're gonna go on to, uh, Senate Bill 587. Senator Steele. If he can hear me.

284. 1:16:15

     Hey.

285. 1:16:15

     Come on down.

286. 1:16:21

     Welcome back. Come on down. Maybe the price is right.

287. 1:16:29

     Go ahead when ready.

288. 1:16:32

     I love the most popular committee where it's, uh, standing room only and there's a crowd outside the door.

289. 1:16:39

     Senate Bill 587. Uh, that's, uh, SB587/FA.

290. 1:16:50

     This is a long overdue much-needed bill. Um, passed Senate unanimously. What it does is it creates a, um, database that if you had been convicted of animal cruelty, you will go into a database that will be maintained, updated at least monthly, and ensure that any animal rights groups, humane societies, et cetera, that are looking, um, for folks, um, as eligible to adopt a pet, uh, they would see that they're in this database as having been convicted of animal cruelty, and then be able to have the ability to, um, deny that adoption.

291. 1:17:41

     Um, line 15, 16 of the bill mentions subject to appropriations. Since this bill passed, our friends at PAC, um, came up with a, um, a cost breakdown of what they believe it will take to, um, create, administer, and maintain that, uh, that website. I'm happy to distribute that if you don't mind sharing that with the committee.

292. 1:18:08

     And that's the basic, uh, gist of the bill. Happy to answer any questions.

293. 1:18:14

     Okay. See no questions at this point. Uh, we'll go ahead and take testimony. I know you have other meetings that you need to get to, Senator, so, uh, I'll let you-

294. 1:18:23

     I'll stick around while we get through it.

295. 1:18:24

     That's fine.

296. 1:18:24

     Yeah.

297. 1:18:24

     That's fine. Okay. Sam-

298. 1:18:26

     Senate Education can wait. This is House Bill, so they'll, they'll get some folks to listen to it.

299. 1:18:29

     I heard that. Okay. Let's see. Uh, Jessica Rock, come on down.

300. 1:18:42

     Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. Just here on behalf of the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council. Uh, we are in support of this bill. Just here to answer any questions if anybody has any. We have been working with, um, the senator over here to, to move forward on the appropriations amount.

301. 1:18:58

     Okay.

302. 1:19:01

     Is there any matching federal money that could come down and assist in this process if we were to pass this legislation?

303. 1:19:11

     Not that we've heard. Uh, I don't believe so.

304. 1:19:12

     Okay.

305. 1:19:13

     Not that we, not that we know of.

306. 1:19:13

     Different states have similar legislation that are maintaining it on a state-by-state basis.

307. 1:19:17

     Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. See no questions from members of the committee.

308. 1:19:24

     Okay. Thank you.

309. 1:19:24

     Anyone else signed up on this one? Brooke Males.

310. 1:19:40

     Seem to keep meeting each other like this. We w- we gotta stop meeting like this. No, I really appreciate, um, what the senator is doing here as a proud owner of a rescue. Um, this measure is m- a much needed common sen- sense policy, um, here in the state of Georgia. My dog, um, when he came to my family, um, had burns on his throat from being electrocuted from a, um, an illegal shock collar that triggers when he barks. And he's been traumatized for years over that.

311. 1:20:12

     He was malnourished, underfed, and his original owners had the audacity to drop hi- uh, um, um, him off at the local gas station. Not ... There is nothing humane or appreciable about that kind of behavior. And even beginning to address the, uh, um, this epidemic of animal abuse is much appreciated. So I really appreciate what Senator Still is doing here, and I absolutely cannot recommend enough that the committee does pass this legislation.

312. 1:20:49

     Okay, I see no questions. Anyone else signed up for this bill that, or didn't have a chance to sign up? Okay. Senator, you wanna add anything to any of that?

313. 1:21:01

     No, sir.

314. 1:21:01

     Okay. We'll get you out as soon as I get a quorum. Thank you.

315. 1:21:04

     Thank you.

316. 1:21:05

     All right. Uh, let's see. Senator Cowser, come on down. Senate Bill 468.

317. 1:21:18

     And just for planning purposes, we have taken Senate Bill 499 off at the request of the sponsor, and we will have that on tomorrow for the meeting whenever we finish up on the floor and or lunch. We're gonna eat no matter what. And as soon as Senator Cowser goes over his substitute here, we're gonna take a restroom break, uh, for all involved. So go ahead, Senator.

318. 1:21:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I appreciate you having me back. Uh, I've reviewed this with you at, at your last meeting, so I won't go into great detail, but just a brief overview. This is an attempt to protect our children and citizens from, uh, people on the sex offender registry, so dangerous sexual criminals, in particular to tighten the reporting requirements on those type of offenders that are homeless. Most of this population is, uh, combination mentally ill and drug or alcohol dependent.

319. 1:22:15

     Uh, they're dangerous. They're hard to track. This requires them to report their whereabouts on a more frequent basis than just the current annual basis that's required of people on the sexual offender registry. Requires them within 72 hours of being released from incarceration to report to the sheriff and their probation or parole officer where they are. And then as they change locations, uh, every 36 hours so that we can track them. If they fail to report in a timely manner like that, the sheriff can recommend that they be placed on an ankle monitor so that we can be able to track their location and keep them away from children.

320. 1:22:53

     Also requires if they stay in a, a homeless facility, that they report or let the facility know that they are on the sex offender registry so they can protect other, uh, women and children that are in those facilities from sex offenders. At the request of the committee, or the really good suggestions of the committee, uh, Representative Gullett, um, made a really good point. Uh, if I could just sort of direct you down to page six, lines 1, uh, 22.

321. 1:23:25

     He pointed out that this mandated that you put a person as a level two risk assessment if they had these various offenses with children, but it did not allow for the possibility of, of heightening that risk classification to a sexually dangerous predator. I had constructed the law where if you had a repeat offense of one of those offenses against children, you would automatically be, uh, a sexually dangerous predator. But I, I didn't allow, I guess, at a strict reading of it, for you to increase somebody from a level two to a sexually dangerous predator for one of those offenses, uh, there under Section A, lines 121 through line 129.

322. 1:24:05

     So at line 122, uh, and 123, I changed it, uh, at his request to, uh, they shall be ... "An offender shall be placed into a level two risk assessment classification or classified as a sexually dangerous predator if they've been convicted of one of those offenses." I think that addresses his concern and, and any potential inadvertently, uh, weakening the standards instead of toughening them. The other, uh, change I made was at line 18, the definition, uh, of homeless.

323. 1:24:37

     So it says, "Lacking a fixed, regular nighttime residence." That's the new version. I had it more complicated, let's say, that it said it had to be a sanitary location, et cetera. This was at the suggestion of the Department of Community Supervision. Uh, so those are the only changes. I did have a conversation, uh, with the sheriff's organization. And at lines 34 and 39, I reference a county jail. Uh, that's the obligation of a person on the sexual offender registry to register with the sheriff within 72 hours out of being released from essentially incarceration.

324. 1:25:14

     I had stated prison, county jail. Uh, all jails are not county jails. Some are, are wider or, or regional detention centers. And so their suggestion is we delete the word county and just say from prison, jail, or placement center. That is a friendly amendment. I am, uh, very welcome that if any, if the committee would so please. But I think that pretty well covers it. Uh, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have. I'm just trying to get this perfected, and I appreciate the input from your committee.

325. 1:25:48

     I know back home we call it the common jail of, uh, Harrison County.

326. 1:25:52

     Yeah. Some, some of them are detention centers, et cetera. I mean, there are a lot of different names, but I think that kind of captures it.

327. 1:25:58

     Okay. All right. See no questions. What we'll do is we're gonna break for, uh, about 10 minutes to give everybody a chance to use the restroom, and then we'll come right back.

328. 1:26:11

     Would you like me to stay around, or do you need me to-

329. 1:26:13

     You can stay around.

