House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 24, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:24:41

   Good morning, everybody. We're gonna go ahead and get started. Um, we have a handful of people in here now. So while we got enough members to, uh, have a quorum, we're gonna try to get started here on some of these bills. So thank you all for being here. Um, it is the fun time of the year when we've got, uh, everybody's going in different directions all the time. So we'll, uh, try to get through these the best we can. Uh, but since we're definitely gonna need it, I'm gonna ask Chairman Petrie if he'll open us up in a word of prayer. Chairman Petrie.

2. 0:25:12

   Thank you, Chairman. Let us pray. Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day, this opportunity to be together. We ask that you would bless us and give us wisdom and judgment to make best decisions for the people of Georgia, particularly as it relates to public safety, one of the fundamentals of government. Thank you for all your many blessings. Please continue to bless this state and this great country. In the name of our beloved savior, Jesus Christ, amen.

3. 0:25:37

   Thank you very much. All right, we're gonna jump around a little bit. We got some of these, uh, are still being worked on a little bit. But, uh, we're gonna start with Senate Bill 527. Whip Robertson.

4. 0:26:01

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, committee.

5. 0:26:06

   We're,

6. 0:26:10

   uh, looking at Senate Bill 527, LC63-0109. This is a bill we've discussed before. It is, uh, the qualifications required to run for sheriff. Committee, back in the early 1980s, I, um, I went to the police academy and graduated, and upon graduation, after a few weeks, I received a manila envelope in the mail, and in that manila envelope was a certificate saying I had graduated from the police academy. And there was also a card in there from the Secretary of State's office, and it was signed by, uh, Secretary of State Max Cleland.

7. 0:26:46

   And it was my license basically to be a law enforcement officer, a POST certified law enforcement officer here in Georgia. And even though the Muscogee County Sheriff's Office sponsored me through the police academy, I could take that license and I could go to any law enforcement agency in the state of Georgia, and if they wanted to hire me, they could hire me to immediately go to work because I had a license to be a law enforcement officer in Georgia. Muscogee County Sheriff's Office did not own that license. That license belonged to me. And all we're doing here is, uh, we're asking that individuals who run, who wanna run for sheriff be held to a standard similar to that by a district attorney or anybody else.

8. 0:27:25

   They have to be licensed to run for that position. They have to show that they're qualified to run for that positions, that position. Now, the bill got changed some last year, and some other things got placed into it about prior military and federal agents and things of this nature. Those individuals can bring their experiences forward. They can bring their resume, and they can present it to POST council, and they can be granted at times an abbreviated police academy based on their experience and their licensing that they have, whether they were an FBI agent, whether they were an MP, or anything of- of- of that nature, or whether they were a law enforcement officer outside of the state of Georgia.

9. 0:28:08

   If I were to take my license and go down to Florida and present my license, I would probably go to their police academy, which may be six months long, but I may only have to go a month and a half just to learn Florida's traffic laws or something of that nature. And so then I would graduate and be a full-fledged, POST certified law enforcement officer in the state of Florida. We do the same thing here in Georgia. So I feel the safest and the cleanest way to do this, those individuals who choose to run for sheriff here in Georgia that would become the chief law enforcement officer in said county, that we require them to have that license to come in there, qualify for that office, run for it, and assume that office on day one with- with credentials equal to or better than the men and women that they'll be responsible for.

10. 0:28:53

    I think from a liability standpoint, it helps us, and also with the temperature that we see in law enforcement today, where we're so concerned about training, we're concerned about professionalism and things of this nature, then we continue to push that type of, um, responsibility and credentialing in the sheriff's office and keep it there so that we have professional sheriffs. Because I promise you, if you show me bad deputy sheriffs, I will show you a bad sheriff. If you show me bad police officers, I will show you a bad chief.

11. 0:29:25

    It takes a professional leader at the top to run a professional law enforcement agency. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to answer any questions. All this bill does is require that anybody that wants to run for sheriff in the state of Georgia be POST certified.

12. 0:29:41

    Okay, thank you. I don't have any questions it looks like so far. Oh, every time I say that.

13. 0:29:48

    Yes, sir, I notice that.

14. 0:29:51

    All right. Representative Miles.

15. 0:29:53

    Good morning.

16. 0:29:54

    Good morning, sir.

17. 0:29:58

    It should be on, yeah.

18. 0:30:00

    Thank you. I- I only want to ask a question about your actions. You're saying that before you even run for it, you need to be qualified before you run for it.

19. 0:30:09

    Yes, sir. To go and qualify to run for the office of sheriff, that you have to be POST certified.

20. 0:30:15

    All right. H- Representative Miles, I don't know if that mic's working or not. Try Representative Holcomb's next door or-

21. 0:30:20

    Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.

22. 0:30:22

    There it is. Now there it is.

23. 0:30:22

    Okay. I know in the past there- there are other several-

24. 0:30:25

    ... other positions where people have get elected and then they have a certain amount of time to get qualified to that position. But you're saying that they, we, before you even get ready to run, they need to be, go to an academy and be qualified in some kind of way.

25. 0:30:38

    Yes, sir. That's what I'm saying. In, in years past, we have allowed, uh, individuals wanting to run for sheriff to run for sheriff, get elected, then go to the academy, and we've had, uh, several times where those individuals have failed the academy. Um, the police academy is, is not a continuing education type program. It is very rigorous. Um, I remember my first day there, I was handed two ring binder notebooks because, you know, computers weren't, weren't a big thing. My hair was blonde back then.

26. 0:31:08

    Um, and these ring binders were probably 10 inches thick each, and it was Georgia law, it was federal law, and others, and I was tested on that weekly. It is a very intensive program, and then there are the skills that come along with it, the emergency vehicle operation comes along with it, the weapons qualifications comes along with it, the de-escalation and verbal judo come along with it, and then the physical aspect of it, where every morning there's PT, and it's not... It's, it's very rigorous.

27. 0:31:39

    So-

28. 0:31:39

    And so, and which is why today at 63, I would probably not do as well as I did at 22.

29. 0:31:45

    Thank, thank, I, I-

30. 0:31:46

    Yes, sir

31. 0:31:46

    ... I, and I appreciate the, all of the qualifications-

32. 0:31:49

    Yes, sir

33. 0:31:50

    ... of, of a police officer, and I fully, uh, uh, uh, concur with you that they need to have all those qualifications.

34. 0:31:55

    Yes, sir.

35. 0:31:56

    I, I was in the military, so I need, they need to go-

36. 0:31:58

    Exactly

37. 0:31:58

    ... they need to go learn something-

38. 0:31:59

    Exactly

39. 0:31:59

    ... about something. Okay?

40. 0:32:00

    Yes, sir.

41. 0:32:00

    But I just wanted to, uh, look at people who are, you know, in a lot of small towns, people decide to run for sheriff, they have no, haven't even thought about going to a police academy. You know, and going through all that training without having thoughts of running for office. And a lot of time, opening and offices come up, and candidates want to run for those offices, and they had no idea that they were going to be running for sheriff. But they were good people that, uh, wanted to... Somebody had to fill in, especially in small towns and so forth. You don't have a lot of qualified officers around that might want to run for sheriff.

42. 0:32:34

    So with this law, when we pass this, that mean that a lot of those people won't be even able to run for sheriff and then get qualified later and go through these changes to become qualified if we pass this. Is this what we're saying?

43. 0:32:47

    Yeah. Well, what I'm saying also is we have a lot of, uh, well-qualified Georgia state troopers who retire and run for sh- sheriff, a lot of, uh, GBI agents that retire and run for sheriff.

44. 0:32:58

    Yeah.

45. 0:32:58

    And a lot of law enforcement, a lot of deputies in those counties, when that position comes open, they themselves will run for it, and many times those are the best candidates, individuals from within the department that want to run for it. Um, but we do the same thing with judges. There's a lot of people that really want to be a part of the criminal justice system and, but because of the fact they don't have a law degree or because of the fact they don't have other required certifications, they cannot run for those offices.

46. 0:33:26

    And, and I appreciate that, but I do know that other positions, like if you want to run for commissioner, you're not, you're not, you're not, you're not a commissioner. You get a chance to go to school after you're elected, and a lot of other, uh, people get, get, get a chance to be qualified for those positions, certified for those positions, shall I say, after they get elected.

47. 0:33:43

    Yes, sir.

48. 0:33:43

    And I just don't want to s- we- we're sitting here trying to, we- we're trying to tell people, especially in small towns, that, you know, guy running for sheriff, he may be a farmer out there, and he just might be a guy that, you know, that want to run for sheriff because nobody else is running for sheriff. But then he's got to go get... He won't be able to run after we pass this law unless he get qualified. He got to be pre-qualified in some kind of way, and I'm not taking away from the people that are qualified to run, and I appreciate those people.

49. 0:34:10

    Yes, sir.

50. 0:34:11

    But I'm just concerned about those people in different towns and areas who want to run for sheriff, and they have never been any, a police officer in any kind of way. Maybe they have been working as a clerk someplace, or they worked, uh... Maybe they did work in law enforcement.

51. 0:34:24

    Rep- Representative Miles.

52. 0:34:25

    Sir.

53. 0:34:25

    I, I appreciate the length of your question-

54. 0:34:27

    I, I, thank you

55. 0:34:27

    ... and the discussion, but-

56. 0:34:29

    I, I, I-

57. 0:34:29

    ... every other light on this board is flashing right now.

58. 0:34:31

    That is absolutely fine.

59. 0:34:31

    So we're gonna give somebody else a chance.

60. 0:34:32

    Okay.

61. 0:34:32

    So thank you very much.

62. 0:34:34

    I thank you. I appreciate it.

63. 0:34:35

    Thank you. And I appreciate and respect that, sir. Yes, sir.

64. 0:34:36

    Um, Chairman Petrie.

65. 0:34:38

    Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Senator, uh, to the, to the point that's just been raised, so, um, uh, a sheriff's, uh, job is largely administrative, particularly in a larger county. You're managing a jail, takes l- you, so you need leadership, you need to be an administrator, correct?

66. 0:34:53

    Yes, sir.

67. 0:34:54

    So, so to my question, if I'm someone who's respecting the community, I'm a great administrator, maybe I'm a businessman who, who knows how to lead, knows how to manage people, has the skills that one needs to be a sheriff on that side, c- can, can that person choose to go and get the training they need to become a law enforcement officer in order to run? Can they personally attend the academy to become qualified so that they can then qualify for sheriff?

68. 0:35:25

    Is that not true?

69. 0:35:26

    Y- yes, sir. That is true. They can-

70. 0:35:27

    So that should solve the, this issue that's just been discussed. Shouldn't that-

71. 0:35:30

    Yeah

72. 0:35:30

    ... that would allow someone like that who hasn't been in law enforcement that same path, correct?

73. 0:35:35

    Yes, sir. There's a pre-service, uh, program that many can sign up for and go to the police academy not sponsored by an agency and attend, and most of our universities have that program and some of our tech schools.

74. 0:35:46

    And any Georgian would have that opportunity?

75. 0:35:48

    Absolutely.

76. 0:35:48

    Thank you. Thank you.

77. 0:35:49

    Yes, sir.

78. 0:35:49

    Thank you, sir.

79. 0:35:50

    All right. Thank you. Chairman Sainz.

80. 0:35:53

    Thank you, and, uh, thank you for bringing this bill forward. And the distinction of, you know, part-time county commissioner, part-time legislature, would you agree that the office of the sheriff is a professional role?

81. 0:36:03

    It is a professional role, uh-

82. 0:36:04

    It's full time

83. 0:36:05

    ... uh, Chairman, and also it is a role where we raise our right hand and agree to execute law and possibly use force, force up to and including deadly force. And it's an extremely serious, uh, position to hold.

84. 0:36:19

    And aligned in ta- in a law enforcement capacity, uh, would you agree that we don't let district attorneys, uh, prior to three years of a juris doctorate and passing the bar, uh, run for office as district attorney?

85. 0:36:31

    Yes, sir. That is true.

86. 0:36:33

    And would you agree that if, a- as it is in, in place now, after y- you know, basic mandate, if that was done how we do it now, if, if that's how a sheriff is elected, they would be the least experienced deputy or, uh, uh, least experienced within their, their, their department of law enforcement experience?

87. 0:36:54

    Absolutely.

88. 0:36:55

    Okay. Thank you.

89. 0:36:56

    Thank you, sir.

90. 0:36:57

    All right, thank you. Chairman Greene?

91. 0:37:00

    Thank you. Uh, Senator, give us a l- quick history of where this bill has come from. It has come out of the Senate several times-

92. 0:37:12

    Yes, sir

93. 0:37:13

    ... to the House.

94. 0:37:15

    Yes, sir.

95. 0:37:16

    And, uh, where did it get hung up?

96. 0:37:19

    Um, it, it got hung up over on this side, sir, when, when additional individuals were being made as exceptions to the rule. Yes, sir.

97. 0:37:29

    Okay.

98. 0:37:29

    And it's always been done in a very friendly way. It's never been combative, and I, I respect that.

99. 0:37:34

    Well, it's, I appreciate you bringing this bill. It's, uh, in my nine counties, it's, uh, important, uh, to have this bill, and I, I look forward to the opportunity of voting on it.

100. 0:37:47

     Thank you, Dean. I appreciate that tremendously.

101. 0:37:50

     All right, thank you. Uh, Representative Neal.

102. 0:37:55

     I yield.

103. 0:37:57

     All right. Thank you for that. Representative Cummings?

104. 0:38:02

     Good morning.

105. 0:38:03

     Good morning, ma'am.

106. 0:38:04

     My question is, and I'm just trying to get an understanding, 'cause my background is, you know, mostly federal. When you apply to go to the sheriff's office, you might be working in corrections, in the jail, or someplace else. Don't you go through training?

107. 0:38:19

     You, you don't go through the same training. Uh, there's a POST-certified corrections officer program that you would go through for that. You would not go through the same law programs, you wouldn't go through the same arrest programs, and you certainly wouldn't go through some of the same weapons training and vehicle operation training.

108. 0:38:35

     So if you start out in the jail and then you transfer and now you're issuing warrants in the community, you don't, you don't go back for that training?

109. 0:38:44

     No, ma'am. Um, the, uh, police academy that I attended, and I started out in the jail in Muskogee County. All of ours had to start out in the jail. Um, we had an extra week on the end of the police academy for civil training to help us on, uh, dispossessories, uh, other civil actions, and warrant executions.

110. 0:39:03

     So the training that's in this bill is specifically if you want to be the sheriff for the county.

