House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, March 24, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:16:43

   Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started. I'm gonna call on Representative Fincher to open us up in a word of prayer.

2. 0:16:50

   Lord, we're just so thankful for having the opportunity to serve you. Uh, you know you g- we need your guidance, and hope that we will carry out your will. Bless each day, uh, and each person in this room, and, uh, bless us to your ser- guide us to your service. We ask it in Christ's name. Amen.

3. 0:17:09

   Amen. Thank you. All right. Uh, first up, I'm gonna call Senator Steve Gooch. Senate Bill 591, so come on down there, Senator.

4. 0:17:18

   Where do you want me?

5. 0:17:19

   Just right here in the middle.

6. 0:17:23

   Okay.

7. 0:17:23

   Bird box.

8. 0:17:25

   God, this chair sits down loaded up. Y'all do that to intimidate the senators?

9. 0:17:29

   Not at all. Not at all. Go ahead.

10. 0:17:32

    Good morning. Uh, Senate Bill 591, I'm think you're working off of LC number 630053, is that correct?

11. 0:17:43

    That is correct.

12. 0:17:44

    This bill is pretty simple. It takes what's in current law today, which basically protects, um, funeral services, and it adds worship services to the code section. So it would make it a misdemeanor for anyone to interfere or to disrupt a worship service, of any kind of religious service. It does not, uh, s- specify which denomination, faith, or what have you. It also adds language on the back page, on page three. It increases the penalties to aggravated misdemeanor, uh, for a military funeral that's being disrupted or interfered by some outside group.

13. 0:18:22

    And it basically puts up a buffer of 500 feet radius, which is current law as well. Does not regulate content, so it's not a First Amendment issue whatsoever. This bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

14. 0:18:38

    Okay. Any questions from members of the committee?

15. 0:18:44

    All right. Uh, there's one, number four. Representative Holly.

16. 0:18:48

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Mr. Senator, for, uh, bringing this bill. A question was, um, in this, I did not see where it was specified that, uh, the restrictions being made in terms of the activities, uh, in the... Okay, gotcha. Never mind.

17. 0:19:08

    Thank you.

18. 0:19:08

    Uh, actually, the question would be, um, the religious service itself is, uh, that's in this institution is only that which is, i- it's only dealing with, uh, religion and not particularly with political activity inside of institutions that would ordinarily facilitate this religious service?

19. 0:19:27

    That's correct.

20. 0:19:28

    Okay. Thank you, sir.

21. 0:19:30

    Okay. I see no other questions. No one signed up on this one.

22. 0:19:37

    I think, uh, the Baptist mentioned, uh, what's his name, um, Mike Griffin. He is in support of the bill, but he's unable to be here this morning.

23. 0:19:46

    Okay.

24. 0:19:46

    So he said to let you know that he is fully supportive of this legislation.

25. 0:19:49

    All right. Duly noted. Okay.

26. 0:19:51

    Can I make a motion to

27. 0:19:53

    Well, hold on just a second. Hold on a sec.

28. 0:19:58

    I withdraw my comment.

29. 0:20:00

    All right. Now I'll entertain a motion.

30. 0:20:02

    I make a move to have it.

31. 0:20:04

    All right. Moved, due pass and a second. Uh, any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the pass of Senate Bill 591 LC 63053, or 0053, say, "Aye."

32. 0:20:17

    Aye.

33. 0:20:17

    All those opposed, same sign. Congratulations, you're on the rules.

34. 0:20:20

    Thank you.

35. 0:20:21

    Yes, sir.

36. 0:20:21

    And if it's, uh, okay with you, I'd like for Representative Silcox to carry this on the House floor.

37. 0:20:26

    Sounds good.

38. 0:20:26

    With the blessing of the whip, of course.

39. 0:20:28

    Thank you for that.

40. 0:20:29

    All right. Thank y'all.

41. 0:20:30

    All right. Next up, I'm gonna call, uh, Senator Cowser. Come on back. Just give us that overview. We've talked about this one once or twice, I think, there, Senator.

42. 0:20:45

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Yes, I've presented twice already, and I don't really have a whole lot to add other than we're trying to protect children and others from sexual predators. Uh, this, uh, really just helps us track the homeless population that is still subject to the requirement to be 1,000 feet away from locations where minors are congregated. Requires them to report more frequently when they change locations so that we can protect those that are vulnerable to them.

43. 0:21:18

    And if they fail to do so, they can be placed in a, a ankle monitor to monitor their location so we can protect children from sexual predators. The only pushback we got was the people with SORNA that said they thought it took away some of their flexibility, and that's actually the point. Uh, we list offenders who have had offenses against children and require them to be level two, which has a little more stricter scrutiny. And of course, there's a series of very serious sexual offenses that deem you a, a dangerous sexual predator.

44. 0:21:57

    Uh, there was some comment made that, "Well, we could just keep them in jail for life." And yeah, we could, and maybe we should, but this is a way to protect folks when we let them out by monitoring where they're located and keeping them away from minors and other vulnerable populations. I'm happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman, but, uh, just I don't know how much more information you need.

45. 0:22:20

    Okay. Uh, Senator, did you wanna add some of those offenses that were mentioned in committee the other day that had been left out? I didn't know if you did.

46. 0:22:30

    No. Uh, uh, the ones that were mentioned, uh, were minor things, you know, that were not as egregious or violent or, or physical. They were, um- You know, I, I don't know, maybe sharing pornography or something like that that was not a, a physical violation or, or offense of somebody. I think we've got pretty well covered the ones that are what are dangerous, um, you know, to, to make you ratchet up to a level two.

47. 0:22:57

    Okay. Well, just wanted to make sure. All right.

48. 0:22:59

    What I had added in, in our, in the Senate was if you had repeat offenses, a serial offender on some of those under, that we had listed level two, then you ought to be a sexual dangerous predator. I'm comfortable with that.

49. 0:23:13

    Okay. All right. Number seven, Representative Rob.

50. 0:23:17

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'm not opposed to this bill at all.

51. 0:23:20

    Thank you.

52. 0:23:20

    I just have, like, a functional question. If someone's homeless, h- are they... I've never seen a tracking device up close. Do they have to be recharged? I'm trying to figure out how they're gonna keep those-

53. 0:23:35

    They do periodically, and I would imagine they would do that at any charging station, just like you could do it in your home, uh, you know. But whenever these people-

54. 0:23:44

    But they don't have a home

55. 0:23:44

    ... are... A lot of, a lot of them are in shelters, and that's part of the problem, is they're, they're required to let the shelter know that they're on the sexual, uh, offender registry, so they don't intermingle them. But, but you are correct, sometimes they're not and they, uh, I mean, they may end up having to go to the sheriff's department that's, or their probation office to get it done.

56. 0:24:05

    Got it. Okay. All right. Thank you.

57. 0:24:08

    Somebody's ready for the masters. All right. That's all the questions I see, Senator.

58. 0:24:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

59. 0:24:15

    If you want to just slide over. Uh, Tracy Marcus with SOR. I'll let y'all come down, uh, and we are on a time crunch, so brevity is key here. As g- good as you can. Okay. Thank you.