330. 1:26:14

     Okay. I've got a, uh-

331. 1:26:16

     All right. I'm-

332. 1:26:16

     I'm in front of regulated industry shortly, but I'll stay as long as you need me.

333. 1:26:19

     Tell you what, Senator. We'll have testimony on this, so you go ahead and run over there.

334. 1:26:23

     Well, I-

335. 1:26:24

     And-

336. 1:26:24

     I may stay to hear that if, I didn't-

337. 1:26:26

     Yeah.

338. 1:26:27

     I'm, I'm interested to hear if there's any opposition, 'cause I've worked pretty closely with the Department of Community Supervision and the-

339. 1:26:32

     Sure

340. 1:26:32

     ... Sheriff's Department, for sure, and, uh-

341. 1:26:33

     Okay. All right.

342. 1:26:35

     But I'll, I, I m- I may bounce back and forth if that's okay with you.

343. 1:26:38

     Okay.

344. 1:26:39

     Good.

345. 1:26:39

     Representative Fincher, we're gonna take a bathroom break real quick. It looks like you will have a question, so-

346. 1:26:43

     Okay

347. 1:26:44

     ... if y'all can't get that resolved offline during the bathroom break, then we'll hash it out in public view. We'll take a break for 10 minutes.

348. 1:39:00

     Okay, we're gonna keep moving along. Uh, let's see. Uh, Tracy, Alford, y'all come on down. I've got mics enough for two, so y'all can share. So.

349. 1:39:19

     And we have a little bit of light reading material also. So y'all go ahead and start.

350. 1:39:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. My name is Tracy Alford. I'm the director of the Sexual Offender Risk Review Board, and this is Dr. Marcus Beagle.

351. 1:39:32

     Hi.

352. 1:39:32

     He is our research and legislative analyst. And we are here regarding SB468. And I do want to first mention that, um, we really appreciate the piece in this bill regarding homeless. Um, it's definitely a concern, I think, that all of our stakeholders have had, that we have had. I think there's been a lot of difficulty figuring out what to do with this particular population, um, without any answers. And so this bill at least puts it in a position where there's some safety put in place.

353. 1:40:06

     And the thing that we want to differentiate is the two parts of the bill. The part around homelessness, there is empirical evidence that suggests that those who are homeless are at increased risk for sexual recidivism. And if you go to your first tab, it says homeless, that p- piece of research is in there, and so at least gives you... And there's not been a whole lot of research, but at least there's some research that does suggest there's those dynamics of risk. And so the things that Senator Cowserd has in there I think is really good.

354. 1:40:40

     Um, the piece that we have concerns about is, of course, the leveling process, where it's based on conviction and the name of what somebody did versus the dynamics of what somebody did. And I wanted to share a little bit first about our board members. So at the very beginning of your binder, and I always like visuals 'cause I think that's more helpful, um, is, so our board members are appointed by the governor.

355. 1:41:11

     Um, so how SORB is structured is we have investigators and evaluators, and we investigate all sorts of things related to a sex offender's criminal history. So we look at any kind of violence. We look at any kind of sex offenses, whether they're convicted or not. We look at their prison conduct. We look at their community supervision conduct, and we look at treatment conduct. And we then put all that information together and make a recommendation to our board. So our board members, and I think this is really important, because our board members bring to us a, um, significant amount of expertise that I don't think we should underestimate.

356. 1:41:53

     So, um, I'm gonna go through each of those board members. We have Bert Reeves, and he was a prosecuting attorney. He was a defense attorney. He served in the House from 2015 through 2021. We have Special Agent Elizabeth Bigham. She work- She's been with the GBI since 2007. She worked for ICAC, which is Internet Crimes Against Children, for 10 years. We have Newton Sheriff County Sheriff Ezell Brown, who's been in law enforcement since 1973, and he was a past president of the Sheriffs Association.

357. 1:42:24

     We have Frank Mullis, who specializes in sex offender risk and behavior. We have the Jackson County ADA James Chafin, who is a prosecutor since 2006. We have Jerry Bruce, who's been a guardian ad litem, a prosecuting attorney, and a juvenile court judge. In '21, he was appointed to the Georgia's Child Advocate, leading the Office of the Child Advocate for the Protection of Children. We have Jim Morton, specializing in sex offender risk and behavior. We have Katie Gropper, who's a chief ADA at the Blue Ridge Circuit since 2006. She has dedicated her career to the prosecution of sexually based criminal offenses, with an emphasis on child sexual abuse.

358. 1:42:59

     We have Laurie Rosier with DCS, who oversees the Sex Offender Administration unit. We have Megan Thurman from the Pou- Paulding County Victim Advocate. We have Mindy Ackerman, who is with DJJ, specializing in juvenile sex offender behavior and risk. And we have Robbie Frederick, who's been, who'd been with the Newton County Police Department, um, until 2016, and now operates Polygraph School, including post-conviction sex offender testing. And so our board makes the final decision. So what that means is that we put together a significant amount of information for our board members to see based on all the information that we can imagine that would be associated with risk.

359. 1:43:38

     The board members read every single case. They then come together and make a final decision on what their risk should be, whether that's a level one, which would be low risk, level two, which is moderate risk, or sexually dangerous predator. If they do not agree with the recommended classification, they can change it. And so there's this very significant process that goes through making a determination of risk. Unfortunately, what happens is when we minimize it down to two levels, so we're looking at a level two and a level as, as a sexually dangerous predator, we virtually take away the level one risk assessment.

360. 1:44:13

     So what we're saying in the public view is we have two in predator, and that really brings us down to low or high. So even though we may look at two as moderate, SDP as high, ultimately it's gonna be seen, "Oh, okay, so he's lower than a predator." And so we virtually are taking out that middle classification. When we look at, if you go to the Adam Walsh Act, which is your second tab, there's been lots of research since 2006. SOAR has been in place since 2006 conducting classifications for the state of Georgia.

361. 1:44:45

     Since the registration, this process of the Adam Walsh Act and tiering classification, there's been more and more research about that. I provide you with one example of research that shows the inversion of risk. They're finding that with the tiering... And what tiering is, is that it's based on conviction alone. So if you have, just such as in this bill of s- um, 468, if you're a level two, that means you have a child molestation conviction. If you're a level three, that means you have an, um, aggravated child molestation, for an example.

362. 1:45:16

     What they're finding is that because conviction alone has absolutely nothing to do with risk, nothing. All it is is it's a word. And we know that through our prosecution system, we plead down cases all of the time. Um, and unfortunately, what we see, because honestly, and I believe this is from the heart, like trying to be as protective of our communities as possible. I have three children. If anybody did something to one of my children, I'd want them to be in prison for the rest of their life. So I have no questions about that, and I understand that, and I get that.

363. 1:45:49

     But that comes from the prosecution and the punishment side. So when we go over to the risk assessment side, it's a different process. Um, I hate seeing that we move from because they're not being, because they're sentences, we have a lot of sex offenders who just get probation, um, and then they move over, so we're saying, "Okay, well let's just register them," 'cause that's a way that we can at least monitor and keep track of them. But we also have guys who have bid dates after three years. They get released from supervision within three years. There's a whole bunch of things that actually release them from a very strong process of supervision, whereas the registry really doesn't supervise them.

364. 1:46:25

     So it's a process of punishment rather than really giving the community some sense of safety. So we're doing pseudo safety if we wanna just throw out a level that means nothing. So we can pretend we can feel f- safer about that, but realistically, when we look at the Adam Walsh Act, you can see Florida's a very good example. Georgia gets a lot of Florida sex offenders. All of them are either sex offender classification, which is a tier for them, or sexually dangerous predator. Those who are sex offenders are misdemeanor sex offenders on the registry.