111. 0:39:09

     If you wanna be a POST-certified law enforcement officer.

112. 0:39:12

     Okay.

113. 0:39:12

     Once you become sheriff, then they will send you to what they call the sheriff's academy, that goes over a lot of the administrative things that, that the, uh, representative was discussing, uh, dealing with, uh, how to, how to deal with bail bonding companies, uh, responsibilities to the court, and things of that nature. This right here gets the sheriff to be a POST-certified law enforcement officer so that he or she could lead the array of POST-certified law enforcement officers that they would then be responsible for.

114. 0:39:40

     So I'm kind of thinking my next question might be cost. Why aren't, why isn't everyone that works for the sheriff's office POST-certified?

115. 0:39:49

     Um-

116. 0:39:49

     Kind of like get it out the way

117. 0:39:50

     ... as POST-certified law enforcement officers?

118. 0:39:52

     Yeah.

119. 0:39:52

     Well, I think a lot of it has to do with the expense.

120. 0:39:54

     Okay.

121. 0:39:54

     It's an expensive program to go through.

122. 0:39:56

     Okay. Thank you.

123. 0:39:56

     Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

124. 0:39:59

     All right. Uh, Representative Richardson.

125. 0:40:04

     Mr. Chairman, at an appropriate time, I'll make my motion.

126. 0:40:07

     Okay. I will let you know when that time will be. We got just a couple more things to get through. All right. Representative Neal, you ready this time?

127. 0:40:15

     Thank you. Sir, I know we've been back and forth about this a lot, and I think it, it died on the floor something, uh, a year or two ago. Um, I've been supportive both ways, but I also know that at one point we were having trouble in our system with people who didn't have certification, um, being able to run for office. And I guess my first question would be trying to decide if that has been, that problem has been remedied. And secondly, um, are there any current sitting sheriffs right now who are not POST-certified?

128. 0:40:46

     To the first question, I'm not sure about what problems we were running into. I'm, I'm not familiar with that.

129. 0:40:51

     Okay.

130. 0:40:52

     And the second of all, to, to my know- to, to my understanding right now, all 159 sheriffs have been through the police academy and have been POST-certified.

131. 0:41:00

     And they are POST-certified?

132. 0:41:01

     Yes, ma'am.

133. 0:41:01

     Okay. So there's no one that, that would need to be grandfathered in, or-

134. 0:41:04

     No, ma'am. There's no one, there's, uh, to my knowledge, there is not anyone that needs to be grandfathered in. I know the academy from years past has continued to expand as the responsibilities have expanded and as laws have changed. But, um, and, and we've, we've invested more money and time in training, but to my understanding, there's no one in the State of Georgia who sits in the office of s- sheriff who is not POST-certified.

135. 0:41:28

     Okay. Thank you.

136. 0:41:29

     Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

137. 0:41:31

     All right. Chairman Werkheiser.

138. 0:41:34

     Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Senator, back to Gerald Greene's about the exceptions. Um, are there any, like, military or any federal officers, um, that you think would be an appropriate exception, or are you just saying Georgia POST-certified?

139. 0:41:56

     No, sir. I, I would say they all have to be POST-certified.

140. 0:41:59

     Okay.

141. 0:41:59

     I have some great friends that are FBI agents. Federal law is extremely different from, um, state law, and so they would, they would need to have that education on state law.

142. 0:42:11

     Okay. But in, in respect to the qualific- uh, they still would have to go through the sheriff's training, but you're saying even as a, to qualify for the office.

143. 0:42:21

     Yes, sir.

144. 0:42:21

     Okay. That's, that's, that was my question. Thank you.

145. 0:42:23

     Thank you, sir.

146. 0:42:25

     All right. Thank you. Looks like we've exhausted all the questions, so, uh, we have one person signed up to speak. Uh, it was Mike Mitchell, but he is gonna yield his time to Sheriff Ron Freeman. Uh, Sheriff-

147. 0:42:38

     Thank you, sir

148. 0:42:39

     ... do you want to come to the table or the podium? Your choice.

149. 0:42:41

     I, I'll come to the table with you, Senator, if that's okay.

150. 0:42:44

     That'd be wonderful. It's always an honor to have a, a former Sheriff of the Year with us.

151. 0:42:49

     Oh.

152. 0:42:49

     Thank you for being here.

153. 0:42:51

     Excuse me. First, hello to two of my representatives, Representative Jaspers and McDonald. Good to see you guys. Um, to answer a couple of quick questions, if I may. Uh, to the questions that were about what's called equivalency of training, let me say, uh, in my place that I'm Ron Freeman. I'm the sheriff of Forsyth County. I also currently serve as the president of the Georgia Sheriff's Association. I'm also a member of the Georgia POST Council. Uh, so for the federal officers and things, the questions for that, the EOT, or equivalency of training, to get training from another state or a federal agency is now less than one week.

154. 0:43:25

     If you were a federal officer, an MP, uh, those kind of things, you can apply to the Georgia POST Council and become Georgia certified with less than one week of training. So they're, the, the Georgia POST Council is giving credit for that. Uh, to the gentleman with south Georgia, I'm originally from small town south Georgia. I'm a Screven County boy down near Statesboro in a 14,000 person county. I'm now in a big county and I'm the third lar- I run the third largest full service sheriff's office in Georgia. I will say this, in the POST Council, I've recently just sat on a committee as a co-chair to increase the training for all law enforcement officers who want to become law enforcement officers in the state of Georgia.

155. 0:44:04

     Ladies and gentlemen, we were 50th of 50 states in basic training for law enforcement officers.

156. 0:44:09

     Mm.

157. 0:44:09

     We were at the bottom. We're now above the midpoint. We took the training from 10 and a half weeks to 20 weeks to become a basic police officer, the most inexperienced of all law enforcement officers. You just graduated the academy. You have to go through 20 weeks. My own son is on week 11 in the academy right now, okay? For, even though I, I agree with the gentleman, a lot of my job is administrative. I run an $80 million business for the people of Forsyth County.

158. 0:44:39

     I make split second life and death decisions. I make decisions based on constitutional law. I make decisions based on Georgia criminal law of whether or not we're gonna kick a door down, whether or not my officers have the right probable cause on really complex cases to go forward and arrest someone. Those things require, in my case, 39 years of experience, and I'm not saying it requires 39 years of experience, but there's a reason we have supervisors.

159. 0:45:10

     There's a reason if you want to be a supervisor in my agency, you have to be a three-year law enforcement officer to, to even think about becoming the rank of sergeant, and the rank of sheriff or the position of the office of sheriff. And I, and I don't speak for my own. I'm a third term sheriff. I'm running one more time and I'm done. Uh, so I'm, I'm not asking for myself. But it is a professional association. It is a professional job that we have to do.

160. 0:45:34

     Mm.

161. 0:45:34

     And we have to make very complex decisions in today's world. When I started in 1987, policing was entirely different than it is today. And for some of those, even on the committee, some of the people here who were in that long before that, uh, it was even different then. But the complexity of what is required of law enforcement officers in today's world is significant, and it takes experience. But we are, again, we are... It, it is always the people's choice. I absolutely, a- as a sitting constitutional sheriff, I believe it is our citizens' choice.

162. 0:46:08

     It is not my job, it's just a chair I currently hold, and they will select another sheriff after me. There were sheriffs before me, there'll be sheriffs after me. But we want qualified people. If you want to te- if any of you served on the city council and you wanted to hire a police chief, would you hire a police chief with zero experience? And the answer is absolutely not, you would not. You would want someone with some basic experience, and there are, for those federal, those military, there is a less than one week opportunity for them to be able to do that. And to the, to the good senator, uh, to his point, if you have zero experience, but you really want to run for the office of sheriff, then you need to be serious about it, and you need to be willing to go to police academy.

163. 0:46:46

     You can go as a pre-service candidate for that, actually 19 weeks. I said 20, so excuse me. It's, it's, it's shuffled down to about 19 weeks now. You can go to that police academy and become pre-certified, which would qualify you under this to run for the office of sheriff. Uh, with that, I'll yield any other time and answer any questions somebody may have.

164. 0:47:08

     Okay. You did a great job. I don't see any questions.

165. 0:47:11

     Thank you, Chairman.

166. 0:47:12

     Yeah, thank you.

167. 0:47:13

     Thank you, Sheriff.

168. 0:47:14

     Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, Representative Richardson.

169. 0:47:20

     Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that Senate Bill 527 do pass.

170. 0:47:26

     Second.

171. 0:47:27

     All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion from members of the committee? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

172. 0:47:35

     Aye.

173. 0:47:36

     All those opposed say no. All right, motion carries.

174. 0:47:40

     Thank you, sir.

175. 0:47:41

     Thank you.

176. 0:47:47

     Thank you.

177. 0:47:48

     All right. All right, we're gonna move on now to Senate Bill 442. Senator Dickerson.

178. 0:48:04

     Substitute.

179. 0:48:12

     Okay. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, we're got Senate Bill 442, and this is, uh, the substitute, and it's LC630164S.

180. 0:48:23

     That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

181. 0:48:24

     So hopefully everybody has it. All right, sir. Floor is yours.

182. 0:48:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, members of the committee, thank you so much for allowing me to come, uh, before you today and present this bill. Uh, today I'm gonna bring before you Senate Bill 442. Uh, it's a straightforward, common sense bill that strengthens public safety, supports a fair marketplace, and reinforces the integrity of our commercial driver's license system. Uh, first, this bill removes outdated government rate setting household goods carriers and allows competition, not bureaucracy or government- To determine fair prices for Georgia families and businesses.

183. 0:48:58

     This type of regulation was largely phased out at the federal level with the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and this bill simply brings Georgia law in line with a system that's worked for over four decades. Second, it ensures that commercial driver's licenses issued to non-citizens are directly tied to lawful presence. If legal status expires, the CDL expires, and if a license is transferred into Georgia, proper testing is required. That's about keeping our roads safe and maintaining consistent standards.

184. 0:49:28

     Third, it protects hardworking truck owners by making it clear that they are not required to retrofit vehicles beyond the federal safety standards that were in place when those vehicles were built, providing certainty and protecting against unnecessary cost. This is a balanced bill. It promotes safety, fairness, and accountability without overreach. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration, and I'm, uh, happy to take any questions that the members or the chairman may have.

185. 0:49:56

     Okay.

186. 0:49:59

     That is Chairman Petrea.

187. 0:50:03

     Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Senator, for bringing this measure in, um, on, uh, lines 46 through 55. Um, this is quite commonsensical to me. So, um, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, by federal law, makes it a crime to employ people who are illegally in the country. You've got a provision here where if, if someone's here on a visa and it expires, that commercial driver's license expires with it.

188. 0:50:38

     That is correct.

189. 0:50:39

     That seems quite commonsensical. And I would remind, uh, uh, everyone here today, prior to the Biden administration, about 40% of those illegally in the country were overstayed visas. We think that everyone who's here illegally crossed the border. That was not the case before. Today, exponentially more are here from crossing the border because about 10 and a half to 11 million crossed the border in, in the four years under Joe Biden.

190. 0:51:09

     So that percentage is much higher now. But prior to that, we've had a long time problem with overstaying visas, and, uh, this is a measured and reasonable measure. I appreciate you bringing the bill. Thank you.

191. 0:51:21

     Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

192. 0:51:27

     All right. Chairman Jaspers.

193. 0:51:29

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator, and, uh, members, I don't know if you know if our senator here has been, has a long history of trucking and a very successful business that sold it, and I appreciate the, the senator really paying attention to this bill. I just wanna draw attention, you know, you jumped over line 79, which I think is a very important part of this bill, that when we look at it, that it, um, for transferring, they have to make sure they can pass the test in Georgia-

194. 0:52:00

     Correct

195. 0:52:00

     ... in our country. And I think that's a very critical part of this, 'cause I think we hear the most complaints that there have been people who don't understand our road signs, our directions, and our directional signs, and I appreciate that this, that part is in this bill.

196. 0:52:15

     Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

197. 0:52:19

     All right. I don't see any other questions. We have several people signed up to speak, so, uh, Tom Phan. Oh, there you are.

198. 0:52:36

     Good morning.

199. 0:52:37

     Good morning. Um, first I wanna thank Chairman Crowe and members of the committee for allowing me this time. My name's Tom Phan. I'm a senior policy associate, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, which advocates for the civil rights and protections of Asian Americans and immigrants in Georgia. I'm here to oppose SB 442 because it raises equal protection issues for non-citizens by automatically revoking commercial driver's licenses and requiring those from other states to retake the knowledge and skills test. SB 442 discriminates against individuals for their citizenship status, all while not improving road safety for others.

200. 0:53:13

     In 2025, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Administration, there were 3,728 fatal accidents involving large trucks and buses in the US, and the agency's latest version of the rule on non-dom- domicile CDL eligibility, it cited 17 fatal crashes involving non-citizen CDL drivers that year, of which, of which is .46 of a percent of all instances. Without evidence that non-domicile or non-citizen CDL drivers are any more prone to accidents than any other driver, it appears that SB 442 arbitrarily targets non-citizens, non-citizen drivers.

201. 0:53:53

     At Advancing Justice, we have clients who have already been denied renewals of their commercial driver's licenses, people who have invested thousands of dollars and their time to become truck drivers and bus drivers who are now without jobs. With 18% of US truck drivers being foreign-born, this bill would also have a negative impact on supply chains, the price of goods, and the state of the economy overall. For these reasons, I ask that you vote no on SB 442.

202. 0:54:27

     All right. Thank you, sir. I don't see any questions. Thank you. All right. Uh, Stephanie Jackson Ali

203. 0:54:36

     Thank you, Chairman. Hello, everyone. So my name is Stephanie Ali. I am testifying on behalf of the Georgia Coalition of Refugee Service Agencies. We represent 32 service agencies who work to collaboratively, collaboratively highlight the cultural, social, and economic contributions of refugees and immigrants in Georgia. So we also stand in opposition to, uh, SB 442. I can't speak to the technical aspects. Sounds like you know what you're talking about there. But, um, while there has been recent federal restrictions around CDL access to eligible, to certain eligible non-citizens, this bill's codification and expansion of those restrictions would pose a unique harm to Georgia's agricultural, construction, and trade industries.

204. 0:55:19

     This bill would harm Georgia's economy. It would fail to equip l- uh, local implementers to adjudicate immigration status. It would fail to improve public safety and waste taxpayer dollars on this regulatory barrier to employment. So, uh, especially when I talk about the automatic revocation pieces here and the shortened issuance period and why that would harm the economy. So immigrants are a core contributor to Georgia's workforce. They comprise over 15% of our workforce altogether. Um, and that's, especially in, in, in industries that have significant transportation components, that's 44% of agricultural workers, 43% of co- uh, construction workers in Georgia are immigrants.