60. 0:24:35

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I appreciate the time that you're gonna give me. I'm gonna try and keep this short. I did have a discussion before about this, so I just wanna kinda iterate, iterate the concerns that we have. Um, I know that this bill comes from the heart. Um, to do that, the process of classification needs to be objective, and it needs to make sense. So for example, the part of the bill addressing homeless sex offenders, the research shows that they're higher risk to commit sexual re- to re-offend.

61. 0:25:06

    And so to have them on GPS makes sense, um, and to protect our children. And actually, regarding, if I may respond to a question about charging, so because I have clients who are sexually dangerous predators who wear a monitor who are homeless, fortunately, there's outlets in so many places, and they usually go to, like, convenience stores and places like that, so they can charge those monitors. Um, and s- but in reference to Section 3 regarding classifying sex offenders where you're based on title alone, so for example, Senator Cowser stated that the other sex offenses not listed are less risky kind of offense types.

62. 0:25:49

    It just shows that the title alone doesn't really tell you anything about the sex offender, and that's really where my focus is, is that convict- classifying based on conviction alone means nothing about risk. So we have the registry. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. It tells our families, um, where somebody's living. They should protect their children and vulnerable, no matter what the classification is. One, to a predator, doesn't matter. They should protect them exactly the same.

63. 0:26:20

    With the risk classification that's based on all the information, all the factual information that we obtain on a sex offender that doesn't just include their sex offenses, there's a lot of factors that go into considering risk, which includes violent offenses, criminal history, dynamic, um, behavior, and, um, community supervision behavior. All those things go into it, and so our law enforcement needs to identify those where they have to put their resources in. There's 28,000 sex offenders on the registry currently. They increase every single year.

64. 0:26:50

    So with those not being able to come off the registry, what that means is we keep building and building and building. So what we need to do is be able to identify the most dangerous so the resources can really focus on those most dangerous, because if we use the funds or our resources across the board for 28,000-plus sex offenders, what that means is they're not gonna be able to monitor the most dangerous as efficiently and effectively as they need to. And that is all I have to say, and I appreciate your time and any questions.

65. 0:27:21

    I just wanna add one thing if I can.

66. 0:27:24

    Mm-hmm.

67. 0:27:24

    Just to drive home that switching from a risk-based system where other states are trying to move towards to what the Adam Walsh does, a system that classifies based on the name of the conviction, in 2012, a bunch of leaders in the field, including Jill Levenson from Florida, did a study, and what they found is the 10-year recidivism rate for Tier 2, that's the lower tier in the Adam Walsh Act, after 10 years, um, 13.5% recidivated.

68. 0:27:55

    In Tier 3, that's the higher tier, 9% recidivated. So it was backwards. And so I just wanna reinforce doing this is gonna hurt the community because the meaning will be, it will be meaningless, 'cause Tier f- threes as a group in that study recidivated less. Thank you.

69. 0:28:16

    All right, we got a few questions. Representative Silcox.

70. 0:28:19

    Thank you so much for coming today. And so I guess it's my understanding then that y'all would... Are you totally opposed to the bill, or are you just opposed to Section 3?

71. 0:28:28

    Only Section 3.

72. 0:28:29

    Okay.

73. 0:28:30

    We're very supportive of the homeless part, portion of the bill because research supports it.

74. 0:28:34

    Mm-hmm.

75. 0:28:34

    And we do, we are concerned about that population.

76. 0:28:37

    Okay. Thank you.

77. 0:28:39

    Representative Roberts.

78. 0:28:41

    Thank you, Mr. Chair I am completely ignorant on this stuff, so take me back. You s- mentioned something about funding. So by classifying them all in one, or by their titles, are you saying that right now the funding is directed towards those higher risks, so now we're gonna have more people that are absorbing the funding? Is there an, an opportunity to increase that funding, or are we like-

79. 0:29:05

    So I think that it, it's not just about the funding, it's about personnel.

80. 0:29:08

    Okay.

81. 0:29:08

    And as we know, there's are, everybody's understaffed anyway.

82. 0:29:11

    Yes.

83. 0:29:11

    So if we, if we add ex- exponentially to the predators, what that means is we're adding exponentially to the monitors, ankle monitors. I can tell you that, and DCS would be able to answer better than I can, but they have to pay for about 50% of those monitors on those under supervision because people can't afford it.

84. 0:29:28

    Mm-hmm.

85. 0:29:28

    Um, but to even monitor them, so even when they're off of supervision, the sheriff's department's gonna have to monitor them all. And monitoring them all equally is going to take away from these higher risk guys that we have there that are serial rapists, serial child molesters. We can have an individual who has one sex... And I'm not minimizing it, understand.

86. 0:29:49

    Right.

87. 0:29:49

    We have an individual that has one victim and that's verified through polygraph or other information versus a, a offender who has 20 victims, and the 20 victim is a level two and a one victim's a predator. And so the, these are inversed as an example. Um, also we could have an individual who sh- could be a level one who let's say is an 80-year-old individual who did 20 years in prison, is coming out, he has a lot of special needs, and he's a predator. So he has an ankle on, his monitor. He needs to be obsessed as much as the guy who has the 20 victims.

88. 0:30:22

    And so there's so many elements to c- to determine risk. Not all sex offenders are created the same. They just aren't. And I think our public believing they're created the same, it's not gonna be as meaningful. So for example, in Florida, they're all predators unless they're a misdemeanor case. And so when they come to Georgia then, um, the sheriff's department or DCS officer will reach out to me and say, "Tracy, can you classify him? 'Cause I really need to know what level he is." 'Cause what that mean, 'cause it means nothing.

89. 0:30:51

    Right.

90. 0:30:51

    Because they're all the same. And so that's my concern is that when we do that, ultimately for the public it's not gonna mean anything. Maybe just to scare everybody is, uh, is part of that goal in that sense, but even so, as a public I know for me I don't care what the level of sex offender is, my kids are gonna be protected the same way. But for law enforcement I hope that they would put their resources and their personnel to those most dangerous. And dynamics offending too, so you got the offenders who, um, offend in home that the registry's not gonna help very much or the level's not gonna help very much versus the guy who's out in the public, um, cruising for victims and selecting victims in that kinda way.

91. 0:31:29

    So we know that those resources need to be moved and shifted in those kind of ways properly. And with the SORB classification we have all that information-

92. 0:31:37

    Okay

93. 0:31:37

    ... not just an element of a name that says child molestation.

94. 0:31:41

    Has anybody estimated the increase in cost for what this change would be for law enforcement or-

95. 0:31:49

    They have not, but if we look at currently, um, I would say that sexually dangerous predators assessed by us is about 20%, and that will probably grow to more like 50% plus.

96. 0:32:02

    Wow.

97. 0:32:02

    And level twos right now are about 55% to 60%, and that will grow to an exponential amount because that will be the, twos will be the primary number probably, um, in reference to the convictions because the, because everybody pleas down their case. And I imagine right now because of the issues that we experience in court, the goal for the offender and their attorney is for them not to have to register. And so we're getting more and more plea downs to cruelty to children. And so that's not even on the list.

98. 0:32:33

    Mm-hmm.