365. 1:46:56

     Those who are predators are every other type of sex offense, so any kind of felony sex offense. When they first started coming to Georgia, I would get a lot of emails and calls from the sheriff's departments, from Department of Community Supervision, and, um, they'd be very concerned. "He's a predator, Tracy. What do we do?" That type of thing. So now, though, the problem is, what we learned, because they're all predators, is now nobody pays attention to them because they're all predators. They don't take it seriously 'cause it means the same thing, which is nothing, 'cause it really doesn't have anything to do with risk.

366. 1:47:28

     So unfortunately, the unintended consequences is, is that we water down the classification to have less meaning than what it should, and then there's less protection. If we make everybody a tier predator, what that means is all the resources go to all these people. So how... We already suffer with resources. Community supervision, one of the biggest concerns is they don't have enough people to monitor so many sex offenders. In the state of Georgia, we have approximately 28,000 sex offenders on the registry. To give you an idea, Rhode Island has 2,500.

367. 1:48:00

     Just to give you an idea of how huge that number is, there are not enough people to monitor very dangerous sex offenders all the same. So the way we have it now, at least we can look at focusing, um, the resources to real twos and predators so that time and energy can be spent with them. 'Cause when you start watering it that down, and I'm gonna give you example. If you go to my examples, I'm gonna just show you, I, I think that when we talk about sex offenders, the feeling is, and, and again, I totally agree that everything they do is awful in what they've done.

368. 1:48:39

     Um, however, when you look at how do we monitor someone, how do we manage these individuals, your first one, if you see, he's an aggravated child molestation case. And if you r- if you take your clip off and you see the information on this individual, this would be identified automatically as a sexually dangerous predator. His vic- his, the perpetrator was a stepfather. We know that most offenders, um, know their victim. We know that a lot of offenders are in the household.

369. 1:49:12

     We know that detecting them is very difficult. We know that the registry actually doesn't particularly protect our children in the homes because these guys operate very differently than your, um, predatory, on the street, snatching a kid kind of offender. So I have many clients, 'cause I, I've been in this field for 30 years. I've worked directly with sex offenders, and I've had many who, within the home, even though family members know they're a sex offender, give them access to their children.

370. 1:49:42

     The registry doesn't change that. However, when you have somebody who is a neighbor who has, then we have more attentiveness to that, right? 'Cause I'm gonna look on my registry and see if somebody lives next door to me, and I'm gonna say, "My kid can't go over there." So but when you look at the second one, so this guy, he had aggravated child molestation, but he pled it down to child molestation So he would be two, and I know that, um, Senator Cowser changed to two or predator that SORB can make a determination of. But I wanna show you the substantial difference between these two individuals, and if you look at them and the level of violence he's engaged in, the number of victims that he's had, the significant criminal history that he's had, and when you go over to sex offender treatment, he's had one, two, three, four, five, six victims that nobody had detected that he had.

371. 1:50:31

     So these are, these show... What I wanted you to see is that having only two levels that really aren't even factored into risk takes away the depth and the strength of these risk assessments that we work very hard at, and our board looks at very strongly and contemplates very strongly. The other things that we take in, that we are concerned about, we're taking in consideration. So at minimum, we would hope that this would maybe be, we'd have a conversation over the summer, maybe talk about, because this changes so many dynamics of SORB.

372. 1:51:09

     So, you know, SORB's responsibility is that the board shall determine the likelihood that a sexual offender will engage in another crime against a victim who is a minor or dangerous sex offense, and they shall place them in a level of one, two, or predator. And we take it, and we're supposed to consider all this information. 468 takes away so many aspects to what SORB's role is and how we interpret that and what we do, and that's only part of it.

373. 1:51:39

     So the restructuring of SORB would have to be considered. We really would, we really need a conversation. There's so many different things. There's offenses missing in there, and I'm, I'm not sure what that means. What do we do with sodomy? What do we do with statutory rape? And by the way, I know we think of statutory rape who has an 18-year-old with a 14-year-old. I had a stepfather who was 33-year-old who had sex with an 11-year-old stepdaughter, and he got statutory rape, just as an example. Aggravated sexual battery, sexual assault against a person in custody, and so on and so forth.

374. 1:52:09

     These things are not in there. So again, I think it opens the door for conversation. Um, re-evaluations. So in the law, as it stands now, not in 468, they, the offender has due process. So if we make them a level two or a predator, they have the ability to say, "There's some information you haven't considered, and I think that I'm not a level two or a predator." And they can provide us with additional information. That's not addressed in 468. I don't know, does that go away?

375. 1:52:39

     Does that stay? Is there parts of it that stay, that go away? I really don't know. Um, I will tell you that most of the time, SORB does maintain the original classification that they have, um, because it's within 120 days, so then that's gonna much change, unless they have really substantial information. On very rare occasion, that happens. However, they also, within the law, within 10 years post-classification, they can request re-evaluation again. A lot changes for people in 10 years. Maybe we have some that have actually addressed some of the issues which we hope, right?

376. 1:53:13

     We need to have hope that these people, at least some of them, are gonna change, 'cause if we have no hope, if we think they're all gonna re-offend, honestly, they should just be in prison forever. I mean, it's really that simple. So we need to have hope. So we said we put in the law 10 years post-supervision. Well, now that re-evaluation, I, again, don't know where does that fall. The other thing that they're permitted to have is judicial review, where their judge gets to see their case if we don't reduce their level. So they're going in front of the judge in Fulton County.

377. 1:53:43

     So we are the named defendant for judicial review. And so we go in, and the judge says, "What do you think?" And we say, "Well, this is what we think, but it's not what the law says." So I'm not really sure about our role, because it's kind of six, or 468 says so. That's all I can really say, because that's not what we would agree with based on risk assessment that is empirically validated.

378. 1:54:17

     Um, nothing's perfect, so that's also why with Miriam's Law, Miriam's Law covered so many things that really are kind of associated with this law. So for example, somebody who's convicted for a second sex offense, they ha- they have a life sentence now, which is exactly what they should have when that happens. So this is already addressed, and all those offenses, even the offenses not in 468, are addressed in Miriam's Law. And Miriam's Law, um, also addresses so that we can put a monitor on their ankle, whereas before, because of Par- the Parks case, the Supreme Court ruling, that ended after their supervision ended.

379. 1:54:54

     Um, so but with judicial review right now as it stands, it'd be very, very complicated. I'm really not sure what we would do. So again, there needs to be at least some kind of conversation to help us know what are we supposed to do with all that. The other is that currently in the law, the offender is allowed to petition the courts for removal from the registry. So that plays a role with, with SORB as well. So of course, anyone as of 7/1/26, I guess would be, if this law were to pass, uh, they could not request to be removed from the registry, even though it's within the law that they can request removal from the registry.

380. 1:55:39

     I will tell you, there have been some judge that re- have removed twos and predators from the registry. So I don't know if that's what's gonna happen. They're gonna then petition, and then the judges are gonna see, because every... So ultimately, Fulton County courts are gonna become overwhelmed with these cases, 'cause right now there's at least a re-evaluation process and things can happen. But when it's everybody, every single two, every single predator can request judicial review, that's gonna be their only option. So I don't know how the Fulton County judges are gonna feel about this because they're gonna be bombarded.

381. 1:56:11

     Um, Gregory versus State allows them to be heard whenever they wanna be heard. So if they go for judicial review, they have to be seen. And so that's gonna take a lot of resources, a lot of time, and we know Fulton County, they are bombarded as it is with the number of, um, population that they have. So that's gonna create a significant, um, issue and concern for that. I did provide you with the Gregory decision, the Parks decision. Um, Yurchak, who spoke last week, um, the, the thing that he does love the Supreme Court hearing stuff.

382. 1:56:43

     He is searching for any way for constitutionality issues. He is going to take anything and everything that he can. We have been working with this since 2006. We have been extremely successful. We've had a lot of support. When I get emails from our stakeholders, um, which means s- law enforcement agencies, usually what I'm getting is, "Tracy, why is he a predator? Not why is he a one, but why is he a predator? Tracy, um, we need him to come off the registry.