205. 0:56:02

     Also, 20% of Georgia's professional workforce, such as scientific, administrative, um, and, and waste service industry. So requiring automatic, automatic revocation of CDLs for non-citizens will impact, um, CDL drivers in those industries, and of course others, which would result in delayed transportation times that in, uh, negatively impact consumers, that make higher administrative costs for employers, and, um, that also would decrease employment opportunities for skilled Georgia workers in high demand occupations.

206. 0:56:35

     And then shortening that issuance period for, um, for CDLs for non-citizens as compared to eight years for citizens would have similar effects in that same industries. Um, and so that, that again, should be clear impact on Georgia's economy. It also potentially, and this is still working on the federal side as well, is likely unconstitutional. Um, based on the historic landmark decision in Graham versus Richardson in 1971, classifications based on alienage, which is non-citizen status, are considered inherently suspect, and they're, um, up to strict scrutiny by the courts.

207. 0:57:12

     So that means that Georgia would have to prove that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm not a lawyer. May be able to prove that, but it is something that we'd have to keep in mind, that this could end up in court under that same, um, that same historic decision. So that means that, um, while the state might cite road safety or immigration verification as justification, the Supreme Court has historically held that states can't deny non-citizens an ability to earn a living or access public benefits to conserve resources for citizens.

208. 0:57:47

     Um, and then finally, I'll move forward 'cause I know we have a lot of people on the next bill. Um, the section... I'm sorry, I haven't updated to the new version, so this may no longer be Section 3, requires non-citizen applicants who are already credentialed in another state to pass Georgia's knowledge and skills test. That additional requirement is, um, at least in the other version, again, may not be the same, applicable to non-citizens only. It's discriminatory. And again, going back to what we just said, um, CDL applicants who possess credentials in other states are qualified under Georgia law to be credentialed and drive commercial vehicles in Georgia.

209. 0:58:24

     There's no difference in skill between a non-citizen driver possessing, um, credentials from another state and a citizen driver. So this requirement will not improve the safety of Georgia's roads, and it'll pose additional red tape on qualified drivers looking to expand the pool of commercial drivers in Georgia. So overall, 442 will harm Georgia's economy, prevent otherwise, um, qualified commercial drivers from contributing to our, uh, their skills to our state. And, um, transportation is, in Georgia, an economic multiplier.

210. 0:58:55

     It, um, and adding this unnecessarily restrict- unnecessary restriction will only limit the potential growth of our economy. So we ask that you vote no on 442 or at least strike these sections of concern. Thank you. Okay, you have a couple of questions. Chairman Jasperse? Sure. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just real quickly, ma'am, I just wanna clarify in all that. You're saying that it's, you feel or your organization feels it's appropriate for an illegal alien to be driving on Georgia's roads that may or may not be able to pass a, a, a non-citizen, a knowledge, a knowledge test about the rules of our roads?

211. 0:59:35

     No, sir. We didn't speak to that. Uh, what we're speaking to is that it, treating someone who is a, who is a non, um, citizen, so someone who has, let's say, as it lists out here, refugee status, uh, limited status, a temporary status, separately who has already taken their test, who has already, um, passed the English portion of the test differently than a current citizen, um, is discriminatory in the fact that it's based on citizenship status. But I believe in our bill, if I can, Mr.

212. 1:00:06

     Chairman, in line 51 and 52, it really clarifies that, you know, that lawful permanent residents c- with all the different kind of visas that are out there, are gonna be able to. That they would be able to, yes, sir, but that they would have a different timeline and a different testing process than citizen-based CDL, uh, drivers. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.

213. 1:00:32

     Chairman Sainz.

214. 1:00:33

     Thank you. Um, let me start off this, uh, with asking this question. We- I think we both agree, correct, that immigrants, uh, are a massive, uh, support and benefit to our workforce, including the trucking industry, correct?

215. 1:00:48

     Yes, sir.

216. 1:00:48

     Would you agree that lines 67 and 68 does nothing to impact, um, the ability for a, um, both, uh, citizen immigrant or re- legal resident immigrant to, um, be a fully employed or self-employed trucker in the state of Georgia?

217. 1:01:05

     6- 67 and 68?

218. 1:01:06

     Yeah, and I'll read it. Just, "Any commercial driver's license issued to a non-citizen shall expire in accordance with Code Section 45- 45-21.2." Would you agree that that does nothing to restrict a legal resident or a, uh, citizen who's an immigrant from being employed as a trucker or self-employed?

219. 1:01:25

     I would agree that it wouldn't limit them temporarily to be employed.

220. 1:01:29

     Um, in, in what way do you define temporarily?

221. 1:01:33

     I think that on that five-year status is, is the concern there. As someone who's worked with immigrants for a very long time, is married to an immigrant, I understand. I think the gentleman did, uh, Senator Dickerson did speak to the fact that, and it's his intention that these align with the end of visas. But having it end at the end of the... Having it end at the end of someone's current CDL license doesn't necessarily align with your visa if your visa is ending, say, in six, seven, eight, 10 years. Um, it also, if, if you're talking about it's a five-year versus an eight-year visa, if your visa is continuing on for another six, seven, eight years, um, then that's also not at a direct alignment.

222. 1:02:15

     I think it, there could be ways to rework that where it is more intentional to, if, if the senator's intention, to where it is, where the license is more directly tied. I know when you're talking about driver's licenses, they are built... Like regular driver's licenses-

223. 1:02:29

     Sure

224. 1:02:29

     ... they are built to be more intentionally tied to someone's visa end of status.

225. 1:02:34

     Sure. And maybe to, uh, clarify this, if that's okay with the chair, uh, you know, when my mother was working th- through her immigration status, I think it was every five years you'd go, um, to get your legal residency renewed, right? And there's a certain fee and-

226. 1:02:50

     Yeah

227. 1:02:50

     ... payment to it. And I... So you're saying there's distinctions on, uh, w- I guess what class of visa you have that-

228. 1:02:56

     Yes

229. 1:02:56

     ... what's the length of time?

230. 1:02:58

     Yes. And I, again, I'm not a lawyer. Jennifer back here is, and might know more than me on that. But yeah, I know for example, when we were going through it, different statuses had different lengths of time. And so it could definitely affect folks who are in the middle of that process, if they're losing their CDL at that same time, um, while they're in that process, and then no longer have employment, which is something that they need to be able to continue their process. Um-

231. 1:03:25

     So I'll hold it, because I, I know you mentioned your colleague, and it might be a question for the author. But what you're contending is that there's not a automatic correlation to all residents in terms of how the bill's written to link directly with their personal immigration renewal status.

232. 1:03:40

     That is one of, yes, one concern, is that these would often leave people who are here with complete legal status, who are trying to stay employed and support their family, as you mentioned, um, would not have an option to continue after already going through CDL school, paying their fi- fees, everything like that.

233. 1:03:58

     All right. Hold, I'll hold further questions. Thank you.

234. 1:04:00

     Okay.

235. 1:04:01

     All right. Thank you. No more questions. Thank you.

236. 1:04:04

     Thank you, sir.

237. 1:04:05

     Yep. All right. Uh, Dan Snipes. Hiding behind the pole out there.

238. 1:04:11

     Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, um, I'm Dan Snipes. I'm an attorney in Statesboro and a past president of Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Um, I'm here just to speak about the amendment that's offered, LC 63-0164S, and specifically, um, Section 6, which are lines 82 through 121. Um, currently, Georgia law at OCGA 40-87 requires a, uh, commercial vehicle, tractor trailer, semi-trailer, pole trailer to be in safe mechanical condition, and this so as not to endanger the driver, who's the com- you know, the CDL holder, or the occupant, or any other persons upon the, uh, roadway.

239. 1:05:01

     What Section 6 tries to change is saying notwithstanding this requirement that a vehicle has to be in safe working order, we're trying to create an exception that says that the owner of the vehicle would not have a duty to change with any optional equipment or parts in the future when the vehicle was okay, when it complies with federal motor vehicle safety standards at the time it's manufactured. And I want to go in and break down why this section's not only bad, but I don't think it does what the authors are even trying to do with it.

240. 1:05:37

     I don't think it does what it's intended to do. All right? But the, the first problem is the phrase optional equipment is not defined anywhere. So it's not clear whether that's an option that was available from the manufacturer at the time that you purchased the vehicle, or is that optional equipment that you choose to do after market changes to the vehicle somehow. So it's not clear what they're getting at with that. And then the word optional doesn't, it only modifies the word equipment and not parts at line 104.

241. 1:06:10

     And why that's important is if you had a commercial vehicle and the braking system of that vehicle was recalled because it was deemed not to be safe, this provision would tell the owner of that vehicle, "You do not have a duty to change out the defective braking system, even though it's been recalled, as long as that braking system was okay at the time the vehicle was manufactured." So what this does is it creates an incentive for someone not to do things that they know are safe.

242. 1:06:43

     And that's not the intent of 48-7, which is to protect the drivers, the occupants of these commercial trucks, and the traveling safety. So the way this amendment's drafted is it, it just doesn't accomplish the purpose that it's intended. It's, it's not drafted properly, and it's way too broad. Beyond that, federal motor vehicle safety standards are minimum standards that a vehicle has to meet in order to be sold. That's not an indication those federal motor vehicle safety standards imply that something's safe.

243. 1:07:15

     And we can go through, but tires are a great example. Every tire that's sold in the country, whether it's passenger vehicle or commercial, has to meet certain FMVSS standards. But that does not mean those are good tires. It just meant it passed one test or two tests, whatever for that tire, whatever number of tests it is. So what we're doing then, we're also incorporating a standard for safety that the law, and there's tons of case law out there that says compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards does not mean that its manufacturer was non-negligent.

244. 1:07:46

     So we're imposing the wrong standard in here otherwise. So for these reasons, we would ask, the trial lawyers would ask, that Section 6, just Section 6, be stricken, and that the remainder of the Senate bill move forward. And I'm here to answer any questions.

245. 1:08:03

     Okay. Uh, Representative Richardson.

246. 1:08:07

     Mr. Snipes, we did a lot of work last year on tort reform, and, uh, by creating a bill now, do you see that this could come back and increase some inc- insurance costs that hopefully we were going to see rolled back because of people failure to maintain or to have their, uh, vehicles in the proper, safe, um, condition to drive? I'm, I mean, I mean, I know there's a level.

247. 1:08:38

     And, and I bought a set of tires yesterday, and the guy said, "What level tires do you want?" Well, my guy's gonna be running up and down the road. I want a good set of tires for him. W- And I, I, there's a liability, I think, for on me if I don't put a good set of tires on the vehicle that that man's driving.

248. 1:08:55

     Oh, I think the current state of the law in Georgia requires the vehicles to be in safe mechanical condition, and we w- don't want to do anything that rolls that standard back because it's gonna have a number of unintended consequences like you point out.

249. 1:09:10

     Thank you.

250. 1:09:13

     Chairman Jaspers.

251. 1:09:14

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dan, I'm just trying to make sure I understand, uh, what you said. You know, my first reading of this. But it seems to me that you're saying that the federal motor vehicle safety standards are not strong enough. Is that what you said?

252. 1:09:32

     Well, what they are is that's a minimum baseline to be able to introduce your product into the stream of commerce, but what numerous courts have said in Georgia and federal courts is that compliance with those standards does not mean that a product is safe. What it means is you've met a minimum standard to be able to sell your product into the stream of commerce, but it does not mean that the product is safe. It's not a defense to a defective product claim to say, "Well, we passed the federal motor vehicle safety standards."

253. 1:10:06

     If I can, Mr. Chairman. So, okay, so but for a piece of equipment to be, um,

254. 1:10:18

     meets the, these demands, it seems like they, they would have met that requirement of being a safe piece of equipment. And I think, and just trying to make sure that nobody, um, alters what the basic model of the vehicle is to make it less safe.

255. 1:10:35

     The premise of what your question's based on, the federal motor vehicle safety standards do not ensure that a product is safe. In fact, that's not a defense to a case to say, "I complied with the federal motor vehicle safety standards." It's a factor to be considered, but just complying with those safety standards is not enough for a product to be deemed safe and reasonable for its intended purpose.

256. 1:11:00

     Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

257. 1:11:05

     Okay, I don't see any other questions. Thank you.

258. 1:11:07

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

259. 1:11:08

     All right. Seth Millican.

260. 1:11:19

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, thank you, Senator Dickerson, for, uh, bringing this legislation. I'm Seth Millican with the Georgia Motor Trucking Association. We're a trade association in Georgia that has been representing, uh, motor carriers in the state for the last 93 years. Uh, Senator Dickerson's a former member of ours, as you alluded to, very experienced in this industry. Thank you to him, uh, for bringing this legislation. Uh, I'll be very brief. We're in full support of the committee substitute as presented.

261. 1:11:50

     Happy to answer any questions, and appreciate the committee's consideration.

262. 1:11:54

     Okay, you do have a question. Chairman Sainz.

263. 1:11:59

     Thank you, and, uh, thank you, Seth. I know, uh, y- you all have done a, a great amount of advocacy on multiple different fronts, so I do respect y'all's work. Um, in regards to Section 6 and the safety standards, and I, I think we've all been part of legislation, especially when we conservatively craft, um, the legal baseline, um, that we know there's optimal items we might add, but as a government, it, it might be best for the free market and, uh, to look at that. And frankly, you're subjected to more scrutiny when there's an issue that arises.

264. 1:12:33

     Um, could you, uh, kind of speak towards the distinction that has been previously mentioned on what the, that baseline is and frankly, how Section 6 would make a driver more safe? I had, I haven't been a part of a lot of, uh, roadway incidents, but we know that, um, uh, if, if one involves a, a truck, um, both to that driver, that truck driver, and to those families and motorists on the roadway, that is the most potential for deep and severe casualty.

265. 1:13:04

     C- So can you speak to how Section 6 makes drivers more safe on Georgia roadways?

266. 1:13:08

     Yep, great question. Um, and, and we've talked to- ... was, was some members of the committee over the last couple of days about this. There, there's kind of two components to this, right? There's the federal motor vehicle safety standards that govern the equipment as manufactured and as purchased. Those safety standards don't go away. Um, I think we conducted close to 90,000 roadside inspections in Georgia last year. So those, uh, safety standards govern not only the manufacturer of that product, the purchase of that product, but also the maintenance of that product as it's being operated on the roadway.