99. 0:32:34

    So we ha- we have, th- there, there's so many factors. The other factors is is this law does not address the fact of reevaluation that, and due process. So there was a Supreme Court hearing, Gregory, which we have in your binders, where they are permitted to have due process. In the past when they do, did judicial review to say, "I'm not a predator, I'm not a level two," um, the judge would read the case and they would say, "I don't need to hear it. I believe they're still a level two or predator." Now Supreme Court says you are allowed due process. The judge has to hear your case.

100. 0:33:05

     So this is going to s- exponentially increase the judge's burden in Fulton County.

101. 0:33:09

     Wow.

102. 0:33:10

     So there's a huge change in this and a lot of answers are not there, so we don't even really understand how we're gonna do this whole thing in reference to, um, removal from the registry and dynamics around that, judicial review, reevaluation. All these things have been, legislators have worked really hard over the last 20 years to really tweak these laws to make them, um, constitutional, to make them make sense, to make them, um, work effectively and make, you know, for everybody, um, and also protect our citizens.

103. 0:33:42

     And this is going backwards and it's gonna create a lot of confusions and a lot of problems, and there's gonna be a lot of constitutional issues associated with it.

104. 0:33:51

     Thank you for that information 'cause this is out of my knowledge, so thanks.

105. 0:33:56

     Number 13. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. Thank you for y'all's testimony today. I, I'm, uh, one or two questions 'cause I'm not terribly familiar with this process. Generally somebody comes into your jurisdiction for lack of a better word at when they are sentenced based on the type of crime that they're sentenced to.

106. 0:34:17

     Yeah, a registrable sex offense, yes.

107. 0:34:18

     Okay. And then you classify them based on interview, uh, other information that you obtain?

108. 0:34:27

     So we, so we have investigators and so we look at an individual's criminal history, both national and Georgia, because we know sex offenders like to hop states.

109. 0:34:35

     Mm-hmm.

110. 0:34:35

     And, um, so what they do is they look at all risk factors associated with their arrest. So any violent offense, any sex offense, it doesn't have to be convicted, any offense that could potentially be sexual in nature, such as contributing to delinquency of a minor, all those things are taken consideration. And then they also look at their prison behavior, because those who expose to correctional officers is part of that risk assessment and increases risk. And then also their community supervision behavior and how they behave in the community, which affects their, um, risk as well.

111. 0:35:07

     So-

112. 0:35:07

     And that community behavior is important because non-compliance with supervision is one of the most robust risk factors. So looking at that is actually very helpful to us to get those dynamic, not just static factors.

113. 0:35:18

     So when are you doing this process? Is this once they're about to be released?

114. 0:35:24

     So right now what we're doing, because for the first s- s- uh, up until two years ago, um, funding was very, very low for SORB, and so what we've done is we prioritize all the cases. Two years ago, Miriam's Law was enacted, which allows, um, the law to, once there's a second sex offense conviction, they're automatically given a life sentence, and it can be a split sentence. So it allows us to keep a monitor on their ankle because the monitor is removed in Parks versus State.

115. 0:35:54

     Um, and so we focus on those immediate priorities, meaning we identify at least two sex offenses in their history so we can get them classified immediately, 'cause we already know they're high-risk offenders, such as what Senator Cowser had mentioned. Two sex offenses, we know they're very dangerous, so we wanna make sure we get them processed and get a monitor on their ankle and get that taken care of.

116. 0:36:14

     Well, I'm, I'm just, I'm, I'm, I'm known for granular questions, but I'm not asking one I think that's quite so granular. I mean, you, y- y- these, these folks come to you, they get put in prison, or they, they plea and they've got a probated sentence. And if it's a probated sentence, I guess you have sort of an urgent need to investigate their circumstances and make a determination. And it sounds like you look largely at empirical data you can, you can acquire, and you talk to, uh, other folks in maybe the, the criminal justice system who've dealt with them, and then you classify a risk.

117. 0:36:47

     And is that based on statutory criteria?

118. 0:36:50

     In how we determine risk?

119. 0:36:52

     Well, the, the factors, yeah, that you use to determine risk. Are there... Is that set out in statute, or is it set out just broadly and you determ- you determine what you would consider?

120. 0:37:02

     It's definitely more broad to give the ability for us to follow the research to ensure that we're in the most updated possibility so that we're making accurate determinations.

121. 0:37:11

     Okay. And, and do you have any idea... I, I mean, I guess, I guess your concern is that con- Yeah, I think you said conviction alone does not necessarily indicate risk. And when it comes to being placed on the registry, risk determines the level of classification. Is that... At the moment.

122. 0:37:31

     Yes.

123. 0:37:32

     Okay.

124. 0:37:32

     Yeah, yeah.

125. 0:37:33

     And so here you're gonna be placing some people in various categories based on the severity of the, the crime they committed.

126. 0:37:41

     The name of the offense.

127. 0:37:42

     The name of the offense.

128. 0:37:43

     Mm-hmm.

129. 0:37:43

     Okay. And so, uh, uh, uh, how many... You, you indicated additional staffing or additional cost. Do you have any sense, uh, uh... 'Cause this is just for offenses that are committed after Jan- July 1, I believe.

130. 0:37:59

     Mm-hmm.

131. 0:37:59

     So you're not gonna have to reclassify anybody that's currently in your system, correct?

132. 0:38:05

     So, and I think that's part of the confusion-

133. 0:38:07

     Right

134. 0:38:07

     ... about how far this goes, because in the law currently, um, sex offenders are allowed to request reevaluation 10 years post-classification, and then every five years thereafter. I don't know if that applies to that or not. It would not apply to that.

135. 0:38:23

     Well, it says, "The board shall apply the following standards when placing a sexual offender convicted on or after July 1, 2026, in a risk assessment classification level."

136. 0:38:30

     Okay, so that would not apply.

137. 0:38:31

     So I don't think you'd have to reclassify anybody that's currently in there based on the statute. You may have to reclassify them based on... I gather there's a process by which they can request-

138. 0:38:40

     Yes

139. 0:38:40

     ... that you r- r- reevaluate their classification.

140. 0:38:43

     Correct.

141. 0:38:43

     But, so this would only apply to people going forward who get convicted after J- July 1 of this year. So are you, uh, s- uh, uh, either making an assumption or one that's based on some empirical data or your experience that, well, we, we tend to have people in these categories that aren't always in the classification they would be assigned in the statute, and we're concerned that we're gonna have to be classifying more people into these categories, which will take more resources to monitor them, I guess?

142. 0:39:16

     Absolutely. So right now, if we look at the majority of those who commit sex offenses in ag- in an aggravated nature are gonna plea them down to a non-aggravated nature. And then, um, so a- and if they are convicted on aggravated nature, then those are more i- immediate predators with immediate monitor on their ankle. And so the numbers are definitely gonna grow considering what we're doing right now and doing a true risk assessment.

143. 0:39:41

     Okay.

144. 0:39:42

     Um, and also the plea bargains. Again, like I said, the trend is going towards, um, cruelty to children, which does not make them register. So if this is gonna require individuals to register for life and wear a monitor for life, um, or as long as they're on DCS, is they're going to probably start pleading them down even more.

145. 0:40:01

     Well, but cruelty to children is not one of the triggering crimes in this bill, is it?