383. 1:57:16

     What do I need to give you?" And the reason is because they're overwhelmed with the number of offenders that they have to supervise. So we can present as though this looks wonderful, but on my end, I'm seeing people ask me all the time, "What needs to happen?" Because they like this guy. He seems like he's a good guy, so why can't he come off the registry? So I see that all the time. Actually, again, more so, r- uh, rarely, be honest with you, do I get questions about why do we make somebody a level one.

384. 1:57:49

     Um, and I think that is my spiel. And I appreciate you listening to me, so I'm open to any questions you might have.

385. 1:57:57

     Any questions from members of the committee?

386. 1:58:03

     Representative Fincher.

387. 1:58:07

     You, uh, you say the bill's a good bill 'cause it's adding in homeless, and then you, but y- you're saying we don't have enough offenses listed. That's what you're saying?

388. 1:58:15

     So with the homeless piece, which is very separate, it's kind of an interesting bill 'cause it has two very different pieces to it.

389. 1:58:22

     Mm-hmm.

390. 1:58:22

     The homeless part of the bill looks wonderful. All the things in it is very pro- p- um, appropriate, very positive, very helpful, and is definitely about protection of our communities. The second part of the bill, which is creating just two levels and doing it based on conviction alone and not based on risk, those are, that is the concern that I have.

391. 1:58:43

     I think that's section three in the bill.

392. 1:58:56

     Yeah, section three. Yeah, section three in the bill is our concern.

393. 1:59:03

     Is there a follow-up there, Representative? I'll come back to you if you do. Representative Panitch.

394. 1:59:07

     Hi. If section three came out, is this something you could support?

395. 1:59:11

     Yes.

396. 1:59:12

     Okay. Thank you.

397. 1:59:16

     I see no other questions. Uh, thank y'all for coming down-

398. 1:59:19

     Thank you

399. 1:59:20

     ... today. Uh, members of the committee, if you ever get a invitation to go and, uh, sit in on one of their meetings, I highly recommend it.

400. 1:59:27

     We would love to have you.

401. 1:59:29

     All right. Let me go back, um, let's see. Mazie Lamb with GACDL.

402. 1:59:43

     Thank you, Chairman. We can be brief. We just have some thanks to extend to the author, um, for hearing our concerns last week about the definition of the, of homelessness, and the adjustments that were made in this bill reflect that conversation, and we're really grateful that, for that change. Otherwise, I can't do any better job than, um, Ms. Albert just did in explaining some of our similar concerns about the leveling process that this would result in going forward. And we would encourage you also to remove section three.

403. 2:00:12

     Okay. See no questions. All right, anyone else that was signed up that I may have missed, or anybody that wanted to sign up?

404. 2:00:21

     That's me.

405. 2:00:21

     Okay. Senator, you want to come back now and have the last word?

406. 2:00:30

     It won't take me but a second, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think I'd like to just express some frustration with SORNA. I hadn't heard from them one peep up until this moment, and this bill's gone through, uh, you know, Senate committees, Senate floor, amended on the floor. This is the second hearing in your committee, and then you guys get this full notebook of things. And it would seem to me if they were that concerned, they would've approached me at some point along the way. A couple things, um, on the classifications.

407. 2:01:02

     I mean, she just made the comment, "Well, you just keep these people in jail for life then if that's what you wanna do." That's the whole point of the sexual offender registry. When you let them out of jail, you still need to protect potential future victims, especially children. Yeah, you could keep them in jail forever, and you never have to worry about them raping another young child or committing other sexual offenses. But we let them out only b- so we can closely monitor them to protect our population, and that's what I'm trying to accomplish here, is to let them closely monitor, including an ankle monitor if needed, if you can't keep track of homeless people because that allows you to s- follow them geographically, where they are close to children or not.

408. 2:01:46

     So all we did here was set minimum standards, and these sexual offenders with children ought to be level two. They need a higher supervision level, and they need to stay on the registry to protect our children. It gives the flexibility, if you wanna make them a sexual dangerous predator, have at it, 'cause you may find some more egregious circumstances to allow them to do that. But the, I mean, these offenses that are a sexual dangerous predator, the, just look at the list of those offenses.

409. 2:02:18

     These are very brutal sexual offenses or repeat offenders, and that's where they need to be. But anyways, that's-

410. 2:02:28

     Uh, that's all I really have to add, I think, a- about it.

411. 2:02:32

     Okay. Uh, we had questions earlier. Uh, do you wanna discuss on this?

412. 2:02:38

     No, I just, based on what you just said.

413. 2:02:40

     Okay. Well, we usually give the bill author the last word, so if y'all wanna talk-

414. 2:02:45

     Oh, okay

415. 2:02:45

     ... off line about it.

416. 2:02:47

     Thank you.

417. 2:02:47

     Uh, Senator, don't have quorum-

418. 2:02:49

     All right

419. 2:02:49

     ... so I'll get to you as soon as I can, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you-

420. 2:02:52

     Thank you

421. 2:02:52

     ... for coming out to Haralson County-

422. 2:02:54

     Appreciate the time

423. 2:02:54

     ... on Saturday. We-

424. 2:02:55

     Thank you for, uh, being there

425. 2:02:56

     ... glad to see you.

426. 2:02:56

     That was quite an event. I, I'm almost recovered my sleep after leaving Athens at 6:00 AM to get to you.

427. 2:03:02

     Well, good luck to you on that.

428. 2:03:04

     Thank you.

429. 2:03:04

     Um, we're gonna stand at ease until I get a couple more senators in here.

430. 2:03:10

     Public comment?

431. 2:03:12

     Uh, I didn't see you signed up on there. We'll p-

432. 2:03:16

     No, if you're accepting additional speakers.

433. 2:03:18

     Uh, tell you what, we're gonna stand at ease for right now. We're gonna have to come back to that anyway, but I'll get you back, so just remain. We'll stand at ease for now.

434. 2:24:36

     All right, we'll come back to order. We'll come back to order.

435. 2:24:42

     Chose this one.

436. 2:24:43

     All right, Senate Bill 398. Senator Hatchett.

437. 2:24:46

     Ooh.

438. 2:24:46

     Go ahead.

439. 2:24:47

     Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I got here as fast as I could. I hope you know that.

440. 2:25:05

     Y'all, sorry, I gotta gather my notes here. All right,

441. 2:25:12

     Senate Bill 398. Uh, this bill addresses a very specific and growing problem. Some of you may be aware of it, some of you may not, but it essentially is the use of AI intelligence to create photorealistic, obscene images of real people without their consent. These are images that never exi- existed, but are reales- realistic enough to cause harm.

442. 2:25:44

     To be clear, this bill fills a gap in Georgia law. Current Georgia law already criminalizes voyeurism, obscenity, and the distribution of obscene material, but those statutes were written for a world where images had to be real photographs. AI has changed the game. Um, if you're on social media and you see a video, any video... Uh, I saw a video of a rhinoceros fighting with a baby deer the other day, and the most common comment that you see on the internet, "Is this real or is this AI?" And that not only translates to something playful, like a rhinoceros fighting with a baby deer, but also with real people's images and the videos that they are making.

443. 2:26:38

     And Senate Bill 398 makes it a crime to intentionally cause a generative AI system to generate an obscene image of a real person without that person's consent. And the bill, the focus of the bill is on creation, because that's where existing law is unclear.

444. 2:27:01

     You'll see that law enforcement has an exception. I'll briefly touch on that. There is a narrow exemption for law enforcement and prosecutors acting in the inve- investigation or prosecution of crimes. This exception is necessary because law enforcement may legitimately use imagery construction, AI-assisted age progression, demonstrative or investigative tools, or courtroom exhibits, and without this exemption, the statute could unintentionally criminalize legitimate public safety activity.