267. 1:13:44

     And so the, the good working order, good working condition that was, uh, mentioned previously, that's how that account- that, that accountability's in place, through those federal motor vehicle safety standards. So this just confirms and, I would say, reaffirms the obligation for somebody who's operating a commercial vehicle to continue to abide by those, those federal safety standards.

268. 1:14:09

     I'll pause for further questions.

269. 1:14:11

     All right. Thank you. Representative Cummings.

270. 1:14:15

     Good morning.

271. 1:14:16

     Good morning.

272. 1:14:16

     Can you please give an example of optional equipment that you're trying to get to in lines 101 to 105 where it says, um, the manufacture condition with any optional equipment. What are they talking about?

273. 1:14:33

     So optional equipment can in- include really anything that is developed, particular on the technological side, after that vehicle is manufactured. So it could be camera equipment, it could be artificial intelligence, lane sensing equipment, those sorts of things that for a particular piece of equipment that might be 10 or 15 years old, it's cost prohibitive. It would cost more to add that equipment to the, to the commercial vehicle than what it's actually worth.

274. 1:15:01

     So if a safety feature comes out, like, and I don't know if trucks have it, but that can monitor the speed of the truck to make sure that they're staying within the limits in the city-

275. 1:15:12

     The governor

276. 1:15:12

     ... and when they're on the highway. If there's a feature, I don't know if it comes with... I'm sure it comes with newer trucks, I'm not sure. But, um, if that were added, and that's a definite safety feature that would protect everybody, all Georgians, there would be no obligation for the owner to look at that to add it?

277. 1:15:33

     You're talking about after the purchase of the vehicle?

278. 1:15:35

     Yes.

279. 1:15:36

     That's, the, as the language is, is written, I believe that's correct.

280. 1:15:41

     But why wouldn't we want to do things to try to make the trucks more safe?

281. 1:15:45

     Many of your carriers are taking that, uh, taking those steps and making those modifications. This just says there's no duty beyond the federal motor vehicle safety standards.

282. 1:15:59

     Okay. Thank you.

283. 1:16:01

     All right. Chairman Jaspers.

284. 1:16:02

     I think, Mr. Chairman, I think you answered that question at the end there. But this doesn't limit a owner's, operator's ability or choice to add improved safety equipment if they choose to?

285. 1:16:17

     That is correct.

286. 1:16:18

     That's what I think need to be, make sure we're clear on.

287. 1:16:20

     That's correct.

288. 1:16:21

     Thank you.

289. 1:16:23

     All right. Thank you. Representative Neal.

290. 1:16:25

     Yes. But I think to my colleague's point, the goal is to make it where you don't have the option to choose or not choose safety. Like, choosing safety or choosing to make a truck safer, safer shouldn't be optional.

291. 1:16:40

     So I think this gets back to the, the fundamental question of those federal motor vehicle safety standards, which are updated on an annual basis. We've got new, uh, guidance coming out, I think, in April, and there's a handful of things that are gonna be adjusted and improved to react to what's going on in the marketplace. So I think what we have to, what we need to keep kind of a center to the discussion is the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Administration sets minimum standards, not just for manufacturer, not just for purchase, but also for operation.

292. 1:17:11

     Those are not optional. Those things are not optional. It is... And we've been, we, we participate with the Department of Public Safety doing voluntary roadside inspections, and we've been on site when vehicles are taken out of service for worn brake pads, or their, their tires are, you know, bald, or whatever the case may be. So manufacturer purchase operation, those federal motor vehicle safety standards are in place, and those are not negotiable. And we do encourage and, and require all of our carriers in Georgia to abide by those safety standards.

293. 1:17:48

     All right. Uh, Representative Richardson.

294. 1:17:50

     Uh, Senator Dixon, surely you know this industry a whole lot better than I do. So my question is, um, you buy a truck, and I get that, and it's, it's Grade A or whatever, and you're operating it, and then they make some changes in a pro- a, a part or whatever. So then you have a part that go, that part goes out. Would there be a option, would the new part be updated to the new standard, or would there be a option to replace with the old part or the new part?

295. 1:18:30

     Does that, does that question make sense?

296. 1:18:32

     It, it does. Thank you so much. So usually whenever... You know, when it comes to tractors and trailers a- and these Class 8 vehicles that are on the road, keep in mind these things operate at 80,000 pounds. I mean, they're about 20 times, over 20 times what your typical car weight is. So number one, we want to make sure that everybody's qualified to do that. We also take it, uh, extremely seriously, uh, that we maintain that equipment every single, every single day and every single month. Not only do we have to, uh... Not o- not only is that, um, burden on, on the carrier itself, but every CDL driver, when they get up every day and they start driving, they have to do, uh, a federal requirement, which is to inspect their vehicle, both brakes, tires, check the truck, check the trailer.

297. 1:19:13

     That's usually a, a 15 to 20 minute inspection that they have to check everything on there. So it's not as if whenever these are built, then they never go back to be maintained at all. They're maintained and looked after every single day. Uh, not only that, then we have our, our DOT stations all around the state of Georgia, and those are the ones you see on the side of the road where trucks get pulled in. They get inspected by our, our state, uh, Department of Transportation here, and they're fine to put out of service. If any of those parts or if anything is a worn item- Uh, it is out of service. They'll put that truck out of service.

298. 1:19:43

     Not only is that in the state of Georgia, that's for every other state in the United States. So that's, uh, when it comes to maintenance and safety, that, that's never an issue. That's something that we just can't neglect. We are, uh, and on top of all that, at least once a year, you have to have your annual inspection performed on a truck and a trailer, which means that you have to have a, a DOT certified shop and mechanic inspect that truck or trailer, see if there's any deficiencies. So to, uh, to the representative's point, when it comes to parts, manufacturers are always updating the parts as it is.

299. 1:20:15

     So let's just say if it's, um, as example, let's just say it's a, it's a belt on the truck, and let's say that, that, that fan belt is part number two today. Uh, and then a year from now, we go to replace it, and they've updated that, and part number two is not available anymore. Now it's part number three, and they've made it to be able to last another 20,000 miles. Well, of course, we're, we're gonna buy part number three. That, that's, if we don't have an option, then that's what we're gonna do. When it, when it comes down to Section 6 specifically, what I want to make the committee aware of is the number one industry in the state of Georgia is our agriculture, not only from, from poultry, agriculture, uh, and, um, our, our timber industry.

300. 1:20:55

     One of the things specifically, the point that I want to bring up is whenever it comes to, to truck safety, whenever it comes to truck speed, uh, electronic engines have been mandated in trucks for over 20 years. So every single truck that's manufactured for the most part nowadays has electronic governor on it that the drivers cannot change. That's all done by the shops themselves, like the shops we used to operate. What I'm specifically targeting here, an example I'm gonna use, let's just say 15 years ago that you ma- you had a truck manufactured, and at that time, disc brakes were not optional.

301. 1:21:26

     Or they were optional. They were not required on a truck. Most class, uh, Class 8 trucks operate what's called drum brakes. It's a little different from what you have on your cars, but it's very, very similar. And so 15 years ago, you buy a truck, uh, and that you had your standard Federal Highway Safety Administration equipment put on there just like it was from the manufacturer, and disc brakes were not in, uh, were not mandatory at that time. Now, let's just say that that truck now sold two or three times, and now you have a, a, the third owner of that truck, and they're operating, uh, in a logging industry.

302. 1:21:59

     They're pulling, and they're pulling timber out of our industry. Based upon the way the current law, um, in the state of Georgia is, um, the reason we're putting this in place is to where, let's say J- uh, January the 1st of this year, let's assume that disc brakes were now mandatory federal-wide.

303. 1:22:17

     Mm-hmm.

304. 1:22:18

     That means that 97% of all your agriculture or logging and transportation companies are gonna be immediately out of business, and I'm gonna tell you why, because in order to retrofit that truck, it's gonna cost you about $18,000 to retrofit it. A 15-year-old truck is only worth about $12,000.

305. 1:22:35

     Mm-hmm.

306. 1:22:36

     So what we're saying is, even though some of these mandates may change, we don't wanna make sure... We want to make sure that other companies that have purchased trucks in the past, when they were purchased and manufactured based upon the current standard, safety standards at that time, are not obligated and have to update their truck with some of these new, uh, options now, uh, then i- in essence, it would put them out of business.

307. 1:23:00

     Mm-hmm.

308. 1:23:00

     A- and that's gonna be example that I'm going to, uh, that, that I want to present to the committee this morning.

309. 1:23:07

     All right. Thank you. Uh, Chairman McDonald.

310. 1:23:11

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, isn't it, uh, this would be for, uh, for Seth, isn't it true every year that we are given the federal guidelines sent down from the federal government, uh, how we're gonna operate on our federal highways, and we update that by just changing a date, but we're, we're acknowledging that we are accepting the guidelines that are coming down from the federal government to operate these vehicles?

311. 1:23:36

     That's... Uh, thank you, Representative. That's correct. It is incorporated here, um, and we do adopt that. That is enforced by, uh, Department of P- Public Safety's Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division. They communicate that out to every registered carrier in the state of Georgia. So those come down from the federal government on an annual basis. Typically, it's around the springtime when that guidance is issued. That is then communicated out to everybody who has a DOT number in the state of Georgia.

312. 1:24:05

     Is it further true that technolo- technology is constantly changing, whether it's with, with the vehicle itself or safety, that annually you're, I mean, things are coming out for trucks that even for the new trucks, but you say you've got a, you know, a 2018, uh, year old truck that's out operating, but the technology is now greater than what that truck has. If you have governmental affairs people in Washington that are representing a, a technology company saying, "Hey, we need these on the, on the 2018 trucks," uh, don't you think it could be cost prohibitive, just as the senator just said, to be able to mandate that these trucks have to change, uh, for just, you know, small safety things of technology, uh, that has been, you know, that's been, the federal government has implemented?

313. 1:24:55

     100%. And I, we, the senator and I were talking about this yesterday. Let's say there is a technology solution out there, and we'll stay with the, the ag example that he was using. For a truck that might be worth, you know, 12, $15,000, just to be able to make that truck able to carry that technology, you may have to put a new wire and harness in the whole thing, and that's over $20,000.

314. 1:25:18

     Yeah. Mr. Chair, if I further, uh, close out with this, uh, we have a shortage of truck drivers, and looking at this, would this type mandate, would, would, if, e- even, even if they're, you know, coming from the federal government, would, with, with our private truck owners, I mean, I know that the big companies like maybe the senator had, but these private owners that run these small mom-and-pop organizations, and, and if we're trying to mandate them to, to change everything about their truck, change harnesses, uh, it'll be putting our small mom-and-pops out of business.

315. 1:25:53

     That's right. And, and I think from a broader economic development perspective, and we're kind of moving into Chairman Jasperse, uh, territory here, but I think it's important for us to remember as a state that, and, and this is numbers that you can verify with DOT, volume in terms of overall freight in Georgia's projected to go up 91% over the next 25 years. And so as we think about the broader industry and the service that truckers in Georgia provide, 70, 76% of Georgia's communities are completely dependent on trucking to get the goods that they use.

316. 1:26:25

     And so as we think about the future and being prepared to, to, um, uh, to accept that economic growth, we need to encourage development of these small mom-and-pop, as, a- as you mentioned, single owner operators, somebody that has one truck that wants to have two trucks, somebody that has three trucks but wants to have five trucks. Give them the ability to grow responsibly along with our, along with our economy.

317. 1:26:51

     All right. Thank you. Uh, Representative Cummings, we got a couple more people wanting to... and buttons keep lighting up, but I do want to remind everybody, we have one more bill and we have limited time, so we're gonna start wrapping this up a little bit. Representative Cummings.

318. 1:27:02

     Thank you, Chairman. Um, going back to your example, Senator, and I just wanted to clarify.

319. 1:27:09

     Okay.

320. 1:27:09

     When you were talking about a truck that's been 15 years old, and then I guess it's, um, you keep up with it, you keep it maintained, and now it's being used for something else. If that's something else, like, um, timber, in your example, which I would think is going to have much more tonnage, is a much heavier load than, let's say, if you were operating and the truck was full of groceries or furniture before. And if that timber industry mandates that that truck be able to carry that load, according to this, it sounds like they wouldn't have to do it because they only have to meet the standards that were in effect when the truck was manufactured.

321. 1:27:51

     So how do you make sure that truck is now safe to carry that much heavier load of timber if we keep this, um, in here?

322. 1:28:01

     Yes, ma'am. Great question. So the, the national legal limit, uh, is 80,000 pounds. Most all trucks are manufactured to carry that 80,000-pound weight. Anything over 80,000 pounds is considered overweight, and you can get specific state permits or, or things to build a transition on those state roads. Um, the... So regardless, I, I know it may sound a little strange, but whether you're hauling furniture or, or, um, say, retail goods, if you're hauling grocery items, you're hauling timber, it's all limited to 80,000 pounds i- is the national limit and, and the state limit.

323. 1:28:35

     As, as long as, um... Again, you can always get a permit, uh, to do that, but it's also exceedingly excessive to get those, uh, those permits. Um, what, some of the options that you can do whenever you manufacture trucks, if you're... For the timber industry, if you're gonna buy a truck brand new, um, some of the options that you can have is you can have a thicker frame made. Um, you know, you can use, um, you know, 5/16 instead of, uh, instead of quarter inch. There's all different types of things you can do. When, when you manufacture trucks nowadays, there's, um... it's, it's somewhat similar to when you go to purchase a car except for the standpoint of in transportation, if you're looking at the truck itself, just not the trailer, the truck will have over 5,000 options that you're available to select from.

324. 1:29:18

     Uh, and that can be from any number of things. The, the frame thickness, the wheel base length, the, the truck length, the, you know, anti-collision avoidance systems, the type of brakes, the brand of brakes, uh, the brand of tires, the size of tires. There's just thousands and thousands of options. So, um, with that, uh, can't, can a truck be used if it was originally purchased and manufactured to, uh, to transport, say, retail goods or, or, um, grocery items? Can it work in the transportation... or can it work in the, in the timber industry? Yes, it can, um, as long as they still maintain the same weight of 80,000 pounds.

325. 1:29:51

     Mm.

326. 1:29:52

     All right. Very good.

327. 1:29:53

     And that's all that's required.

328. 1:29:53

     Thank you.

329. 1:29:55

     Ma'am?

330. 1:29:55

     That's all that's required.