146. 0:40:07

     It's not, and that's why they're gonna plea it down-

147. 0:40:10

     Okay

148. 0:40:10

     ... to cruelty to... I've seen numerous plead down to cruelty to children already, even before this bill, because they're tr- And the reason is to keep them off the registry.

149. 0:40:17

     The registry. Um, but presumably the, if, if it's a plea bargain, the DA is making some kind of assessment of his own about the risk, isn't he?

150. 0:40:30

     I mean, I, I know that I, my experience is that because of lack of understanding, um, there's a caveat in the bill that says if there's a sex offense with anyone under the age of, um, 18, it's a caveat within the law. However, the indictment has to say there's something sexual, and so DAs are often allowing the plea, and it doesn't have sexual in the indictment as a way, um, and they didn't realize that they wouldn't have to register. And so there's a lot of confusion, I think, about how that works, and so we're seeing more and more cases like that.

151. 0:41:03

     I understand.

152. 0:41:03

     And I, I think it bears pointing out there's two different processes. The severity of the crime, which should determine the severity of the punishment. Separate from that is what's the risk that they're gonna commit another sex offense? We're not in the punishment business, we're in the risk business.

153. 0:41:20

     Mm-hmm.

154. 0:41:22

     And to me, the bottom line is the best way to com- protect the community is to k- through accuracy. And if we switch from a risk-based classification to a name-based classification, we lose accuracy.

155. 0:41:36

     And I guess we... And I, uh, appreciate that concern. I, I... It seems to me in this bill we are doing that, but we're only doing it in respect to certain enumerated crimes. We're not doing that across the board.

156. 0:41:47

     Correct.

157. 0:41:48

     Correct. And I, I, I suppose the sponsor would probably say, "Well, I know there may be a lower risk of..." It, it was... I didn't realize that was a verb, but is it recid- recidivate?

158. 0:41:58

     Recidivate. Yes.

159. 0:41:59

     Recidivism's a noun, but you were using, I think, the, the... If they-

160. 0:42:02

     Recidivism

161. 0:42:03

     If they recidivate.

162. 0:42:04

     It's re-offending.

163. 0:42:05

     Re-offending. I thought you said recidivate.

164. 0:42:06

     Yeah.

165. 0:42:06

     I thought you were using it, making a verb out of it.

166. 0:42:08

     Yeah.

167. 0:42:08

     I've never heard that. But, so if they, if they commit another sexual crime offense, I think the sponsor would say with respect to these crimes, even if the risk is lower, these are, there's a much more severe harm caused by that, and so it's worth the additional, um, resource that would be required. Uh, I, I don't wanna speak for him, but I'm, I'm assuming that's what he would say. But I think you're saying, "Well, but that's gonna take more resources," which is a-

168. 0:42:33

     Absolutely

169. 0:42:34

     ... is, is a concern, but I think that may be a separate issue that should be addressed separately. But, all right, well, thank you. I think I understand your concerns a little better. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

170. 0:42:43

     Okay. Representative Burchett.

171. 0:42:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony. Let me... So, uh, along the lines of the question that Leverett, Leverett was in, um, Chairman Leverett, um,

172. 0:43:01

     th- this, this idea that, um, um, I wanna dig into is, is the risk provision you said. So if a, if a person over 18 molests a child under 12, you're saying that there's a possibility that, or risk, the, the risk is less that, that they may re-offend? Or, or can you give me your, your...

173. 0:43:23

     The risk depends on the risk factors, and the name of the charge doesn't capture risk. So for example, we know that somebody who sexually abuses prepubescent boys, especially outside of the family, has a much higher risk compared to somebody who sexually abuses somebody inside the family, especially a girl. They might both be convicted of child molestation, but their risk based on all the risk factors we look at, and we look at a lot, is gonna be different.

174. 0:44:02

     And when we base the cl- classification on the name, both of those might get the same classification, and DCS officers won't be able to tell which one do I actually need to look at-

175. 0:44:13

     Mm

176. 0:44:13

     ... and which one do I, can I cut some slack to, right?

177. 0:44:16

     Sure.

178. 0:44:16

     'Cause it's about, they're overworked. They need to put the resources where it needs to go. Right now, if somebody's a predator, they're high risk. With this bill, if somebody's a predator, they may be high risk or they may not be high risk. And so it'll be harder to decide where to, to whom to s- direct the resources as, if everybody has the same classification.

179. 0:44:37

     So if, if a person has a proclivity to, to molest a 12-year-old child or younger, um, then you're, you're applying a risk, uh, as to, you know, whether they're gonna re-offend. Is that right? Um, but what about the, the 12-year-old, even if it is the one girl, I mean, do we not wanna protect, um, that, those girls from this person or...?

180. 0:45:06

     Of course.

181. 0:45:07

     Okay. So if we put a ankle monitor on those, those folks, well, the, the problem is just a cost problem for you?

182. 0:45:17

     I, I think that there's this presumption that they're all waiting behind bushes to jump out at children and grab them, and unfortunately that's a misnomer and it's not true. So if you have an ankle monitor on the dad who molested his daughter, who did a horrible thing, and again, we go back to how long should we prosecute and punish for that, it's very different.

183. 0:45:37

     Forever, as far as I'm concerned.

184. 0:45:38

     So, right? I'm with you. So the issue, though, is that once he is out and he's, um, once they're caught and prosecuted, what's the recidivism rates for these individuals? And many times the people in the home we don't know because they're in the home. There's nobody watching them. We have family members that still give them access to the children despite knowing that they're sex offenders. So we have all these kinda issues. There's nothing the sheriff's department can do. There's little DCS can do if they're allowed to be around children. And the number of court cases where they're given modification to be around their own children, you'd be really shocked at that.

185. 0:46:09

     But the registry saying that he's a predator because of this isn't going to change any of that. So the issue is that if we identify the predators who are needing law enforcement intervention immediately, that's really, really critical. But if we make them all the same, nobody's gonna pay attention to it as much as they do right now, 'cause that's already shown to me. I got one just last week, an officer saying to me, "Trace, this guy's a predator out of Florida. Can you tell me what his real level is?" So they're really trying to differentiate, who do I need to put resources?

186. 0:46:40

     So it may be a thing, 'cause there's times I've had officers, SOAR officers talk to me about how they will sit in a cul-de-sac, 'cause they know that that offender travels across the yard and looks at kids and watches kids and that kind of thing, and he's a predator that we've identified. Then there's an individual who stays in his home and goes to his family's houses and molests his kids, but there's nothing he can do to monitor or surveil that. So those things are really critical elements. So it's not an issue of we absolutely wanna protect children, but that's what we're talking about, is that if you make them all the same with the same amount of supervision, it's gonna be minimal, 'cause there's just not enough.

187. 0:47:13

     If you make it all the same, it actually increases the risk to children, not decreases the risk.

188. 0:47:18

     The, w- when you have one of these ankle monitors on, I assume there's like a platform you can go to and, and track the, um, location or ...