445. 2:27:35

     I think 398 is narrowly tailored, it's victim-focused, and it causes, it closes a real emerging loophole without expanding criminal liability beyond what is necessary. Now,

446. 2:27:51

     members of the committee, I will do my best not to get too passionate about this subject, but I wanna tell you, just kinda tell you my personal take on this. This is a personal bill to me because I believe what we're confronting right now is something that did not exist a few years ago, probably really didn't exist last year, especially to this extent, and there's no telling what it's gonna be like in next year, two years. But the artificial intelligent platforms right now allows someone to take an ordinary photograph from a yearbook, from Facebook, of your wife, your daughter, your friend, your coworker, and with a few c- clicks, they can digitally remove their clothing and have a realistic image or video of them doing whatever they want them to do.

447. 2:28:43

     This is a fabrication of an image or video that never existed, and it's manufactured humiliation. It can be done in seconds with no consent, no warning, and no acco- accountability, and it's not hypothetical. Unfortunately, right now, this is happening to teenage girls, teenage boys. It's happening to adults. It's being used as a bullying tactic in schools. It's being used for revenge. It's being used to destroy reputations.

448. 2:29:14

     And as a father of four daughters, I cannot ignore that. The idea that someone could take a picture of a young girl from social media or from a school event and use artificial intelligence to generate a fake intimate image of her is sickening, and it's happening. It's happening right now. The idea that someone could take or do that to anyone, child or adult, and create something so degrading and invasive without ever touching them is unacceptable.

449. 2:29:44

     And technology has reached a point where someone can digitally undress another human being and violate them in a way that is a violation of privacy, of dignity, and just human basic decency. I think artificial intelligence is an incredible tool that's going to be and already has been beneficial in medicine and agriculture and will help us solve problems that we've never been able to solve.

450. 2:30:17

     But like every powerful tool ever created, there's a dark side and it can be misused. And with this bill, I just think that if it would make you furious as a father, it should make you firm as a legislator and this bill is firm. It makes it a felony to knowingly use artificial intelligence to create a sexually explicit image of another person without that person's consent. It makes it unmistakably clear that digitally fabricated intimate images, even if they were never real photographs, are treated as real violations under criminal law because the harm is real, the humiliation is real, and the accountability must be real.

451. 2:31:07

     It imposes meaningful criminal penalties for those who engage in this conduct because when someone deliberately uses AI to fabricate an intimate image of a real person, that is not innovation, it is exploitation. And I know felony sounds harsh, but I want you to imagine for a moment a young girl in high school, for, for example, who f- who just realizes that there's a video or an image of her

452. 2:31:38

     That's inappropriate, obscene, that someone created, that may be, be- being passed around. Imagine the panic or the sh- and the shame, the fear. The harm begins at the moment of creation, and Georgia should make it crystal clear that this conduct is criminal from the start.

453. 2:31:58

     We need to make it clear that we will not allow technology to strip away a person's dignity or humanity. This matters, and I'm passionate about it for obvious reasons, but I just refuse to sit back and allow a world where my daughter's dignity is subject to someone else's code. And as long as I can do something about it, I will, and I respectfully ask for your support.

454. 2:32:28

     Okay, number 16. Judge Gunter.

455. 2:32:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator Hatchett, thank you for bringing this bill. Um, I think it's very necessary. We had a recent incident at the high school in Union County where a photo was photoshopped, I guess you could say, and they used AI to have... There was, in the original photo, two males and a female in between. The female was removed, put the two males together kissing. So, and these are just ordinary kids, and, um, um, you know, to do something like that to somebody was very hurtful in our community.

456. 2:33:10

     So I appreciate you doing that. I do have a question on lines 34, 35.

457. 2:33:16

     Mm-hmm.

458. 2:33:17

     The material taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Uh, has that, has that been defined in law to include this kind of material?

459. 2:33:31

     Um, could you tell me which line you're, you're on again? I'm sorry.

460. 2:33:34

     It's 34 and 35.

461. 2:33:35

     34 and 35.

462. 2:33:42

     A and C, I, I don't have a problem with, but B I'm looking at and just wondering if that's a little too general a description.

463. 2:33:55

     This was a definition that I spoke with legislative council about whether or not it's in another, um, code section or not, I'm not sure.

464. 2:34:11

     Okay.

465. 2:34:11

     Um, I know, you know, obscene material is very hard to define, but when you know it, you know it.

466. 2:34:23

     Right. Yeah.

467. 2:34:23

     Obviously, you know the, the whole verbiage. But, um, your concern with 34 and 35 would be that it's, it's, it's too broad?

468. 2:34:32

     Yes. It, um, it, it can describe other artistic, um, items that wouldn't be considered obscene, I would, I would think.

469. 2:34:44

     Mm-hmm.

470. 2:34:52

     Well, I don't necessarily see it as too broad

471. 2:35:01

     because I think

472. 2:35:04

     it looks like the way it's written, it would have to, you'd have to meet A, B, and C.

473. 2:35:08

     A, B, and C.

474. 2:35:09

     Mm-hmm.

475. 2:35:09

     So the and, yeah, takes care of it.

476. 2:35:11

     The way it's written, I think... I think if it were just a, an an or, or alone, I think it may be, but to, to have A, B, and C there, I think it narrows it, but I'm happy to, you know, discuss and, uh, if you're, if you have any suggestions on that, I'd be happy to hear what you think.

477. 2:35:33

     No, I, I accept your explanation. Thank you.

478. 2:35:36

     Thank you.

479. 2:35:39

     Isn't it, isn't it true, Senator, that, uh, Chairman Representative Brad Thomas has sent over a piece of legislation to the State Senate for almost three sessions now that would also deal with much of the same issue that you're trying to go after here?

480. 2:35:58

     I think so.

481. 2:35:58

     I think so.

482. 2:35:59

     I think there has been some legislation.

483. 2:36:00

     And, and I'm not saying that, uh, and there's no blame cast there. It's just somebody over there is holding that legislation up for about three sessions in a row now.

484. 2:36:10

     I remember he brought that deep fake bill that we had, and that was the first time I ever heard, uh, a voice. You know, they, they used someone's voice in the chamber and made them say whatever they wanted to say. Now, I think it was only a year ago.

485. 2:36:25

     Right.

486. 2:36:25

     And now that's pretty common. Now you hear a recording, and you have to question if it's AI or not because it's so good.

487. 2:36:33

     Right.

488. 2:36:33

     Um, but I don't know if he specifically did this because what this does is, yes, you're attacking AI, but you are making it a crime for this obscene material to create it. It's not, it's not distribution a- and it's not, um... This has nothing to do with elections. Rather, I mean, this is... To me, this is just a common sense approach to protect real people.

489. 2:36:58

     Right.

490. 2:36:58

     And I know h- I think his may have been a little broader, and some of it may overlap. Um, but to answer your question about why that hasn't moved, I don't know.

491. 2:37:07

     Okay. Um, need to kinda clarify some other things with you real quick. Chairman's had this bill under consideration, under scope, uh, since it came over. Uh, but I wanted to check with you, what is virtual peeping?

492. 2:37:25

     That is the new name of the crime that we're creating.

493. 2:37:29

     Okay. What is it?

494. 2:37:32

     Well, if you think about peeping in a general sense would be to- Deborah Silcox was here but she's gone ... view someone In a private setting where they, they are not aware that you're viewing. The, the term peeping Tom, I guess, where that would come from. This is a, a virtual version of that and, and unfortunately I couldn't come up with a better or, or a, a, a better name for it, but when you peep on someone, essentially you see them in a state that you're not supposed to see them in without their consent.

495. 2:38:06

     And so virtual peeping is exactly what this seeks to address, is we're making it a crime to create images of someone that you should never have.

496. 2:38:18

     Okay.

497. 2:38:18

     And they would never let you have, but you had to stoop to that level to create something that your eyes should have never seen to begin with.