331. 1:29:57

     Ye- yes, ma'am.

332. 1:29:58

     Yep. Thank you. All right. Representative Neal.

333. 1:30:01

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And this can be to either person. I think both apply. So I guess my concern is you referenced the federal mandates, um, related to the trucking industry, but, uh, what I'm finding is that actually the federal government has, um, deregulated a lot of things, some things that can be, you know, unsafe, such as, um, now the regulation requiring a maximum speed on these vehicles has been redrawn and it has not been put back into effect. And so when it comes to things such as that where the federal government has released something that makes the trucks less safe-

334. 1:30:33

     Mm-hmm

335. 1:30:34

     ... and then we pass a bill that makes it even more less safe and makes those safety components optional, how do we, you know, how do we, you know, make that make sense when it comes to people being safe on the, on the roads in Georgia?

336. 1:30:48

     You want to take that one?

337. 1:30:49

     Okay.

338. 1:30:49

     Either way.

339. 1:30:50

     All right. So whenever it comes to... What the federal government has mandated is they, and the one that you're talking about is it they've not mandated a specific speed. Um, but all trucks have governors on them. And, and 99% of the trucks nowadays have electronic governors that's built into the computer system on the truck. It's up to each company itself, the end operator, to decide what the correct speed is for their application. So for the company that I ran, our maximum speed was 65 miles an hour. That's what we mandated. And now, uh, other companies it may be 62. Other companies it may be 69.

340. 1:31:22

     Uh, so they leave that up to all the individual companies themselves to be able to do that.

341. 1:31:27

     Now, if I can interrupt you. This, so I understand your point, and that makes perfect sense. But using that example, for example-

342. 1:31:32

     Okay

343. 1:31:33

     ... the, the, the requirement for a governor has been removed by the federal government. So I understand what you're saying, but that requirement doesn't exist anymore, and it has not been renewed for 2026.

344. 1:31:45

     Okay.

345. 1:31:45

     So your, your example would be relevant if a governor was currently mandated.

346. 1:31:50

     Okay. Okay.

347. 1:31:50

     But it's not. So give me a scenario when because it's not, because trucks don't even have to have them anymore-

348. 1:31:56

     Okay

349. 1:31:56

     ... to cap their maximum speeds to make drivers safe, what are we doing now?

350. 1:32:01

     Yeah, so let, let's talk... Great question. Let's talk a little bit about governors themselves. So back in the, in the '70 to '80s and early '90s-

351. 1:32:07

     So if we could stick with the example. Governors are not required now. So like give me another example that-

352. 1:32:12

     Uh-

353. 1:32:12

     ... does not require.

354. 1:32:13

     Well, so-

355. 1:32:13

     And let's- and, and we're gonna limit some of the history of it, okay?

356. 1:32:16

     Okay.

357. 1:32:16

     'Cause I, I promise you-

358. 1:32:17

     All right

359. 1:32:17

     ... we're gonna run out of time here in just a minute.

360. 1:32:18

     No, understood. Understood.

361. 1:32:19

     So we're, we are gonna get done with this bill and get on to the next bill.

362. 1:32:22

     Um, so-

363. 1:32:24

     And if the answer is you don't know, and that's okay, I just wanna be, like, transparent with s- scenario.

364. 1:32:29

     Uh, agreed. The only thing I was gonna say is all trucks that are manufactured nowadays have electronic governors. Um, they're not mechanical. It's built into the computer system on the truck. Now, what's not dictated by the federal government is the speed, is the end operator. Because every trucking company, every operator of that truck can plug into that computer system. We can make the speed governor whatever we want to, but they're all electronically controlled-

365. 1:32:52

     Mm-hmm

366. 1:32:53

     ... for every truck that's manufactured.

367. 1:32:56

     Mm-hmm.

368. 1:32:56

     Thank you.

369. 1:32:56

     Yes, ma'am.

370. 1:32:58

     And I believe we still have speed limits on the roads, so-

371. 1:33:00

     Mm

372. 1:33:01

     ... we ain't got rid of those yet. Chairman Jaspers.

373. 1:33:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. R- just real quickly on safety, Senator, would this bill in any way, if they were w- heard safety go back and forth, uh, if there's a recall-

374. 1:33:15

     Mm

375. 1:33:15

     ... for the manufacturer on a, any part of the tractor, does this bill any, it prohibit the, that recall from taking place, so that update of that different piece of equipment being put on there?

376. 1:33:27

     It does not.

377. 1:33:28

     Okay. Thank you.

378. 1:33:30

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Sainz, last one. What, Eric?

379. 1:33:36

     Um, a qu- qu- I, it, a question then a motion, if that's appropriate.

380. 1:33:41

     Please.

381. 1:33:42

     Um, just to be clear, right now if Freightliner or Volvo were to give a recall notice to a driver, and they're giving a notice 'cause, uh, we know one of the biggest issues of a, a truck is vehicle, cars misaligning how quickly they can brake and going in front of them at no fault of their own. But if there was a, a brake recall on that truck, would there be any legal duty with this amendment to modify those brakes?

382. 1:34:12

     I don't know the answer to that question.

383. 1:34:13

     All right. Well-

384. 1:34:14

     I don't think it, I don't think it relieves that duty.

385. 1:34:19

     If you'll, if you'll re-ask your question, I will, I'll answer it.

386. 1:34:22

     If there's a, a notice, a recall on, on a brake being faulty-

387. 1:34:27

     Mm-hmm

388. 1:34:27

     ... uh, coming from Volvo, Freightliner, whatever the manufacturer might be-

389. 1:34:31

     Right

390. 1:34:31

     ... with Section 6, does that reduce the legal duty for that, uh, company or driver to get those brakes, uh, um, to, to a, a standard that is safe for motorists on the roadway?

391. 1:34:44

     Okay. We're gonna split this in two different compartments real quick. So, um, when it comes to recalls is no, it does not, um, defer the obligation, but I want to point one thing out, is the recall notices are sent to the first owner that purchased a truck from that manufacturer. If you're a second, third, or fourth owner, you'll never get a recall notice. So I would just wanna split that out separately. Um, so again, with us, we used to buy our trucks directly from Freightliner, and so we would get, um, recall notices, and we would comply with all those notices, specifically if they were mandatory.

392. 1:35:16

     That's what we were required to do. But if you bought this truck and it was, again, three or four years old, you're the second owner, third owner, fourth owner, the manufacturer does not know who that owner is, and they'll never get... That, that third or fourth owner will never get a, a recall notice.

393. 1:35:30

     All right. I, given, uh, and I, I say this with reservation 'cause I understand the intent of making sure that we have a practically, uh, a, a legal practicality when it comes to liability and, and when it aligns to, uh, uh, folks being aware of the issues-

394. 1:35:52

     Mm-hmm

395. 1:35:52

     ... and faults, but understanding that trucks pose one of the highest hazards to motorists, I don't... And understanding this language hasn't been vetted by the Senate and was introduced in this bill late in the game, I do not think we're being, uh, um, fair to the weight of what we're possibly proposing by having Section 6 in this bill. And with that, I make the motion to strike the entirety of Section 6 from the bill.

396. 1:36:18

     Okay. Well, I, I will not entertain that motion just yet. Uh, we'll need a motion on the bill itself first before we can entertain a motion to amend the bill. So do you wanna make a motion?

397. 1:36:29

     Make a motion to pass on the bill.

398. 1:36:31

     All right. We have a motion to pass. Is there a second?

399. 1:36:34

     Second.

400. 1:36:34

     All right. We have a motion to second. Now, do we have a motion for an amendment?

401. 1:36:38

     Make a, a, yes, Mr. Chairman, uh, with respect, uh, uh, make a motion to strike the entirety of Section 6 of the bill to allow for further deliberation.

402. 1:36:48

     Second.

403. 1:36:49

     Okay. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Is there further discussion? Representative Neal? Nope. All right. Any discussion on the proposed amendment? All in favor of the amendment say aye.

404. 1:37:03

     Aye.

405. 1:37:03

     All opposed say no.

406. 1:37:04

     No.

407. 1:37:06

     All right. Ayes have it. We're moving on to the full bill. All those in favor or we have discussion. Representative Neal?

408. 1:37:15

     I have an amendment at the appropriate time.

409. 1:37:18

     Well, I guess that would be now.

410. 1:37:20

     Okay. Um, line 55.

411. 1:37:27

     After the word visa, delete or five years, whichever occurs first.

412. 1:37:39

     Then line 79 through 81, strike the whole section.

413. 1:37:47

     Okay. We have a motion-

414. 1:37:51

     Line, line 55, after visa, delete or five years, whichever occurs first. Then line 79 through 81, strike.

415. 1:38:12

     All right. So we have a motion to the period would be after the word visa on line 55.

416. 1:38:17

     Yeah.

417. 1:38:17

     That would be the end of that sentence.

418. 1:38:18

     That's right.

419. 1:38:18

     And then you wanna strike line 79 through 81.

420. 1:38:22

     That's correct, sir.

421. 1:38:23

     All right. That is the motion. Megan, you got that?

422. 1:38:26

     I do.

423. 1:38:26

     Okay. All right. That is the motion, and I believe there was a second on that motion.

424. 1:38:31

     Yes.

425. 1:38:31

     All right. All those in favor of the Neal amendment say aye.

426. 1:38:36

     Aye.

427. 1:38:37

     All opposed say no.

428. 1:38:40

     No.

429. 1:38:40

     All right. Motion fails. All right. On to the full bill as amended with the Sainz amendment, all in favor say aye.

430. 1:38:48

     Aye.

431. 1:38:48

     All opposed say no.

432. 1:38:50

     No.

433. 1:38:52

     All right. We'll count this one. Uh, all in favor raise your hand.

434. 1:39:00

     All opposed? All right. Motion carries. Who's gonna be carrying this for you?

435. 1:39:04

     Uh, Chairman Jaspers.

436. 1:39:07

     Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you.

437. 1:39:09

     Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee.

438. 1:39:12

     All right. Chairman Strickland.

439. 1:39:42

     All right, we're gonna, we're gonna, uh, take a recess for about three to five minutes, and then, uh, we'll get started.

440. 1:50:23

     All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna come back to order and get the meeting started back. Um, try to get to this last bill before we start losing members of the committee here pretty soon. Um.

441. 1:50:44

     We're... I have a feeling we're about to make some law on the fly here, so this should be pretty interesting.

442. 1:51:01

     All right, Chairman Strickland, we have a plan. I hope so. All right, very good. So y'all go from trucks to body cams to mugshots. And I brought my law book, so- Very good ... I didn't just stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. There you go. I actually am a lawyer, but I'll try to keep this brief. Thank y'all, um, for hearing this bill, the Senate Bill 482, and I think the LC you have in front of you is the version that passed the Senate. Is that correct? I'm gonna propose some changes.

443. 1:51:31

     You also have proposed amendment, which is AM630026. Um, and I don't have the LC written down, but it's the past Senate version that I'm presenting. Let me give you a little bit of background. I'll jump right into it. Back in 2013, my first year serving in the House with some of y'all that were around then, not very many, couple of guys, um, we passed a bill that Representative Roger Bruce brought that r- uh, made it where people couldn't charge a fee to take a mugshot image down.

444. 1:52:01

     You have these online companies, in the time, at the time especially, that existed without regulation, and they would take someone's mugshot, no matter whether they were convicted of a crime or not, and they would put it online, and then would charge you to have it taken down. And then what we found after that law passed is a lot of these companies were overseas. They weren't Georgia companies, and we gave the attorney general jurisdiction to go after them, but there was no way to really do that because one company would take it down, it'd pop up somewhere else. I came back the next year after hearing that very issue and brought another bill in 2014 that made it where sheriffs no longer post the images online.

445. 1:52:37

     It required requests to get certain images and required a statement that goes along with the request and the person getting that image that they're not gonna charge to have it taken down. My thought was get people on the record. Let's hopefully slow down and, and make sure these aren't online automatically and stop the production of these images. Because my goal at the time was that if, if someone's mugshot is press-worthy, it's gonna get out there. But for everybody else that's not newsworthy, and you have people that develop these companies and take people's images just for entertainment, and you can look online right now, you'll see where I live, a Henry County Crime Facebook page.

446. 1:53:17

     Everybody that's arrested gets their image put online. There will sometimes be logos put on the images promoting that company. Well, then there's another whole publication you're directed to on a website where they're there again at this place, and everyone in your counties probably has this, this page. It's become an entertainment industry. And what that means is people that are never t- never convicted of a crime, just arrested, or someone that's convicted of a crime, their image lives forever for entertainment purposes, and that is not the reason we have mugshots in our state. They are designed for particular reasons, for public safety, and for sunshine on the arrest process, the person that is arrested.

447. 1:53:53

     They should not be for entertainment. And so I come here now and however many years later and bring to you what I hope is a solution to tighten this up even more with Senate Bill 482, and I'll get to the body cam, um, video section in a second. What this bill tries to accomplish is it makes it where now you have to go in person to get the mugshot, and you have to then submit an affidavit when you get that mugshot where you identify the name of the person you want the image of, the first and last name, and you confirm the affidavit that you're gonna comply with Georgia law.

448. 1:54:27

     You're not gonna charge to have that image taken down. What I hope that accomplishes is we know exactly who's getting the images, first off. We'll have people on the record getting these images. Right now, people are just sending an email saying, "Give me every image for the last seven days." Now we'll have someone in person with an affidavit who identifies the person they want the image of. The goal being if someone wants your mugshot, they can get it, but if someone wants to go and harass our law enforcement and make them give every single mugshot for the last seven days, they can make money off of it, it's gonna be a lot harder to do that.

449. 1:55:02

     And maybe down the road, we should pass a law that makes that completely illegal in our state, but you get into a gray area of the First Amendment. What is newsworthy, right? How do you define when someone should be able to go and publish a mugshot? And for our friends in the press, they have to have ads, so there will be ads associated with legitimate press stories on mugshots, so it was hard to thread that needle. And so I would try to go back with this bill and go back to the supply side, if you will, of the mugshots and make it where someone has to have a reasoned, legit purpose to go and get these, these, uh, mugshots.

450. 1:55:33

     Now, in committee in the Senate, um, videos were added to the bill. And to be fair, candid with everyone, there was no discussion about whether or not the same provisions around videos made sense. We've talked about mugshots, as I've done so far here today. So the bill passed unanimously in the Senate, and then I had people approach me with concerns based on how it was written, the version you see in front of you. And it says you have to identify the people in the, in the video Well, if you want to go and find a body cam footage of an incident or a particular scene, you may not know everybody in that, in that video.