189. 0:47:27

     So yeah, so I think there's two difference. There's real time location, and then there's delayed time location. I don't really run the GPS. I'm not exactly sure how that looks. Um, but they typically can tell where the individual's going. And usually, of course, what we're looking at is the GPS has two purposes. One, it can deter. Um, it's more likely to deter people who are traveling, and people can see what they're doing. And then also if somebody's committed a re-offense, which we've seen many of those, and then identifying that offender as being the one who committed that offense, such as 'cause he's traveling.

190. 0:47:57

     So for example, we had a, um, individual who's a predator, and he, um, went to windows of children, and he exposed himself, and so they knew it was him because of the GPS monitor, for example.

191. 0:48:07

     Mm-hmm. So i- if, I guess then the qu- then the concern is that, uh, uh, what, what are the officers called that over- oversees those?

192. 0:48:18

     The DCS officers.

193. 0:48:19

     All right. So the DCS officer then, um, would then have a confusion as to whether or not this person is a likely to re-offend and, and this person is not likely to re-offend. Is that what I'm understanding?

194. 0:48:33

     There, there, there's no not likely to re-offend. There's less likely to re-offend than this one. So when we look in i- 90, there's an example in your binder of two very, very different type of offenders, and it gives you an example. So for example, a DCS officer might have 50 sex offenders.

195. 0:48:48

     Mm-hmm.

196. 0:48:49

     And they have to see them all in one month. And so can you imagine seeing all 50 in the exact same way, looking at their house, looking in their house, searching their phones, um, following them to see what they're doing, talking to relatives, ta- all that with 50? That'd be really, really difficult for them. So what's gonna happen is that this go- they're gonna be s- um, so thin in their ability to do what they need to do that this guy who has 20 victims is not gonna be monitored the same as the one that has one victim. And I'm not minimizing, 'cause again, they all need to be prosecuted at the utmost possibility.

197. 0:49:24

     The issue is that we know this guy who travels to get victims needs to be monitored differently than this guy who, who victimizes in the home.

198. 0:49:34

     Well, won't you still know that?

199. 0:49:36

     Um-

200. 0:49:37

     I mean, the officer's gonna know if he got 20 victims versus one victim, right?

201. 0:49:40

     Yes, but they're all predators.

202. 0:49:42

     Well, they're all predators right now.

203. 0:49:43

     No they're not.

204. 0:49:44

     They're not all predators?

205. 0:49:45

     No. One, twos are predators. So there's three, there's level one, level two, and sexually dangerous predator.

206. 0:49:52

     Okay. So it's not predatory in nature. There is a scenario, what you're saying, is where you can molest a child under 12 and not be a predator. Is that what you're saying?

207. 0:50:00

     Yes.

208. 0:50:01

     Well, give me that scenario real quick.

209. 0:50:03

     So if you have an individual who has, let's say the victim is 11 years old, it's his daughter, and he's molested that child. And again, hopefully he does a very long time in prison. He gets out. Um, he has a good family. He has monitoring. He's not around any children. He-

210. 0:50:20

     What kind of monitoring does he have?

211. 0:50:21

     From probation, essentially.

212. 0:50:23

     But not ankle monitoring.

213. 0:50:24

     Correct.

214. 0:50:25

     But also polygraphs.

215. 0:50:26

     Polygraph.

216. 0:50:27

     They, while they're on the supervision, they usually get a polygraph either every six months or once a year, depending on how far along they are.

217. 0:50:34

     Okay.

218. 0:50:35

     Specialized sex offender treatment, so we have a lot of people who are overseeing this individuals to ensure the safety of the community.

219. 0:50:43

     Okay.

220. 0:50:43

     Versus the individual who has multiple paraphilias, multiple victims, are travelers for their sex offense, who molest neighbors, who molest their children's friends, who molest family members, who molest strangers. I had a client who molested children in the Walmart bathroom. He needs a very different monitoring than the guy who's in his house. Um, in his house, hopefully DS, DCS is, he's not allowed to be around children in his house or around family members or other children in that capacity.

221. 0:51:14

     Um, but going into Walmart's a l- little different in how, well, a lot different in how they're gonna have to monitor them.

222. 0:51:20

     Uh, so, i- i- the, will the, um, overseeing officer know the case and know the facts of the case for each one of these folks?

223. 0:51:29

     So yes, I would hope so.

224. 0:51:31

     So they'll know the number of, of victims.

225. 0:51:34

     If they request our report, yes.

226. 0:51:36

     All right. And then there'll be a platform, I assume, that can track past, um, locations. So how, how do they monitor that, on a daily basis or what do they, you know, how does that work?

227. 0:51:49

     Are you talking about the GPS?

228. 0:51:50

     Yeah.

229. 0:51:52

     Um, I'm not exactly sure how they monitor that. I'm sure that they get certain n- I know when they get notifications 'cause the person's outside of maybe a range that they're supposed to be in, then they would get notified, so they'd immediately address that or if they find that they're tampering or something like that. But as to whether they look at it every single day, I-

230. 0:52:08

     So if it's the father and he gets out of prison, then they put a barrier around, I guess, where the child and, and the mother is, and then if he goes in that barrier, then ...

231. 0:52:19

     That'd be only if he was a predator. Then he, he wouldn't have a monitor on his ankle unless he's designated as a predator. So they would not be monitoring that. What they would be monitoring-

232. 0:52:29

     So currently if the father molests the daughter in the house, goes to prison, comes out, then he can go back to the house without monitoring?

233. 0:52:36

     Well, I would hope that the rule is he can't be around his daughter Um, typically the conditions are, the special sex offender conditions is they cannot have contact with any children under the age of 18. And then those individuals are in sex offender therapy, and they're also taking polygraph examinations at least every six months. And so then they're questioned if they're having contact with children. If they have contact with children, there's an indication that they have contact with children or other factors that relate to risk, then they go back for revocation.

234. 0:53:02

     Every six months, do they m- still check in monthly with their officers?

235. 0:53:06

     At least once a month. Mm-hmm.

236. 0:53:08

     Okay. Thank you.

237. 0:53:10

     Chairman Silcox.

238. 0:53:12

     So it's my understanding that SORB is a volunteer board.

239. 0:53:16

     The board is, yes.

240. 0:53:17

     And that all these volunteers, they're listed, you know, in our book here, um, that they are all experts of some kind with sexual molestation and sexual conduct in general, right?

241. 0:53:30

     They are.

242. 0:53:31

     Okay.

243. 0:53:31

     And they're the ones who make the final determination.

244. 0:53:34

     Mm-hmm.

245. 0:53:34

     The governor appoints-

246. 0:53:36

     Mm-hmm

247. 0:53:36

     ... these board members. Um, and it is in your booklet, but I think it is important to point out, and I appreciate you identifying that because they make the final decision. They're very strong. We-

248. 0:53:48

     So c- they classify, they do the classification of these.

249. 0:53:51

     They do.

250. 0:53:51

     Okay. And so if this was enacted the way that it is presented ri- right now, it would collapse those categories, is what you're saying.

251. 0:54:00

     Yes.

252. 0:54:00

     And if those were collapsed, then people that were worse offenses, uh, were worse offenders, everyone would get the same amount of resources-

253. 0:54:10

     Yes

254. 0:54:10

     ... is what you're saying.

255. 0:54:11

     That's correct.