498. 2:38:26

     Okay. And I noticed in construction of this bill, you've wedged it in between the peeping Tom statute and the eavesdropping statute. Isn't that true?

499. 2:38:40

     That is true.

500. 2:38:41

     Okay. Here's what I want to ask you after going through all this with you, uh, leading up to it. The essence of this crime would really be contained within line 63 through 66, if you had to really just narrow it down to what you're going after.

501. 2:39:10

     A- and the reason I ask this is because after having reviewed this bill, the, the chair is really wondering why we didn't just add this to the peeping Tom statute and inc- instead of creating a whole new code section here. And, and obviously your punishment, uh, provision in 1611-69, if you wanted to raise the penalties, we could have went there instead of just creating a whole new code section because, uh, th- there was a little bit of confusion as why we went through so much language just to do what we could have done by putting it in the peeping Tom statute instead of creating a whole new code section.

502. 2:39:58

     Because I, I, I follow with your peeping Tom, someone... How does someone, um, end up getting that image? Uh, and I, I follow your logic entirely. That's where the chair's mind was, but, uh, I, I was wondering if we could just really narrow this all down by taking 60- line 63 through 66 and placing it in 16-11-61.

503. 2:40:30

     So I hear what you're saying. Um-

504. 2:40:35

     Tell me why it wouldn't work.

505. 2:40:38

     Well, with just 63 through, what, you said 66?

506. 2:40:44

     Mm-hmm.

507. 2:40:45

     I think there needs to be harsher penalties if you're doing this to children.

508. 2:40:49

     And we could do that by amending l- 16-11-69, uh, yeah, dash 69.

509. 2:40:56

     Yeah, and so if you go back, there's, there's two, essential two crimes here, the virtual peeping and virtual peeping on a minor. The minor section is 4343. I like having those heightened protections for minors. The... When you get into that, you've got minor nudity, obscene material. You have these definitions that aren't necessarily in the peeping Tom statute. Um, so I think there are some more definitions that would have to follow, especially what is a generative artificial intelligence system.

510. 2:41:26

     I mean, this is all about trying to criminalize someone from using a generative artificial intelligence system from, you know, criminalizing them from when they use that to create obscene materials. I think that the, the focus obviously

511. 2:41:51

     on the crime, you know, what, what you're doing in, uh, the peeping Tom statute and what you're doing here c- can be similar, but with the advance in technology, I think the peeping Tom statute was not written at a time where you could even contemplate the technology that's available now, which is why we discussed just creating it like we did, and I think, with all due respect, I don't think, unless you were to copy all the definitions, we could, we could move them all. We could, you know, take this and move it there, but I, I do think that all the definitions that we have in here, especially when you're talking about the generative artificial intelligence system needs to be included, 'cause I, I, I feel like this is going to adapt over the f- over, over the next few years, and, you know, what- what- whatever, whatever code section it's in, I'm, I'm okay.

512. 2:42:47

     I just want to make sure that we're thorough so that we catch what we're actually trying to catch.

513. 2:42:51

     A- and I share your concern here and support the substance of your legislation. I'm just saying from a statutory construction standpoint, you're using the phrase peeping.

514. 2:43:04

     Mm-hmm.

515. 2:43:05

     And in the chairman's mind, it would flow a lot better within our code if we found a way to get it in 1611-6- 61, and then address the sentencing provisions in 161169. I, I, I'm just, I'm offering that, um, because it, it... Yes, it's not exactly like the traditional peeping Tom statute that was envisioned, but I think that we can find a place for it there, but I didn't mean to take up too many-

516. 2:43:43

     Uh, minutes of questioning when we have other members for questions. Representative Panitch.

517. 2:43:47

     Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill. I understand no matter where it ultimately ends up, it is something we need. Um, my concern is really with, um, line 79 through 85. Um,

518. 2:44:06

     the concern is whether the AI system itself will be held liable for, um, for providing the, the program, even though they might not know that this specific person is acting in such a way that will conduct this kind of activity. Are they likely to be held responsible, um, because they supplied the AI program?

519. 2:44:41

     Uh, so your question is would the platform be responsible?

520. 2:44:46

     Yeah.

521. 2:44:48

     I mean-

522. 2:44:49

     And is that your intent? I mean, if that's your intent, then-

523. 2:44:52

     Well, just-

524. 2:44:52

     ... I think it's covered, but-

525. 2:44:54

     You know, to be fair, this, this section right here was not in my original bill. This was an, an, um, amendment that was added in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Um, but I think the way the, the line 79 r- uh, uh, it says, "A person who owns or operates a computer program or application that is designed primarily for use by, or marketed to children is accessible to the public and which utilizes a generative artificial intelligence system shall be guilty of the offense." So I guess if you're ...

526. 2:45:32

     If you own the platform, you market it to children, it's accessible ... No, it's designed primarily for the use by children, you market it to children, and it's accessible to the public. This isn't my language, but I think from a poli- a policy perspective, if you check all three of those boxes, you should be responsible.

527. 2:45:55

     S-

528. 2:45:55

     Unless you think differently.

529. 2:45:56

     I, I, I read it, um, designed primarily for use by, or marketed to children. So if it's marketed to children at all, it might fall under this, um, part.

530. 2:46:13

     Maybe put a and instead of an or. Primarily for use by and marketed to children.

531. 2:46:19

     Could we have a sta- Would you be open to a provision that excludes the, the AI platform, the person who owns the platform, I guess?

532. 2:46:31

     Like, just blanket immunity if they primarily ... If they use ... If it's primarily used for children, they market it to children, and they allow it to happen?

533. 2:46:38

     Well, it's primarily or marketed to children.

534. 2:46:43

     But, well-

535. 2:46:43

     So-

536. 2:46:43

     ... what if we just put and?

537. 2:46:46

     Proposing to change the bill and put and there instead of an or.

538. 2:46:49

     Instead of or.

539. 2:46:50

     It's better.

540. 2:46:52

     Yeah.

541. 2:46:53

     Well, and there is one.

542. 2:46:55

     No, that's it. That ... Thank you. That was my question.

543. 2:46:57

     There is also a requirement, and I know this is not your ... Th- this is not the, the heart and soul of the bill from your perspective, but there is a requirement that the person has to know or reasonably should have known that the computer program application was l- reasonably likely to and in fact did provide a description of ex- of obscene material. I mean, there's gotta be a pretty strong ... You gotta ... I mean, if we make your change, it's gotta be designed primarily for use by children, it's gotta be marketed to children, it's gotta be accessible to the public, and you've gotta know it's gonna be used for exactly the thing we're criminalizing.

544. 2:47:25

     And then it has to be used for that.

545. 2:47:27

     Yeah.

546. 2:47:28

     Yeah. I mean,

547. 2:47:32

     with the factors that we have here, I would not wanna write all these factors into law and then say, "Well, you can meet all these, but if you're an AI company, you're, you're exempt." So I also don't want to catch a company that,

548. 2:47:51

     you know, someone else rewrites their code and uses it, but they have no, no connection to the use or, or the misuse.

549. 2:47:59

     Right.

550. 2:47:59

     So, you know, I think we can beef up the factors for sure, but just in my mind when you ask me that, if you truly know, market to, should have known the, or know that it will be used for this purpose and then it is, I think there should be some liability there.

551. 2:48:19

     Thank you.

552. 2:48:19

     Yeah.

553. 2:48:23

     All right. Representative Holly.

554. 2:48:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

555. 2:48:29

     There you are.

556. 2:48:29

     I think I, I agree with the, the heart of what this bill attempts to do. Um, I'm curious for that line 80 whether you actually need to have a and in there. Um, if it is accessible to the public, it kind of already takes care of the whether or not it's marketed to children or not. If it's, if this is a generative system that is using, um, you know, somebody's image to generate these obscene in- uh, images, then kind of its accessibility on the market, while I agree with my colleague, Representative Panitch, about the liability of the company, um, you know, it, it, it doesn't ...