451. 1:56:09

     So I think we wrote it too tight. So I brought to y'all a proposed amendment that I hope will address, it divides up in two sections. One section on the arrest images, one section on law enforcement videos. And you'll see on page two, the change you see in this proposed amendment is on lines 26 and 27. This is the new language, where now instead of just having the first and last name of the person in the video, you could also request the date of the alleged incident, of the incident, of the time you want, or the time and location of the encounter interactions.

452. 1:56:44

     You still have to go in person and request the video. Still gotta know what you're requesting, and there is a whole industry out there of YouTubers that are taking all these body cam videos and putting them online for entertainment, and it's making it where for our sheriffs, they have to go and edit these and review these in advance to make sure they can release everything, and it requires a lot of work and resources for our sheriffs and these open-ended requests that they get. So it creates a more narrow request, but there's nothing that would prevent anybody from getting any body cam they wanna get, any law enforcement video they wanna get.

453. 1:57:16

     They just have to go and show up and ask for it, and they have to be identified the time period they want or the people that are in it. And so I think the amendment should, should clear up all the concerns of folks that may have called y'all that have been upset about the bill. There's been editorials written by some people in the press opposing the bill the last seven days saying this bill somehow is bad for Georgians. They're missing the point. We make it where you can get the mugshots, you can get the body cam. But what legitimate press doesn't realize, if you oppose this, then you're actually agreeing with these folks that are out there pretending they're press, profiting off people's misfortunes, and you're gonna get to the situation where Georgia will be like other states, we just make none of this stuff discoverable at all.

454. 1:58:00

     This will all be part of the ves- vestigatory file. Other states do it that way, where you can't get any, any body cam, any mugshots until a case is completely closed. Is that direction Georgia wants to go? Well, if we don't get our, our hands around this, then I think that's the direction we have to go as a state. So all that said, I've worked with our friends in the press trying to figure out how we can make certain we're not, uh, being punitive or hurting those that truly are reporting the news. And I think it's difficult for us to, under Georgia law, to say who the press is and who's not the press.

455. 1:58:30

     We don't wanna get, get on that road for us as lawmakers saying, "You're the press and you're not." Well, I have another solution I think I can offer you, though, because if there is a, a crime in Savannah that a newspaper in Dalton wants to report on, uh, do we really need them to have to drive all the way to Savannah to get that image or to get that body cam? If we know who they are, and they are members of the press that are credentialed, I think we can carve them out. And so I wanna offer, I don't have this in writing for y'all, but I've met with, uh, Ms. Davidson and she has some language that would say, "These code sections do not apply for requests from our bona fide credentialed members of two different associations." In Georgia, there's two associations that currently have privileges as members of the press, privileges that allow them to be the first on certain scenes, other things that Georgia law allows them to do as members of the press, including even coming in our chambers, and that's the Georgia Press Association and the Georgia Association of Broadcasters.

456. 1:59:28

     So what the committee could do, and I would support, is adding an exception under both of these sections that says, "These, this law does not apply, or this process does not apply to bona fide credentialed members of the Georgia Press Association or the Georgia Asso- Association of Broadcasters." These are people that will show law enforcement their credentials. We'll know who they are, and we'll know exactly who the image is going to or who the video is going to, and I think it's consistent with what we're trying to accomplish with this, with this bill. So with that, Mr.

457. 1:59:58

     Chairman, happy to answer any questions, and then at the appropriate time, I can work with y'all on these proposed amendments if that's what y'all wanna do.

458. 2:00:06

     All right. Thank you.

459. 2:00:10

     Chairman McDonald.

460. 2:00:11

     Uh, yes, uh, Chairman Strickland, uh, something, I, I was just kind of reading through the bill and getting near the page three. Can you explain section three? I'd like some detail on that, please.

461. 2:00:27

     That was a floor amendment in the Senate. I don't know if that's something y'all are considering in the committee today as part of the bill. I think that's not something that is... Do you want to address that, Mr. Chairman, or do you want me to?

462. 2:00:38

     That, well, in our discussions, there was gonna be a, we were working to try to get a substitute in here, and that part was gonna be removed in the substitute, but you brought an amendment-

463. 2:00:46

     So I'll-

464. 2:00:46

     ... through our stuff here.

465. 2:00:47

     Yeah, so I'll s- br- that was a whole different thing that was added on the Senate floor by others, and, uh, the goal of that was to, it's being called the Epstein Amendment. It's on other bills as well, but where, um, people that work in this Capitol, if you go and, and have a settlement for a sexual harassment or other types of harassment or retaliation claims, that, um, those settlement agreements will be part of, um, disclosure now, so the public could see those things that are kept quiet around here. That was the goal of that. It passed as part of the bill in the Senate. It's just my understanding there wasn't support for leaving that on this bill, but that's obviously up to the committee.

466. 2:01:25

     I think there was a, uh,

467. 2:01:29

     some concerns about whether or not we can legislatively intervene in non-disclosure agreements and settlement agreements, and so that's a, uh, that's a separate topic for another day that probably isn't, uh, applicable on this bill necessarily. Chairman Jaspers.

468. 2:01:46

     Yeah, I just have just a comment as we, as we work through this, Senator. I know we'd like to stop this. I know it's entertainment for some people, but, but for some people, it's a right to know. And I just, um, as our communities get more distant from one another, like, you know, I have new neighbors who've moved in, I don't know who they are, and they don't wanna know me. But if they're arrested for pedophile, is what I thought of this morning when I was look- thinking about this, I won't know their name.

469. 2:02:22

     I might know their ... Maybe I do, but there might be two people with different names, but I'll know their face. And I think it just, this limits a community's ability to look, if they choose to look on Facebook or whatever, to see that ex-person. "Oh, I've seen him. I seen him in the grocery store. I've seen him here." I notify him then. There's no way to know now, I mean, just by looking, by being able to request online by name. I think this is m- that's my issue with this, is it really limits the public's ability to know.

470. 2:02:57

     So I, I would disagree, I guess, on two points. One, every- everything that's still, uh, public under Georgia law, such as, um, online, you can look and see who's arrested by names. And so y- all the names will still be there, um, all police reports. Uh, noth- nothing under current law changes when it comes to the release of the initial report that people can get while an investigation's still going on or, or the full report after invest- investigation's closed. Nothing limits a sex offender registry, for example. I know y'all passed a bill, we heard in committee last night, that deals with a, a domestic violence registry.

471. 2:03:30

     Sure.

472. 2:03:31

     But I don't ... The second point I would say is I don't believe that's how it works now. I don't believe that people really go and search through every mugshot just to see if they recognize somebody to then know that person committed a crime. I think it's just purely entertainment, and I also don't think that's a good way to do things because those are arrest images. You are charged with a crime. I don't know what the percentage is, maybe nine times out of 10, that's not gonna be the conviction. Either the, the case may change, um, the charges could change, or the person gets, the case gets dismissed.

473. 2:04:03

     And the idea that we should try people based on their image of being arrested in the court of public opinion, whether it be in a magazine or online, I just disagree that's what, how we ought to do it. Um, but I understand that that's true, that you no longer would probably have access to every single arrest image that's out there forever.

474. 2:04:20

     If I can, Mr. Chairman, 'cause I think, just like we agreed, that, um, people could if they chose to look in their local arrest record at the jail and see the people there-

475. 2:04:30

     Sure

476. 2:04:30

     ... their pictures there, but they don't do that. They're relying on, unfortunately, this other method of doing it to know what's going on in their community.

477. 2:04:38

     That's true. And the policy question y'all have to make is do you want every arrest image to be out there forever?

478. 2:04:42

     Mm.

479. 2:04:42

     Because once it's online, it never goes away.

480. 2:04:45

     That's true.

481. 2:04:45

     And that's the problem, that, that people try to get jobs. We've done so much work, in time we've served together on criminal justice reform. All the work we've done, all the expungement, everything else, what happens when they Google and their photo's there forever? And that's what we allow right now the way this process works.

482. 2:05:01

     Yes, sir. Thank you, Chairman.

483. 2:05:03

     Thank you.

484. 2:05:04

     Thank you. Uh, Representative Holcomb.

485. 2:05:07

     Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I wanna, I think, build off of what Chairman Jasperse said a little bit, um, i- in terms of just the limitations and restrictions that this opposes. I certainly understand and agree with what you're trying to achieve. Um, but, like, can you explain the requirement of, of making the request in person? Because that's another barrier versus being able to do it via email or some, you know, electronic means.

486. 2:05:39

     Yeah, so I think number one is it provides a way to have the affidavit submitted, and it makes it where, um, you have someone there that's a real person signing an affidavit. Otherwise, there's no way to really notarize that, unless we have remote online notary that I know we've wrestled with. And so you have the logistical issue there.

487. 2:05:57

     Okay.

488. 2:05:57

     Um, but I think that, that is the biggest point of having it in person. And, um, you also just wanna make sure it's a real person. Because of these guys that are, that are online that exist somewhere overseas, they could send an email. We don't know who they are. And if we're gonna give, as we currently have, jurisdiction to prosecute people for how they use the image, we need to make sure we know who's getting them, and I think it makes things smoother for our arresting agencies having it that way.

489. 2:06:21

     That's fair. And they have notaries available?

490. 2:06:24

     Well, I think they'd have to.

491. 2:06:25

     Yeah.

492. 2:06:25

     I think the question would be, since it's notarized, I think you're gonna either, as a sheriff, probably have to sort out are you gonna, um, accept someone that's already notarized something and bring it to you, or are you gonna have a way to verify that notary-

493. 2:06:37

     Sure

494. 2:06:37

     ... or will you have a notary there? And I think that's one of the things that'll have to get worked out on the back end. The law, as I was talking to some of our sheriff friends, um, the law puts a burden on them already to make some determinations. One of the things current law does based on, I can't remember if it was my bill or Roger Bruce's bill originally, but it makes it where they have to make the call to make sure they aren't giving the image to someone that'll post it online and charge to have it taken down, and this is another tool to kinda help verify for their sake who they're giving an image to.

495. 2:07:06

     Okay.

496. 2:07:06

     So I think it kinda falls on them as to how that'll work out on the affidavit part.

497. 2:07:09

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, my other question is, it, it's line 16 and it's the word date. And similar to the concern about potentially not knowing an individual's name is

498. 2:07:28

     the requester may not know the precise date, and I don't know if it would make more sense to have, like, a range of dates. I'm not sure that I can immediately think of how to do it. Because what I wouldn't wanna have happen is let's say you make a request for a video for, you know, March 23rd, but the incident was actually March 22nd. And so a technical application of the law would be you requested it on the wrong date, and but if the video exists. So I, I don't know if the, it would make sense to have a range of dates and how that could be, you know, proposed within the statute, but I just- Wouldn't want somebody that had a legitimate request to have it denied.

499. 2:08:08

     Sure.

500. 2:08:09

     It's not really a technicality, but you know what I'm saying.

501. 2:08:11

     No, and I, I thought about that as well, then I thought in some ways the word date is broader. I mean, it will be up for interpretation, but what I, what I suggested, and I worked last night, Ms. Davidson worked late on this with me last night , I suggested something like date, time, and location. I was trying to be broad about is on, because if you start saying you gotta give a one-hour block, whatever it is, I mean, sometimes you may need to look at six hours of footage. I don't know. Um, and so I was trying by design to be a little broad with that.

502. 2:08:40

     Okay. Thank you.

503. 2:08:44

     All right. Chairman Petrea.

504. 2:08:47

     Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Senator, my good friend, uh, uh, I'm sitting here thinking about this measure. So i- i- isn't true that, uh, nationally and actually worldwide, uh, about over 20% of our population have mental illness issues, correct?

505. 2:09:02

     I've heard numbers like that. It's probably true.

506. 2:09:04

     And to all the, uh, uh, folks here that have been involved in law enforcement we have with us today, and my colleagues here with me, uh, my, the most knowledgeable one I know in this state sitting beside me over here, Chairman, uh, Colonel Hitchens.

507. 2:09:18

     Chairman Greene. Oh, it's Colonel Hitchens. Sorry. I didn't see him.

508. 2:09:23

     Is it not true, is it not true that, um, oftentimes in domestic ar- uh, areas, domestic disputes, we, I think we've all seen this in our personal lives with, uh, people we know in our community, that allegations are made that oftentimes are false. And so when we, when you have someone who has been arrested for a crime, you know better than anybody as a prominent, uh, attorney, uh, they're innocent until proven guilty.

509. 2:09:59

     And, um, there's no way to escape that when your face has been shared all over the world. So I, I think what you're trying to do is reasonable and, uh, and I support, uh, I support what you're doing. Uh, when, when someone's been convicted of a crime, that's great. Whatever. But until that point, I think, I think this is a reasonable measure.

510. 2:10:20

     And I think you'll hear some law enforcement folks tell you, too, they feel like they're putting theirselves, themselves out there, 'cause they released the image. And people then, who do they blame? They blame the sheriff. Or what if there's ... I don't know if this will get talked about. What if it, it's got the wrong charge? That happens, and mistakes are made.

511. 2:10:36

     Yes.

512. 2:10:36

     And it's there forever, and the sheriff gets blamed, so they ... This is a bill that, while I would argue is really criminal justice reform-

513. 2:10:43

     Yeah

514. 2:10:43

     ... it's something that's very pro-law enforcement, 'cause they have a tough job, and, and the last thing they wanna do is be, have people try in the court of public opinion, they're blamed for that. They're not the jurors, and they don't wanna be the jurors.

515. 2:10:54

     That's right. And don't we tell you, fur- further, Chairman, w- isn't this a path to taint a jury as well?

516. 2:11:01

     It could be.

517. 2:11:01

     Doesn't this make it hard to find jurors in a community if it's as widely shared as some of my friends in Henry County have alluded to? Maybe not your friends.

518. 2:11:09

     I haven't thought about that. It could be.

519. 2:11:10

     Yeah. Thank, thank, thank you, sir.

520. 2:11:13

     All right. Thank you. Chairman Sainz.

521. 2:11:15

     Thank you. I'm gonna reserve my questions about section three. I think it'll be talked about later. But, uh, just, uh, clarity, and I hope it's not redundant, uh, uh, but law enforcement video verse here in line 17, does that include, uh, body camera, camera footage?