256. 0:54:12

     Um, and I was reading here, it says that y'all include, um, on SORB psychological evaluations, sexual history, polygraph information, treatment history, personal, social, educational and work history, criminal history and court records, right?

257. 0:54:26

     Yes.

258. 0:54:27

     Which is pretty comprehensive.

259. 0:54:28

     Yes.

260. 0:54:29

     And there's, so there's kind of a delicate balance here, is what you're saying.

261. 0:54:33

     There is.

262. 0:54:33

     That you're trying to put more resources currently into the people that are more likely to offend quicker based on their history, and still monitoring the other offenders that still need to, that still need the monitoring, but just to a lesser degree.

263. 0:54:51

     Absolutely. Yes.

264. 0:54:52

     Thank you.

265. 0:54:53

     Thank you.

266. 0:54:55

     Representative Holly.

267. 0:54:57

     Mr. Chairman. Thank you for appearing before us again and providing us with these manuals. Um, because of the, I guess the timeliness of the year, being it's an election year, and, um, and you understand that you're surrounded by people who were elected and have to find a way to explain, uh, our positions to our constituents with regards to, um, even any type of, um, program that would release people who have, or at least will have a trial to determine whether they are a danger to society.

268. 0:55:34

     Um, I was looking at the red section, um, that you placed for the coding, and, you know, while I see that the desire is to, I guess, is, is achieved that, that zero balance, whether it's, I guess, where they're, they're not a threat, um, through the program, I was curious as to in what way would you, uh, a- or have you ever been able to, uh, judge a, um, factor in a w- a, a, a winning scenario, you know?

269. 0:56:08

     Because I think from what I'm... The, the kind of the persistence that we're hearing from, um, uh, uh, Representative Burchett is, is that in our eyes, um, if someone does something that's so heinous and dangerous, uh, to a minor or somebody who, who did not give them consent, then, you know, we're looking at, okay, well, if this person has kinda proven in some type of way they're an animal, or at least that they don't have a very depraved indifference, um, to other people's safety, then how does that, how does that risk, if you shorten it, um, how are we able to better explain that to the public that, um, somebody who molests a girl under the age of 12, um, internally within their family, based on when they're inside of this program, of that that will then reduce their risk, um, to not going and, and, you know, have a similar incident with anybody else in the community.

270. 0:57:12

     Like, is there some way that you've been able to proven that, hey, if this is implemented, then they're less likely to do those crimes in a way that can be sh- can be shown?

271. 0:57:22

     So, um, I think that there, there's no such thing as no risk. So I think one of the most important things is that, again, families should always protect their children in the same way, regardless of classification. I don't care if they're one, two, three, none, whatever. They should... And I have periodically, I have, is, is individuals, and it's rare, but they will email me from the families, they're worried about their neighbor, they're worried about the stepfather, they're worried about whatever, and I share with them the information that they need to know. But I also reinforce the fact that they really, it doesn't matter.

272. 0:57:56

     They need to absolutely protect them away from anybody who's a sex offender, regardless of their risk. Because we don't know 100% as to what the risk is. We know the best that we can know to help in the best way that we can. And so when we look at the term predator, I think the view is, is that they're preying on numerous children, and they're out there. I think the terminology is part of the issue. So is the, did the in- did the individual prey on his daughter or prey on his niece or prey on his nephew?

273. 0:58:26

     Absolutely. Um, are they going to prey on numerous children? We don't know without a true risk assessment.

274. 0:58:33

     Mm.

275. 0:58:34

     I don't know if that helps you.

276. 0:58:35

     I mean, I, I think you're d- you're doing the, the best that you can at... Like I say, it's, it's- ... it's rough because you're looking, okay, well, you're, you're judging likelihoods. It almost reminds me of, uh, that Tom Cruise movie of, you know, Minority Report, where you're trying to judge in the future whether or not they're actually gonna commit. And it's tough, um, I think that it's, it also- And again, good work. I think it may be a tough sell for, um, public servants running for reelection to say, "Hey, you know, we put this particular type of sexual predator within this category, but they're probably not like this one," and having to be able to make the case that, you know, there's some type of uniform system that can judge the level of severity, um, based upon each one.

277. 0:59:22

     But I think you're doing it, you know... You, you... I, I definitely respect your work.

278. 0:59:26

     Thank you. And I think we do underestimate people to think that, uh, think, people think they're all exactly the same in every kind of way, because that, you know, I think people know that they're not.

279. 0:59:37

     And I think that's very important. You were asking about the win, right? The accuracy of classification is the win. Since 2000, Oota and Andrews published the Risk-Need-Responsivity principle, and I'm not gonna go into it, but basically it says those that are higher risk need more intensive intervention. Those that are lower risk need less intensity. And when pr- sex offender treatment programs apply that principle, the ones that stick to it closely are more effective.

280. 1:00:10

     They have a better outcome. Those that don't, worse. And there is some research in general offenders that treating somebody who's low risk as if they were high risk can make them worse, right? The idea is if I treat you like a criminal, eventually you're gonna meet my expectation.

281. 1:00:27

     Mm-hmm.

282. 1:00:27

     So the accuracy is what protects the community.

283. 1:00:32

     Representative Cheokas.

284. 1:00:35

     So level one and level two are predators?

285. 1:00:39

     No, SDP is predator. Currently, sexually dangerous predator is SDP. Level two is moderate risk and level one is low risk.

286. 1:00:46

     Level one's low risk. Has a level one ever r- re-committed the crime?

287. 1:00:52

     Oh, I'm sure they have, yes.

288. 1:00:53

     Thank you.

289. 1:00:56

     Chairman Silcox.

290. 1:00:58

     I was just thinking about out-of-state offenders, um, and I was just curious, is it also true that you guys, um, interpret, because different states treat sexual offenses differently, so that y'all also as a board interpret these cases, these out-of-state cases to adapt to our levels in Georgia?

291. 1:01:19

     Yeah, so and I'm not quite sure how that will work i- if this was to pass, where they would fall when they come into Georgia. Because, so for example, I did give an example at the back of your report, and this is an individual. I just printed this one because it gives three different states with three different terminologies. Um, this guy obviously is a predator, but he committed an offense of, um, in Virginia, and the term was child abuse. The one in Florida was lewd and lascivious, and then South Carolina is lewd act, but was r- reduced down to criminal sexual contact with a minor.

292. 1:01:53

     So the terms are really different, so I'm not how, sure how that would work. But we, we don't go by terminology when we do determine risk, so it doesn't matter. If they commit a registrable offense, we're classifying them based on their behavior, not on what the name of the offense is.

293. 1:02:09

     So I guess I'm just saying that's another important function of SORB-

294. 1:02:13

     Yes

295. 1:02:13

     ... is to kind of translate when you have an out-of-state case, look objectively case by case again-

296. 1:02:19

     Yes

297. 1:02:19

     ... at each person.

298. 1:02:20

     Yes. Thank you.

299. 1:02:21

     Thank you.

300. 1:02:22

     Okay. It's come to the chair's attention that, uh, there may be some information concerning one of the President of the United States executive orders, uh, on ending crime and disorder on American streets, and it compelled federal departments to assess a discretionary grant program or discretionary grant programs, uh, to see whether priority may be given to states that comply with and implement the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration Notification Act, otherwise known as SORNA.