557. 2:49:11

     You ki- you s- To me it would seem that you are still a-

558. 2:49:14

     Is there a question there, Representative?

559. 2:49:16

     Yes, sir. Um,

560. 2:49:20

     if you take out the use or marketing and just keep it at accessible to the public, does that not also solve the purpose of what you're trying to do?

561. 2:49:30

     So this section right here doesn't directly correlate with the AI obscene photos. This has more to do with text and text responses to users' prompts. G1 is

562. 2:49:50

     Like, like I said, uh, uh, this was an amendment that was added to-

563. 2:49:57

     This isn't about images, this is about text

564. 2:49:59

     ... This, yeah, this is about, I think, a chatbot- ... that can, you can talk to it and it can create images and-

565. 2:50:09

     Or obscene responses

566. 2:50:09

     ... or obscene responses.

567. 2:50:11

     Yeah.

568. 2:50:11

     Yeah.

569. 2:50:11

     Okay. And I, if, and if I... Do I have it correct? 'Cause I might not, as I read through the bill. Uh, this bill doesn't penalize anybody for possession of the image, only it focuses on those who actually use the program to generate the image.

570. 2:50:30

     Correct, 'cause our current statutes already address obscene material.

571. 2:50:36

     Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

572. 2:50:39

     Okay. We're gonna go on to testimony. Thank you, Senator.

573. 2:50:41

     Yeah, thank you.

574. 2:50:43

     And if you need to go to another committee meeting, I understand. Um, everybody's here, there, and everywhere. Uh, first up we have Brooke Males.

575. 2:51:14

     Hello again from the committee where the party don't stop and the party keep going. Um, so first and foremost, I wanna thank the gentleman from the 50th for bringing this forward, um, and I appreciate the code reference 16, um, 12100. It's one of, one of my more preferable ones for obscene material. I appreciate the integration of the Miller test. Um, and I also appreciate what, what it's aiming and, and, um, aiming to do. Um, for instance, um, with some of the newer AI programs such as Grok x AI from Twitter, um, there are no particular limits on what sort of image generation you can produce, um, especially with obscene materials.

576. 2:51:57

     And this absolutely takes the necessary care to address this real rampant problem where we're seeing instances of revenge porn on a scale we could never have dreamt of 10 years ago even. And with... And I work with AI on a, on a personal basis, so I understand how these gen- generative programs work. I, I use them in video edit- uh, uh, um, editing, I use them, uh, um, for, for asset generation. So I ab- absolutely understand the risk they, um, they pose unregulated.

577. 2:52:32

     Um, and I also appreciate the chair's, um, uh, um, interest in improving efficacy and streamlining the language here, 'cause there's definitely some room, room for improvement, so I would definitely, um, endorse and recommend the, um, committee if it finds it needs to tweak the language a little bit to make it flow a little bit more even- evenly. I would certainly endorse that. Um, I think my only point of concern that I've heard from some of my paralegal, um, friends is this could dip over into minor infringement, um, on, uh, um, on satire, so perhaps just tacking on at the end, um, we could add a section saying, "Nothing in this code section shall be construed as prohibiting an individual or entity from using AI image generation for the purposes of creating non-obscene materials." B- um, simply put, that would...

578. 2:53:25

     It may be more of a adding a, um, um, of a, of an une- necessary caution, but I think it would certainly help ease, um, some of the worry with some of the, um, free speech and, uh, uh, um, activists and enthusiasts on that side of the aisle. So I feel like that helps balance the interests of everyone involved while we're protecting the children, we're prote- uh, um, um, protecting adults, and we're protecting people who use these, these systems for, um, satire, such as putting their favorite law- lawmaker with bunny ears or something to that effect.

579. 2:54:00

     And from a biblical sta- standard, I appreciate the, um, gentleman from the 50th, m- uh, um, engaging in the actions, uh, um, um, solicited in Exodus 22:22, "You shall care for, um, for, um, for the women and the children, the widow and the orphan." And this, uh, um, plays exactly, um, into God's in- um, intention and scripture written in the Old Testament. Because frankly, we are charged, we are charged to care for, um, um, care for these, um, care for these children, and we have this new threat that most of us couldn't have dreamt of years ago.

580. 2:54:40

     I certainly couldn't have dreamt of it, and I'm a child of the '90s. Um, so I, I, um, I really appreciate what the, what the, again, what the senator from the 50th is doing. I appreciate the efforts for the chair to potentially streamline the language, and I recommend, um, to the committee that this do pass.

581. 2:55:00

     Okay, thank you. I see no questions. Amy Barnes. Come on back.

582. 2:55:06

     All right.

583. 2:55:13

     The fun part about being a paralegal is I get to see the technology that's involved. The other part of my life that I didn't disclose yet is I have 32 years in information technology. I have been programming from the TI calculators, and I still program desktop and web application. Um, and I have had questions about AI. Now, reading this bill, it causes me a lot of concern because when you're dealing with computer systems, you're dealing with something that is Trifurcated in a way.

584. 2:55:52

     You've got what's on the internet, and what's on the internet is really not on the internet because what happens is when you access it, it, it copies itself, replicates itself on your computer so you can show it locally. It's only in your mind that it's, "Oh, it's on the internet." No, it's not. It's on your computer. So that's part of it and the other part of it is the software code and then you've got AI in and of itself, how it generates the images.

585. 2:56:29

     Now, if you have any background in or experience with AI, you tell it, "Give me a logo of the Red Sox." But it will pull from what people have labeled Red Sox. But if you say something completely different, it's going to pull from sources you don't have control over. And so the fundamental difference in AI versus all other art forms is you literally don't have any control where it draws from.

586. 2:57:07

     So the mere possession of a lewd image is actually, could actually be illegal under the law and at the same time it might be you deleting something that w- had offended you because somebody's nastiness infiltrated the AI. And we have people online who are not good people. They are infiltrating AI. They're teaching it foul language and at one point there were a couple of chatbot AIs back in the era of Replika which was in the 1990s or the early 2000s.

587. 2:57:53

     Replika had a complaint, a chief complaint in that it was driving its users to kill themselves if they could not afford the Replika. So we had this whole root experience coming out of Replika and the beginning of AI and now we have bad actors across the internet who are maliciously inserting, um, phrases and teaching AI some quite offensive concepts.

588. 2:58:27

     I mean, I, uh, d- don't even wanna look at it. So the problem with this bill is it could criminalize this AI coughing up, um, like, what do they call it? Delusions. And we hear about lawmakers, not lawmakers but lawyers who are in the courts suffering because they chose to use AI in a hallucinated cases that never existed. When I did research on this for the law firm I work for, it was hallucinating cases.

589. 2:59:00

     Yet the language was amazing, the concepts were amazing, but it was all a hallucination and that's essentially what AI is and we can't control except to delete so the mere possession without distribution is putting us in the same footprint as people who had no control of other people uploading child abuse material, I'm trying to keep this clean, to their computers without their knowledge or consent.

590. 2:59:32

     And with the botnets, with the recent hack of all the router systems in the United States is with the recent, um, FBI alerts about your home routers. AI is being used on these hijacked systems. Um, awful material is distributed using people's back doored system and if they come to your house and your system has been back doored and you happen to be in possession, you're guilty.

591. 3:00:06

     Throw your life away. So we need an outlet for people to go, "But I, I, I, this isn't mine," or, "I, I, I didn't intend to keep this and I'm not distributing this," because if it's a mere possession, every single human being in this nation is in danger and the FBI itself has said that. So with this virtual peeping bill, um, it's actually the inverse of what its nature is.

592. 3:00:37

     The name of it is not a virtual peeping bill. A peeping implies that you have seen something you're not supposed to, so really the bill should be something like obscene generation or something. And there's a, another piece of the puzzle here is that I'm a human being and I have an image and an artist can draw me looking like a clown. That's his or her right.