522. 2:11:32

     Yeah. Look at your proposed amendment on page two. Ms. Davidson created a definition for that, 'cause again, that was done a little fast in committee, to be fair, the first line you saw on 17. The proposed amendment, though, on page two creates a definition that is broad. Any video recording of an individual taken by a law enforcement agency during the course of an encounter or interaction with such individual, including but not limited to recordings from body-worn devices or devices located on or inside of law enforcement vehicles.

523. 2:12:01

     Sorry. I'm seeing that now. Thank you. Uh, all right. Thank you.

524. 2:12:06

     All right. Representative Cummings.

525. 2:12:10

     Um, Senator, first I wanted to thank you for bringing this bill, and we had a short discussion and, but I was just sitting here wondering about the notarization, um, aspect. In most court pleadings now, everything can be filed online, which is great on, for attorneys. And affidavits and other documents are routinely filed that have notaries, and they're filed online. So it's kinda taken me back when I was sitting here listening to, um, Representative Holcomb's question about the in-person aspect. It's kind of common practice now to submit requests or documents online that are notarized, and that, um, protection is still there.

526. 2:12:49

     If the document is false, you can still come after a, a person or sanction them. And so I'm kind of wondering, is that really necessary? Because notaries are already accepted online, and they're submitted every day now in court.

527. 2:13:04

     So they're accepted online, but the, the requirements of what it takes to notarize something hasn't really changed.

528. 2:13:09

     Right.

529. 2:13:09

     Because you still have someone that has to, uh, apply to be a notary.

530. 2:13:13

     Right.

531. 2:13:14

     And when you're a notary, it's on you to check the identification of the person. And what ends up happening is you, and a lot of notaries probably don't think about this, you may find yourself in court one day verifying that thing was signed.

532. 2:13:24

     Oh, yeah.

533. 2:13:24

     And you have to have a process you follow that's routine so you remember the fact that, well, obviously I know if I notarized it, I checked her ID, and I verified who she was. So I, I do think that, that part'll have to get sort- My, my intent, the way I would view it happening, and the sheriffs may disagree with this, but I, I'm wondering if, if they are going to either have to, you know, be able to identify who the notary is or offer a notary potentially, or maybe something that's a service that's offered. Uh, but it could be that some sheriffs do elect to say, "Okay, I'm gonna trust this was notarized by somebody." Um, but I, I think that, that probably has to work itself out.

534. 2:13:58

     Okay, 'cause I, I mean, I've had a case where the notary signed some documents shouldn't, shouldn't have, and, and they got in, in a lot of trouble.

535. 2:14:06

     Mm-hmm.

536. 2:14:06

     But I'm just thinking why would we make it more, um, difficult at the sheriff's office than submitting something to court, because like you said, all of those criteria, but I can go to UPS and get a document notarized if I have the right license and everything, and I don't wanna have to go to the sheriff's office. And then they don't accept it 'cause it wasn't their notary. That's, that's all I'm talking about, that, you know-

537. 2:14:29

     That's a good point

538. 2:14:30

     ... the part, the part that, um, they're so accepted online, but the rules and the laws and the sanctions absolutely still apply if it turns out to be a false document.

539. 2:14:41

     And I do think the Sheriff's Association may make a determination as to whether it can be notarized in advance or not, and maybe that's the decision they make. Uh, the law doesn't... The way that it's proposed, I don't think it confirms whether it can be notarized in person there or in advance.

540. 2:14:56

     Okay.

541. 2:14:56

     So that, that may get worked out on its own.

542. 2:14:59

     Okay. Thank you.

543. 2:15:00

     All right, thank you. Representative Richardson.

544. 2:15:03

     Yes, sir, Mr. Senator. Um, a couple of questions. We said something about the, uh, the press having press credentials, being able to get it online or, uh, broadcasting. What about a private investigator or attorney that's trying to get that information and, uh, and the expense that may drive up if somebody's-

545. 2:15:26

     Yeah

546. 2:15:26

     ... got to, you know, go all over the place to get this information and they have to pass on to a client or whatever. So the affordability.

547. 2:15:34

     It's a great question, and it was something that came up on the Senate floor. We added, when you look at the current, the as passed Senate version, lines 23 and 24.

548. 2:15:43

     Okay.

549. 2:15:44

     So the person that's depicted or their attorney or other agent could get the image the old-fashioned way, if you will-

550. 2:15:51

     Okay

551. 2:15:52

     ... directly through. Now, it doesn't change. Even the credentialed press still have to go through an open records request, um, to do that, or there could be a subpoena potentially sent if it's a lawyer, I guess, if there's litigation. Um, so this new process we're setting up, though, you would not have to go through that if it's you or your agent or attorney that's requesting it.

552. 2:16:12

     Okay. Thank you.

553. 2:16:15

     Okay. All right. Looks like we have, uh, exhausted all the questions from members of the committee. We'll now move on to public testimony. Uh, Steve Tippins.

554. 2:16:24

     Would you like me to stay here or...?

555. 2:16:26

     Yeah, you're fine right there. And Steve, you can come to the, to the podium or the, the table, whichever is better for you.

556. 2:16:35

     Senator Strickland won't-

557. 2:16:36

     Come on down

558. 2:16:37

     ... kick me out.

559. 2:16:37

     I'm going to show them my mugshot, are you?

560. 2:16:41

     Thank you. Uh, Your Honor, if it pleases the committee, I'm Steve Tippins with-

561. 2:16:46

     That, that, that's, that's not applicable to me-

562. 2:16:48

     Not even

563. 2:16:48

     ... sir. I promise you.

564. 2:16:49

     You want to?

565. 2:16:50

     Nah, you look the part.

566. 2:16:52

     Uh, if it pleases the committee, I've, I've... I'm Steve Tippins with McGuireWoods. I have four points I'd like to make. I'm here on behalf of the Georgia Gazette, a publication with which many of you are probably familiar, which I think is also the, uh, publication that probably stands the most to lose from the passage of, of this, of this legislation. I think Senator Strickland would agree with that.

567. 2:17:13

     I would.

568. 2:17:13

     I'll be brief with my, my points. Uh, the first I'd like to make is I understand the purpose of this bill, from speaking with the author on several occasions, with some of the members of the committee, and with the chairman, that the purpose of this bill is that we have great public concern with the erosion of the presumption of innocence. I certainly understand that. As a defense attorney, I, I am sympathetic to that. I also understand from speaking with several of you and with the chairman that there are several stories that have been shared of people out there who have been accused, wrongly accused, whose lives have been, if not ruined, at least terribly disadvantaged.

569. 2:17:49

     I am sympathetic to that, too, but I would be remiss not to point out that for every unfortunate story we have, we have several stories of the benefits, of the public policy benefits that come from having the public, um, enjoying, if not unfettered, then not burdensome access to what is already public records, records they already own. Remember that. So for every unfortunate story we have, I could cite to you the story of a Smyrna, Tennessee police detective who closed out a case because of a mugshot he found on the Georgia Gazette and was able to identify the perpetrator of a violent crime against one of his fellow police officers.

570. 2:18:31

     I could cite to you an incident of the South Carolina State Patrol closing out a case because of the m- of a McDuffie County mugshot they were able to procure from the Georgia Gazette. I, uh, if I remember correctly, the state patrolman said to the Georgia Gazette in a letter that you'll always have a friend in blue across the river. There is a public policy benefit to having access to these open records. I could cite to you the Coweta County foster mom. I'm not going to give names. I don't know if we have permission to do that, but I have the testimonies here if you would like to come see them or talk with me about them.

571. 2:19:01

     But I could tell you about the Coweta County foster mom who was slated to, uh, oversee the reunification of her foster child with the biological mother, as is the, as is the process we have in, in Georgia, as is what we hope will always be the goal in foster cases. But were it not for the Georgia Gazette, she would not have discovered that the biological mother had been arrested and convicted of several violent felonies over the course of, of the preceding few years. Somehow that had been missed by DFCS and the court system.

572. 2:19:32

     But because of the Georgia Gazette, because of her access to those public records, she was able to identify that and prevent the reunification that would have not been in the best interest of her foster child. I could cite to you several cases. I'll just cite one more, because I don't want to get cut off prematurely. But I'll cite to you the Houston County woman who realized, I don't know if she was dating this man per se, but realized that the man she was seeing and spending some unsupervised time with her children had been arrested for child molestation. There is a public benefit to having access to these open records.

573. 2:20:07

     A, a case in point, I have some 347 letters here that have been written, some, some to you, some to other members of the House, just since last Thursday opposing this bill. Just since last Thursday. And this is not counting the ones that went to the Senate. I figured that was irrelevant for the House committee. This is just since last Thursday. The public recognizes the public benefit to having access to open records, to having access to mugshots, to making sure that there is some public oversight to the way the criminal justice system is run.

574. 2:20:37

     Now, your job obviously is to weigh that those public benefits or the public dangers of eroding the presumption of innocence. Again, I, I understand that. If in your wisdom you decide that the erosion of the presumption of innocence is in danger enough because of the ubiquitous nature of the internet and the cavalier nature in which people, I guess, can disseminate these mugshots, if you decide the erosion of the presumption of innocence outweighs the public benefits that I've discussed and that are obviously out there, then I would submit to you the only intellectually honest thing to do, the intellectually consistent thing to do would be to make mugshots a part of the state's investigatory file.

575. 2:21:17

     If that is your position, if the presumption of innocence is so important and you feel like it's being eroded, well, then make it a part of the state's investigation file so that it is only available when the investigation is closed. The code will mention several, uh, situations when that investigation is closed. I don't want to speak for the author of the bill, but I believe he would insist, uh, I would not argue that, that the, making the, making the records public upon the closure of that file should only happen when there's been a conviction or a guilty plea, that those who are found innocent, you know, their mugshot couldn't be disseminated.

576. 2:21:49

     But if, if that is, if that is the will of this committee, if the committee believes the, the erosion of the presumption of innocence is that great, then I would suggest to you to make the mugshots part of the investigation file and only available, uh, upon conviction or a guilty plea or a nolo plea. If they're innocent, then they should have nothing to worry about. If the state closes the file prematurely or dismisses the case, then nothing to worry about. That is an intellectually consistent position to make. The last thing I would point out, at the risk of, uh, uh, saying something I might regret later, the amendment on, for the so-called credentialed press, the legitimate press, I would, I would point this out.

577. 2:22:32

     I, I would hope the general assembly is not gonna get into the business of determining who is legitimate press. Uh, as a, as a, as a self-professed conservative, as a practical Catholic, as somebody who has deep convictions about several things, including absolute truth, I would point out that the so-called members of the legitimate press, the Press Association, several of those members have also spent the last 20 years, 10 years, putting reli- religious liberty in quotation marks right and left.

578. 2:23:03

     Uh, they're quick to practice advocacy whenever they feel like it and then claim they're practicing journalism. Frankly, uh, I know a lot of you feel like the Georgia Gazette is a rag. Fair enough. You're entitled to that opinion. I'd rather hang out with the folks who publish the Georgia Gazette than I would several of the members of the so-called legitimate press.

579. 2:23:24

     And I would yield for questions.

580. 2:23:26

     Okay. You have a question, looks like. Chairman Sainz?

581. 2:23:31

     Thank you, and, uh, I didn't start off your testimony agreeing with, with you, but I, uh, certainly agree with the last section of your item on, uh, correlating legitimacy in press in all, in all attributes. Um, but specifically, and this might be more of a question to the author based on your testimony, but what would be the... Uh, is there something unintended to why we wouldn't, uh, uh, accomplish this policy need, which I agree with, by including the, uh, photo in the investigatory file only subjected to, uh, disclosure upon conviction?

582. 2:24:08

     Um, 'cause I, I do see that by its nature that sounds like a legitimate path forward.

583. 2:24:14

     So to be, uh, and to be fair, Mr. Tippins, we talked about this. That was part of what I thought about originally with the bill. It's been discussed. I know I discussed that with the sheriffs. Um, and that's a policy question for y'all to make, and I think other people speaking may give you their thoughts on that. The... I thought that would be too extreme, to be honest with you. I thought that, um, making it where you didn't get the images until a case was closed out would never pass, and I thought that members of the press would make legitimate case to you that, that having, um, having the mugshot while someone's been charged is, is newsworthy, frankly.

584. 2:24:48

     But that's a policy question. Um, the only thing I would say is listen to the sheriffs when they talk, and then you have to decide when you're listening to people like Mr. Tippins, other people, you look at the role they play in our society and our state and decide whether or not whatever we do is gonna align, um, with what our goals are. I mean, his client would still be able to take everybody's image and profit off of it. They would just limit which ones they could get. It'd be people that are convicted, and maybe we're okay with that. Maybe we're okay with there being a money-making process of using people's convicted, photos when they've been convicted.

585. 2:25:23

     That's probably better than just having right now, right, where it's people that are also charged. Um, but, you know, I think, um, to be fair, his client is trying to offer a solution that keeps them in business, and the bill does jeopardize the whole industry of making money off mugshots.

586. 2:25:39

     If I may, I would submit that the, again, the, the reason that that approach makes sense is if you decide that the public policy benefits of creating barriers to these mugshots outweighs the public good we discussed. If that is the case, then what I propose, I think, is, is a consistent, uh, approach. About the way the bill is currently written, though, I, I would, I would caution the committee there is, there is nothing in the bill the way it is currently written that will solve the purported, the purported problem.

587. 2:26:13

     Uh, you're taking the risk, I guess, from your standpoint, from the author's standpoint, that people like my client will not abide by the new law and just fold up shop. But there's nothing stopping... My client's got 30 million hits, you know, of, of, um, uh, I forget the window in which they have it. They have, at one point they had 15 million hits, you know, a day. Uh, the, most of them are your constituents. They get a lot of traffic. They could af- they get a lot of advertising revenue. They could afford to send people in person to, to satisfy the law.

588. 2:26:45

     So all that's gonna wind up happening is if you pass the bill as it's currently written, I predict, is that you will inconvenience the sheriffs more than they're already claimed to be inconvenienced, because now they're gonna have to process applications and, and notarized affidavits for each and every mugshot that the press wants. And then those mugshots will still be out there in the world for people to scrape and, and use and, and, and abuse. Because I, I do understand that there are bad actors out there who abuse these mugshots. So it- the, the problem will persist if this bill is passed as written.

589. 2:27:17

     It just will inconvenience the sheriffs more than they're already inconvenienced, and therefore not accomplish the public policy that you will, uh, would, would in, in this scenario say outweighs the public benefit of the status quo.

590. 2:27:29

     And just very quick clarification, if it's appropriate to the chair. Um, in terms of, uh, I won't get into the practice of your specific publication, but you noted you're a defense attorney, and you, uh, made the note of presumption of innocence, correct?