301. 1:02:56

     Uh, is it y'all's opinion that we're in non-compliance right now with SORNA?

302. 1:03:02

     We're in partial compliance, and it's my understanding that we're not in full compliance because it costs more than it's worth.

303. 1:03:08

     Okay. A- a- and forgive me, partial compliance is not full compliance, so I mean, one could assume that we're in non-compliance because we're not in full compliance. Would that be a fair statement?

304. 1:03:21

     I mean, SORNA says we're in partial compliance, so I don't I guess depends on how you-

305. 1:03:25

     Okay

306. 1:03:25

     ... So we're not in full compliance, correct.

307. 1:03:27

     All right. And so how many hundreds of thousands of dollars would you estimate we're losing out on because we're not in full compliance?

308. 1:03:36

     I don't know. That decision was made many, many years ago.

309. 1:03:39

     Okay. All right. And so that money right now, since we're not in full compliance, could be going to Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee instead of us.

310. 1:03:51

     So I- I'm not sure how it's allocated, but I know that it's the same issue, that they're classified based on name of the offense, which means nothing about risk.

311. 1:04:02

     Okay. Thank you. See no other questions. Thank y'all again for your time.

312. 1:04:08

     Thank you.

313. 1:04:08

     Thank you.

314. 1:04:08

     Senator, I'm gonna give you the final word.

315. 1:04:15

     Mr. Chairman, can you put on the mic?

316. 1:04:27

     What a terrible way to start your morning, talking about this, you know, really tragic sort of problem that we have, uh, in our society. I'm gonna keep this brief. Um, I'm hearing two arguments from the Sexual Offender Review Board. One is that in some ways the list contained in section three is too lenient. It does not in any way prevent them from classifying somebody higher or somebody that hasn't committed these offenses as a level two

317. 1:05:05

     or as a sexually dangerous predator.

318. 1:05:10

     The other is that it's too harsh, that you're forcing us to call somebody a sexually dangerous predator for having convicted these offenses. Well, my goodness, I'm glad I'm bringing this bill now. If that board that's in charge of classifying these people does not think that you're a sexual dangerous predator when you have committed aggravated assault with the intent to rape, when you've kidnapped a child less than 14 that is not your own child, when you're doing sex trafficking, when you rape, aggravated sodomy, and aggravated child molestation, if those offenses don't deem you a sexually dangerous predator, this board isn't doing their job, and we need to, to look into this.

319. 1:05:52

     These are no-brainers. These are vicious animal pred- just predators in, in every sense of the word, and that's who we want to be closely supervised and monitored. The level two, which currently is 55 to 60% of the sexual offenders, what are we gonna make more people have to do it because we're saying anybody that molests a child less than 12 ought to be at least level two?

320. 1:06:22

     Anybody that entices a child less than 12 for indecent purposes, incest, sexual exploitation of children, if those c- offenses do not re- get you on level two, then we need to fire this board and start all over again. These are minimums, and I don't understand how they want to consider other factors. The factor of those offenses, which might have been negotiated or pled down from a more serious offense to begin with, we have to watch these people.

321. 1:06:56

     We're allowing them out of jail, potentially near our children or near future victims. They need to be classified as dangerous as they are. And if there are other factors about plea bargains or whatever, repeat behavior that wasn't criminal, then they should take those into account and move them up to a level two, and I hope they'll be doing their job in doing that. And I hate it that we may have to, uh, supervise or monitor or, or track these people. If we have them in our society, they are committing the offenses, then by golly, let's keep our eyes on them and keep them away from our children.

322. 1:07:33

     These seem to me to be very minimum standards to move somebody up to a level two or call you a sexually dangerous predator. So I, I, it's, I, I honestly am almost nauseated thinking about the whole subject matter when we see how much of this is going on, but I would ask for favorable consideration. It sounds like there's a commitment from the senator that, uh, if this were to pass, there'd be a line item in the budget to increase for community supervision. Everything I can do. Yeah. Yeah, I'm not gonna blame, refuse to pass this bill because it's gonna cost us money to protect our children.

323. 1:08:09

     I thought my aged ears heard that, so thank you. All right. Uh, committee, thank y'all. We've talked on this one for a while with at least two, if not three committee meetings, so what say the committee? Motion to pass. Got a move do pass. Second. Second. Uh, any amendments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the passage of LC 4- 64-0104s, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, same sign.

324. 1:08:40

     Congratulations, you're on. Yeah. All right, who knows? Thank you. Uh, you're on the rules, Mr. Chairman. If you get me the form, I'll sign. Thank you. Employment is offered to carry this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. The chairman, due to one kidney functioning at 70% and the other at 30%, needs to take a restroom break, so we're gonna take 10 minutes, and we'll be back.

325. 1:18:54

     Okay, we'll come back to order. We'll come back to order. All right. I spoke with, uh, Senator Hatchett, and, uh, chair, after much, uh, consideration and deliberation, has asked him to rework that. Chairman Brad Thomas has a great piece of legislation that we've sent over to the Senate three times, uh, or for three sessions, I think I should qualify. So he's gonna rework that, and we'll put Senator Hatchett's bill back on for Thursday's meeting.

326. 1:19:31

     Uh, right now, members, we've had Senate Bill 163 in the belly of the committee for two sessions now, and the substance of that bill was already passed late last session. So you'll see an amendment or, uh, what's titled LC 590459S in your folders, and I'm going to offer that as a committee substitute to Senate Bill 163, which we will strip entirely, including the title, and substitute what you see before you in LC 590459S.

327. 1:20:11

     This was the discovery bill that this committee passed out before crossover day, and just wanted to, uh, make sure I went over these changes for clarity for the committee. Uh, we used uniformity in the use of state and prosecuting attorney, and, uh, we've replaced line 18 with the following, with this language, "Shall in all cases be sufficient, and the state prosecuting attorney shall mail or email a copy of the, of an indictment filed."

328. 1:20:42

     I believe that was at the request of the clerks. And then there's clarity in the language noted by the Superior Court judges in line 43, which was replaced with the following: "Defendant may l- ha- may have leave to file additional motions based upon the items disclosed in the..." And we have replaced in lines 106 through 108 with the following: "This article shall only apply to misdemeanor cases in city municipal recorders probate in any other court wherein a jury cannot be empaneled when the state or prosecuting attorney and the defendant agree in writing that this article shall apply.

329. 1:21:24

     Without such written agreement, pursuant to Code Section 17-16-20, Article 2 shall apply." And then in line 74, we've replaced with the following: "Investigation of the laboratory where the evidence is being held. Nothing in this subparagraph shall allow for materials to be copied of subparagraph B of this paragraph only allows for inspection."

330. 1:21:55

     Which line was that, Mr. Chairman?

331. 1:21:57

     Uh.

332. 1:21:58

     4070?

333. 1:21:58

     That would have been line 174.

334. 1:22:01

     174.

335. 1:22:02

     Uh-huh.

336. 1:22:11

     What was the change then?