593. 3:01:07

     An artist can draw me with size double D, I pray never, but it happens. It's their right to befoul my image. And we are taking and stretching like Cassie a, a right of art and some of it is God awful. I do not support children in awful images. Um, the law needs to be rewritten. Its language needs to be focused on the intent of distribution.

594. 3:01:40

     Its language needs to be focused on protecting innocent victims of hijacked computer systems and bad AI.

595. 3:01:51

     Thank you.

596. 3:01:52

     Okay. Thank you so very much. All right. Uh, let's see. Mr. Feldman, come on down.

597. 3:02:08

     Good afternoon, Chairman, uh, members of the committee. I'm Blake Feldman. I'm Senior Policy Counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights. Um, and I have a lot less to say about this bill than I did, uh, Senate Bill 27, uh, and it's just a very simple, uh, amendment request. The only aspect of the bill that concerns us is the carve-out for teenagers. Um, we think that it's narrower than it should be, and that's lines 50 to 62.

598. 3:02:41

     Uh, so essentially, uh, what this, uh, paragraph two does is, uh, it creates a carve-out if the image is not depicting a minor who's under the age of 14. Uh, the depicted minor must have consented to the image being generated. The defendant themselves must be a minor. And if the defendant distributed the image, then whether to apply the carve-out at all is gonna be in the court's discretion if and only if three things are true: the prosec- the prosecution agrees to apply the carve-out, the distribution was not for commercial purposes, and the distribution was not intended to harass, intimidate, or embarrass anyone.

599. 3:03:31

     We are recommending that line 54 be struck. That's the prong of the carve-out that requires consent. Um, and I understand that that sounds, uh, maybe radical or problematic in the abstract, um, but I really want to explain how the requirement of consent essentially eliminates the ability for a kid to qualify, uh, for the carve-out. So if a 15-year-old, uh, boy has a crush on the popular girl in his class, after school, while his parents are still at work, gets home, uses an app to generate an explicit image.

600. 3:04:15

     He never distributes the image. He might even delete it 20 minutes after creating it, uh, overcome with shame. Uh, or if he, if it wasn't a yearbook photo of his crush or a profile picture, uh, maybe it was instead the actor from his favorite, aging myself, but TeenNick or Disney Channel movie, uh, movie or TV show. He definitely couldn't get that famous person's, uh, consent.

601. 3:04:45

     So in reality, almost no teenager is going to be asking for consent to use a nudify app on another teenager's yearbook photo or, um, Instagram profile picture. Um, and I want to be very clear also that I'm not saying that it's okay to do that without their consent, and I want to reiterate that the effect of this carve-out is to protect some teenagers by reducing the offense to a misdemeanor.

602. 3:05:20

     So it does not decriminalize the generation of explicit images of minors. And teenagers who distribute the obscene images would not benefit from the carve-out unless the prosecution agrees it's in the court's discretion and all of those other, um, elements are satisfied. So when I hear about, um... I don't have kids, but, and I don't have nephews. I have three nieces. Uh, they're all eight to 17.

603. 3:05:50

     Hearing and imagining the fear that the author of the bill mentioned to a girl understanding that this, a video is being passed around, um, it breaks my heart thinking about that happening to them. It makes me angry. I want to be clear, the carve-out says if you distribute it, you don't qualify unless, uh, it was not intended to harm or harass or embarrass. So even if the prosecution and the court and the defense wanted to apply, the carve-out would not apply if you create that and you're passing it around to embarrass a little girl.

604. 3:06:27

     It doesn't matter if you're 14 or 15, you're not gonna qualify for this carve-out. This carve-out, um, is protecting kids who generate and do not distribute if all of those elements are, uh, met. We think that broadening the carve-out to protect teenagers from very, very young kids who are dumb, uh, broadening the carve-out to protect them from being convicted of a serious felony sex offense that does not condone or excuse the conduct that we're talking about, um, with this bill, with House Bill 171 for the past few years.

605. 3:07:08

     It only reduces the offense to a misdemeanor, and plenty of misdemeanors concern serious conduct that we as a society do not condone and that we appreciate as serious. DUIs, second-degree vehicular homicide, battery, terroristic threats, stalking. These are serious offenses. They're treated as misdemeanors. That's, the, that's not mutually exclusive. Uh, so for these reasons, we would urge, uh, that the requirement that the image be generated with the consent of the minor for the carve-out, and that's lines 54, be removed.

606. 3:07:50

     Okay. Seeing no questions. Thank you.

607. 3:07:52

     Thank you.

608. 3:07:53

     All right. Uh, Attorney General Emeritus, uh, Sam Owens, come on down.

609. 3:07:59

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Brock, if you would please hand out this one-pager.

610. 3:08:09

     Go ahead, William Reilly, Mayor. Thank you. So, um, I represent OpenAI, and OpenAI did not have any objections to Senator Hatchett's bill as he filed it and prepared it. The objection was Section G, the amendment that wasn't his. So let's be clear, my comment's not to Senator Hatchett, it's to Section G that he was given as a present.

611. 3:08:39

     If you send out an email this afternoon, w- we use Microsoft Outlook, and if you happen to put an obscene material on that email, no one on this committee is gonna think about bringing a felony charge against Microsoft. But I would suggest to you Section G is broad enough that OpenAI, AI is nervous about a felony charge for someone using ChatGPT. Everyone knows children use ChatGPT.

612. 3:09:11

     Everyone knows it's accessible to the public. Everyone knows or should know that bad things can happen when you're dealing with software, et cetera. So from OpenAI's perspective, they are ripe for a potential felony charge just because they're the creator or developer of AI. Accordingly, they asked me to share with the committee a one-page safe harbor, and what the safe harbor simply says is the provider, developer, or operator of an AI system is not subject to criminalis- or civil liability, just as you would not think Microsoft should be subject to such liability.

613. 3:09:52

     And then you will note at the very end of that one-pager, it says nothing in this subsection b- shall be cons- shrewd to provide immunity if the developer or operator knowingly and intentionally directs that such bad stuff go on there. So I think that that's fair. So my first a- ask would frankly be, uh, that whether it's in Senator Hatchett's bill or the proposal from the chairman of this committee, that Section G not be on either of those proposals.

614. 3:10:26

     If it is so determined that you like Section G, then I would strongly suggest that a safe harbor be added to protect any and all AI companies. Um, if there's no questions, that's all I had to say, Chairman. Okay. Any questions? Seeing none. Thank you- Thank you, sir ... Mr. Reilly, Mayor. Okay. I don't think I have anyone else signed up on this. Did I miss anyone? No. Okay. Senator, if you wanna come back and just give us a final word.

615. 3:11:03

     Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present. I think, um, reading about the history of technology and the law and how it's kind of evolved over the years, um, Justice Brandeis I think said it pretty well. Uh, he said the, the right to be let alone is man's most important right, and I'm paraphrasing.

616. 3:11:37

     But

617. 3:11:41

     when they wrote that Harvard Review article back in 1908, they were talking about the instant photograph and privacy there. We're talking about something completely different now. And, um, I think technology has exceeded our humanity, and this law will be able to reign that in a little bit. And so I just ask for y'all's favorable consideration.

618. 3:12:11

     You ain't one of them Harvard lawyers, are you? Absolutely not. I am from Haversham, though, so. Okay. Haversham. Okay. All right. All right. Uh, members, looks like we'll be having us a party again tomorrow. Uh, Senator, we don't have a quorum, but we'll, we'll hog down tomorrow. So, uh, I'm gonna leave y'all with an Irish, uh, blessing here on St. Patrick's Day before we adjourn. Uh, may the road rise up to meet you. May the wind be always at your back.

619. 3:12:44

     And may the sun shine warm upon your face, the rain fall soft upon your fields. And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hey. Good seeing you. Yeah. Um, is that-