337. 1:22:13

     Uh, this was... We added, "Nothing in this par- subparagraph shall allow for materials to be copied if subparagraph B of this paragraph only allows for inspection." And this was a change that r- uh, Chairman Gullett had noted for us.

338. 1:22:32

     Is that what was added, or was that-

339. 1:22:34

     That was what was added. Yes, sir.

340. 1:22:35

     That doesn't seem to be what's there right now.

341. 1:22:39

     Excuse me. That was 177. I apologize. My numbering was off on that.

342. 1:22:47

     But still what you were reading is not something

343. 1:22:52

     Ex- excuse me. But I'll retract that. What you see added there, it would be, "No provision of this subparagraph shall be construed to allow for the printing or copying of materials only permitted to be inspected under subparagraph B of this paragraph."

344. 1:23:07

     Which is what you were reading, what formerly was there.

345. 1:23:10

     Yes. Yes. And then we have in, uh, section eight...

346. 1:23:31

     Mm-hmm. Yes, sir.

347. 1:23:43

     All right. We have added, uh, a new section eight.

348. 1:24:02

     Section five.

349. 1:24:03

     Oh, excuse me. I'm sorry. Section five.

350. 1:24:09

     Okay. And this is, uh, something we've worked out with the Sheriff's Association, uh, due to service upon officers, law enforcement officers. And you'll see the changes to Code Section 21-2-22- 225.1.

351. 1:24:33

     And you'll see there's se- section A, uh, where any registered elector in this state may request that the Board of Registrars of such elector's county or resident make the elector's resident address confidential when such elector... And you'll note the changes there. Uh, the substance of what we did to try to meet the Sheriff's Association's concerns, you'll see in lines 526 through 530 on page 21.

352. 1:25:12

     You'll note that it says, "As a law enforcement officer, in which case such affidavit shall be accompanied either by a copy of such elector's Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council certification confirming active status or by written documentation from the law enforcement agency employing such elector verifying that such elector is currently employed as a law enforcement officer at such agency."

353. 1:25:52

     And I'll invite, uh, GAC Gullett to explain more of the substance of these changes.

354. 1:26:11

     There's his favorite chair.

355. 1:26:19

     Hi, everyone. Uh, my name is Brian Hines with GACDL. Uh, Sarah Stewart with GACDL as well. So just to get to the section five real quick, just to give a little clarity, this was something we'd actually talked about with some of our law enforcement friends, 'cause I think we can all appreciate in the criminal justice process all, all different phases matter. Prosecutors, defense counsel, and law enforcement officers, you know, doing the work every day. And one of the things from some conversations with actually some, uh, local APD officers, I'd heard that- People were getting doxxed through their election records because it's all public right now.

356. 1:26:54

     So there's actually, the Secretary of State has a vo- what they call Vote Safe program, and I think there's a provision that applies to judges currently as well. But this stat- code section right here actually deals with domestic violence victims. So what we tried to do was actually give them a mechanism so where they can go apply to essentially have their election records, uh, made confidential so that their personal home address isn't available. And the benefit of this is there's actually a property tax, um, code section as well, and I believe that's in 50-1878 if I c- recall correctly.

357. 1:27:28

     So there's already an analog for property records. I think this is just kind of also shoring it up for them with the election records too, because I think, again, they put their lives on the line, which was kind of a way where we thought we could provide some compromise, because we are putting a little bit of a burden on the sheriffs with the subpoena process, but we think that also makes the, the system run a lot more efficiently too. So it's kind of a give and take.

358. 1:27:50

     Um, a- and I would say that the intent is not to put any burden on the sheriffs. It's actually, as we've discussed before, to do away with the problem that right now the way that we have to serve them is to track them down personally. Um, and by this we think fits very well with that goal in just ensuring that, um, y- you know, i- if you can't find somebody, you go to the election re- records and kind of try to ambush them that way. That's not the intent at all. It's, it's to formalize the process, make it efficient, make it safer, um, and easier for everybody.

359. 1:28:24

     So where is that happening, Chairman? Does this section just have to do with the ability to go onto the property, have their address, but not named? Is there also a provision that allows for serving-

360. 1:28:36

     There is. If you go back up, and Brian might have to give you the line numbers 'cause I'm a little bit more in the practical side than in the line by line right now. Um, but what we do is we change the requirement for our service now, um-

361. 1:28:49

     Section seven

362. 1:28:49

     ... Section seven of, of the bill, Representative. And instead of us having to personally serve the individual officer, it changes it so that the agency would designate an individual for service at that agency so that, um... Because what's happening right now is that we basically in discovery, I get a witness list with all the officers on it, but typically, um, the address that I'm given for that officer is the address of the agency. But I can't serve them there because I go to serve them and the agency says, "That officer's not here.

363. 1:29:20

     He's out on duty. He's at home." So then I have to h- either myself sometimes, or if I have the funds from the client, hire an investigator to go track this officer down personally, either get him at shift change, jump on him, and we don't like that, and we don't think the officers like that either. We certainly don't think it's efficient either. Oftentimes we will have not been able to serve them and have to go back to the court and say, "Judge, we can't get this officer yet." Um, we just wanna make that a little bit smoother and we think safer across the board.

364. 1:29:48

     And you mentioned providing you can serve Deputy Stevens by taking it to the designated officer-

365. 1:29:52

     Yes

366. 1:29:52

     ... for the suit to serve.

367. 1:29:53

     Exactly.

368. 1:29:55

     Okay.

369. 1:29:55

     Representative Roberts.

370. 1:29:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the elector being removed completely from voter records or just their address?

371. 1:30:02

     I believe it's just their address. Brian, is that correct?

372. 1:30:04

     I'm gonna verify real quick, but I believe that's, I believe it is just the address.

373. 1:30:08

     And so if it's an officer that-

374. 1:30:11

     Yeah.

375. 1:30:11

     It's... Okay.

376. 1:30:12

     Yeah.

377. 1:30:12

     Uh, I guess I always look for unintended consequences. This is, I'm not opposed to it. Um-

378. 1:30:17

     It's 505 to 507.

379. 1:30:19

     Okay. Um, if, I mean, sheriffs are elected, right?

380. 1:30:26

     Mm-hmm.

381. 1:30:26

     And so is there a way for someone to, i- if we make residency challenges pretty regularly in elections, I'm just curious how you would be able to raise that issue with a potential candidate.

382. 1:30:42

     I'd have to... I don't know that answer off the top of my head, at least as far as the sheriffs themselves. I mean, this was against, obviously try to apply to anyone who is post certified, so not just the sheriffs per se. Um, but I do appreciate where you're coming from. I can get you an answer on that.

383. 1:30:53

     I'm just thinking of the elected. Yeah. Thank you.

384. 1:30:58

     Okay.

385. 1:30:58

     Thank y'all for the clarification. All right. Members, uh, you see this, uh, before you. Uh, what's the will of the committee?

386. 1:31:07

     Motion to do pass.

387. 1:31:08

     Uh, move to do pass. Do I have a second? All right, move to do pass is second. Any amendments? Seeing none. All those in favor of the passage of LC590459S as a committee substitute to SB163 say aye.

388. 1:31:23

     Aye.

389. 1:31:23

     All those opposed, same sign. All right, it's on. Thank you. We are adjourned.