591. 2:27:43

     Yes, sir.

592. 2:27:43

     Would you define, uh, publishing a, uh, booking photo, um, um, uh, prior to any adjudication as publishing a photo of an innocent person?

593. 2:27:58

     Yes, it was, you're publishing a photo of an innocent person.

594. 2:28:00

     Thank you.

595. 2:28:01

     And I would add to that, I mean, I don't think anybody, uh, at least speaking about my clients, have an objection to strengthening laws around disclaimers, uh, uh, on these publications or related to these publications saying that. Big, bold, conspicuous letters, "Everybody's innocent 'til proven guilty." It's not, you know, whatever it may be. I, I, there's no objection, I think, in the, in the press, in the world, at least as far as my clients are concerned, with underscoring that point.

596. 2:28:27

     If I, just very briefly, I know the hour's late. What Georgia Gazette's saying they will do if this law, bill passes is they will hire people to go to every sheriff's office in 159 counties and request images one by one with an affidavit. If they do that, we'll have someone on the record requesting those images with an affidavit, and I'm certain, I feel like, the attorney general could bring a claim against this company for, under the Fair Business Practices Act for doing something like that.

597. 2:28:54

     Okay, we have, uh, one more question. Representative Holcomb.

598. 2:28:57

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is not my area of expertise. Can you give us just a very quick primer in terms of how it works now? Um, we're making, should this pass, a pretty significant change of having it be in person. How easy is it for the, for the request now? Can it be done digitally via email, via phone call? Like, what's the, the current state?

599. 2:29:19

     As I understand it, uh, I, I focus more on the policy impacts of it, but, so I wouldn't swear this is the gospel truth. But as I understand it, the process now is that it's followed as any other open request, open records request via email. Um, beyond that, I couldn't testify as to the exact details. I'm sure the author probably has a, a better understanding from speaking with the sheriffs.

600. 2:29:42

     It does require a statement, but I think what the sheriffs will tell you is most sheriffs have emails sent to them, and it'll be an open-ended statement for every image for the last however many days.

601. 2:29:53

     Gotcha. Okay, thank you.

602. 2:29:58

     Okay, that is all the questions. Thank you very much.

603. 2:30:02

     Thank you.

604. 2:30:02

     All right. Uh, Chief Mooney.

605. 2:30:04

     One from the court.

606. 2:30:09

     And you can come to the table or the podium right there if you just wanna do that, whichever's more convenient for you.

607. 2:30:14

     Little better light to read by.

608. 2:30:16

     There you go.

609. 2:30:17

     You want a code book too to look good?

610. 2:30:20

     No.

611. 2:30:23

     Thank you, sir.

612. 2:30:23

     Yes, sir.

613. 2:30:24

     Uh, members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name's Cass Mooney. I'm the Chief of Police for the City of Suwanee Police Department, uh, where I've had the privilege of serving for the last almost 29 years of my 32-year, uh, law enforcement career. Uh, I appear before you to speak in support of Senate Bill 482. I want to be clear that this is not about limiting transparency or reducing accountability in law enforcement. In fact, body-worn cameras have proven to be one of the most powerful tools that we have to enhance accountability.

614. 2:30:56

     Body-worn camera footage has documented officer misconduct in the past, but at, at the same time, it also revealed countless examples of officers serving their communities with compassion, helping citizens in need, often without any expectation of recognition. These moments matter, and they underscore why law enforcement broadly supports the use of body-worn cameras. However, with that transparency comes a responsibility, one that this legislation seeks to address. These individuals captured in these videos are not always suspects, nor are they always charged with crimes.

615. 2:31:32

     Very often, they are victims or witnesses or bystanders that have no connection to any wrongdoing, yet without reasonable safeguards, their most vi- uh, vulnerable and private moments can be exposed to the public. This bill is about striking the necessary and reasonable balance to transparency in government that can and should coexist, uh, with protections for personal privacy. Accountability does not require innocent individuals have their identities and their experiences broadcast without limitation.

616. 2:32:07

     One practical solution reflected in this discussion, um, should be the use of redaction tools so that if we are allowed to blur the faces of people who aren't specifically mentioned in the requests. Uh, this would allow access to public ac- uh, allow access to the videos, uh, while protecting those, uh, in those sensitive situations. Um, one of the things that I would like to bring is, is what brought me into this realm of dealing with this, is, um, the City of Suwanee, we have 40 sworn police officers We are not an exceptionally exciting police town, but in just seven months we got 181 requests from a YouTuber for body-cam footage.

617. 2:32:53

     There is not that much exciting stuff going on in Suwanee that they need 181 requests for body-cam footage. Um, that requires us to add personnel just to handle these requests. And one thing that, that came up with us personally, which I haven't heard addressed here today, is we had one example where an officer's involved, left their body cam running after the arrest was over. So when the person requested it, they got body-cam footage of the officers eating dinner. That YouTuber intentionally cut and spliced that video and put it online saying that while the officers were eating lunch, they left the arrestee in the back of a police car.

618. 2:33:35

     Was not true, did not happen. But they intentionally modify and cut these videos so that it's clickbait. It, it entices people. They can say these stories. That's not something that's gonna happen with legitima- legitimate media, but that is something that is happening, and they do it f- for no other reason than to get clicks on their website. The other thing that happened, we had a, a gentleman come in, um, that was stopped after the park was closed.

619. 2:34:05

     Him and his girlfriend were in the park after hours. So in the course of the investigation we separated the two parties, you know, making sure that everything was consensual and everything was legal. The gentleman was cited for being in the park after dark. He wasn't arrested, he wasn't taken to jail. His video now lives on the internet, heavily redacted so that it looks bad against him by the, the YouTuber that got it. He came to the police department upset with us, wanting to know how he could get his image off the internet, and we had to tell him, "We didn't do it, and we can't help you." And so now that limit- that image and that video lives on the internet for, for a 19-year-old kid and his 17-year-old girlfriend who were making out in the park after dark.

620. 2:34:49

     So those are the kind of things that we're, we're trying to, trying to address so that everyone's treated fairly. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I'll be glad to answer any questions.

621. 2:35:02

     I don't see any questions for you. Thank you, sir. Appreciate you being here.

622. 2:35:05

     Yes, sir.

623. 2:35:06

     All right. Uh, Butch Ayers, Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police.

624. 2:35:22

     All right. I think it's, uh, afternoon. Uh, my name is Butch Ayers. I'm the executive director of the Georgia Association of Chiefs of Police. I've been in this position since January 2020. Prior to that I had 35 years of law enforcement experience, uh, 12 of those as assistant chief and four, uh, five years as the chief of Gwinnett County Police Department. Um, unlike a booking photo of a specific person who has been arrested or charged with an offense, more often than not, people that are depicted in body-worn camera videos are often victims, witnesses, or bystanders.

625. 2:35:55

     The law enforcement profession supports the use of body cameras. I found, uh, in my career that the overwhelming, uh, majority of law enforcement officers, uh, like the technology, and they actually would not go on patrol without a body camera, uh, on their, their person. The, uh, video captured on a body-worn camera records not only the actions of the police, but also the actions of other people, uh, uh, at the scene. So as I mentioned earlier, uh, oftentimes body-worn footage records people having the worst day of their lives.

626. 2:36:28

     However, these videos should not become entertainment for internet voyeurs, uh, and individuals whose only public interest is to upload clickbait and monetize the videos. This, in my opinion, is not for the public interest. This should not be a either/or situation. I think this bill is not about limiting police accountability or transparency, but rather finding that proper balance, uh, with privacy concerns of people appearing in police videos. So we think that police accountability, transparency can and should coexist with measures that protect the privacy of those people being recorded.

627. 2:37:04

     Uh, thank you for this opportunity, uh, to speak, and I'll be glad to answer any questions.

628. 2:37:09

     Okay. No questions. Thank you, sir.

629. 2:37:13

     Sheriff Freeman.

630. 2:37:16

     Yes, Mr. Chairman. I promise to be short. I know that hour's late. Uh-

631. 2:37:21

     Not near as late as the meeting was in Senate Judiciary last night.

632. 2:37:23

     No.

633. 2:37:24

     Almost going as long as we went, though, to be fair.

634. 2:37:26

     Yeah, we had started earlier.

635. 2:37:27

     Yeah, that's true.

636. 2:37:28

     If I may, let me just address a couple of questions that have been done, a- a- and I will say it as, as best I can. Uh, to the gentleman, uh, representing the, the organization, that sounds good if you say it fast. Okay? Let me give you a quick example about mugshots. Sometimes unfortunately, as you know, we, we've made some great movements this year, this, this body has, on mental health, right? Congratulations. Thank you for doing that. Oftentimes Georgia jails hold people who are mentally ill who have committed a crime because of their mental illness.

637. 2:38:01

     Look, our friends in the legitimate media, if there's a significant ... To, to Chairman Jasper's question, good question. If there's a significant crime in your community in Jasper, it's gonna be in the local paper. It's gonna be all over it, right? But if some kid or some adult who has a mental illness damaged the inside of his house, and law enforcement officers are at their wit's end trying to help that family, and we charge that individual with a very minor crime, and the purpose of that is, yes, he committed a crime, but to get him into mental health treatment in the court system.

638. 2:38:37

     That mugshot is now out there. Please tell me how that betters the public interest for that grieving family who was trying to do something, for law enforcement officers who were in a very tough position- trying to help this family not incarcerate someone. But yet for purposes of commercialism, for voyeurism, whatever you wanna call it, those mugshots are being put out there. When we talk about the things that haven't been, we get open records requests.

639. 2:39:08

     I have six full-time employees who do open records that Forsyth County taxpayers pay for, and I get an open records request from some YouTuber who says, "I want all police use of force and all police pursuits for the last 30 days." We have to watch that hour by hour because somewhere in that video it may have some PII, personal identifying information, in it that we have to redact by law. I can only charge that YouTuber the lowest hourly rate of what that employee pays, not the fringe benefits, not the overtime, not the anything else.

640. 2:39:45

     Forsyth County taxpayers are paying for this YouTuber to make profit. I get mugshots for the last 30 days, the last seven days. Again, significant, legitimate issues that happen, our local press, our, our national press, and our statewide press, our friends in the media, are reporting on that, and I absolutely agree. Our communities have a right to know about that. But people should not be victimized further than what's already happened when they're in the criminal justice system because people wanna make profit off of it.

641. 2:40:18

     I think it's sick, and I think it's wrong, and I don't mind saying it that way.

642. 2:40:24

     Thank you.

643. 2:40:26

     All right. Chairman Petrea.

644. 2:40:28

     Chairman, thank you again. I'm gonna be very brief. I know we need to move on. But Sheriff, I have a question for you.

645. 2:40:33

     Yes, sir.

646. 2:40:34

     I guess this question is more of a comment. So to your point, um, we have a, we have a crisis today in this country with young men.

647. 2:40:42

     Yes, sir.

648. 2:40:42

     You're probably aware of that. We certainly are.

649. 2:40:45

     Yes, sir.

650. 2:40:45

     We have a crisis with young men who are failing today for a multitude of reasons. You g- you gave a great example of someone who might have a mental health problem. But it could be ano- it could be a multitude of things that, that young men do. They make mistakes.

651. 2:41:03

     Correct.

652. 2:41:03

     But they aren't crimes that ... We're not talking about violent crime.

653. 2:41:07

     Sure.

654. 2:41:07

     We're not talking about the big ... I'm not, I'm not worrying about any of those folks. But young men who are failing in society, we need to be doing our best to build them up, not to drag them down, especially today. And so when they make mistakes that, you know, decades ago everybody made, but it wasn't all over the internet, we don't need to destroy young people because of mistakes they've made. We need to help build them up and allow them to improve their lives and to overcome and to be successful in life. And so yes, I appreciate your comments, and I'm thankful that you have, uh, this fine representative here in your county, sir.

655. 2:41:45

     I'd like to thank the chairman. Chairman Jasperse is actually my rep-

656. 2:41:48

     Oh, Jasperse. Yeah, uh

657. 2:41:49

     ... but Representative McDonald lives across from my mom and daddy.

658. 2:41:52

     Even better. Even better, Sheriff. Even better.

659. 2:41:54

     Thank you for those comments. I agree, Chairman.

660. 2:41:56

     Keep an eye on him, huh?

661. 2:42:00

     All right. Representative Holcomb.

662. 2:42:01

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Two quick questions. One is, we heard testimony that this proposal could be more burdensome in terms of impact on the sheriff's staff. Do you have a reaction to that?

663. 2:42:13

     Uh, whether I'm, I'm handling an email or an in-person, I have windows and I have people. I have ... And I can't imagine any sheriff in the state that doesn't have notaries as well, sir. So we're gonna handle it one way or the other. Uh, so no, sir, I do not see it as overly burdensome. Would it, would it add a small percentage? Maybe, but I'm okay with that.

664. 2:42:31

     Okay. And then second question is, if we were to add language authorizing law enforcement agencies to redact, and I think I'm inclined to make it a may rather than a shall, would that impose a major burden on responding, uh, to video requests?

665. 2:42:49

     Uh, we already have to watch those, as you can imagine, as, as I said, that minute by minute to make sure there's not some personal identifying information or something we can't release, that maybe an officer's asking what's your Social Security number, and your so-and-so, and this and kind of stuff is. So we're already having to watch that. If it's a four-hour video, we're watching four hours. Uh, also be aware, if there were five officers on scene, it's 20 hours we're watching, 'cause there's four, four or five officers, we're four hours. So it is a very minuscule add-on for us to be able to do it, but at the end of the day, it's what's right for our citizens to be able to redact information that is not relevant to the request or the criminal cri- the crime that's been committed.

666. 2:43:27

     So I, I would gladly accept that extra work.

667. 2:43:29

     Okay. Thank you.

668. 2:43:31

     Thank you. Chairman Jasperse.

669. 2:43:33

     Thank you, Sheriff Erwin, for being here. Seems to me, I guess in my non-lawyer mind, um, this throws the baby out with the bath water. I mean, it takes everything off the table, and does, you know, addresses the first part of your statement that these are things some people need to know, but then on the second hand, there are things that people don't need to know, like the mental health you, uh, eloquently described. And that's my dilemma with this. I mean, 'cause there, I think there is truly this right to know, but this website's not the right way to do it.

670. 2:44:09

     I, I don't ... I guess that's where I'm torn at, not, you know, you need to make a judgment on me or, or what we're doing, but that's my problem. If this thing ... 'Cause there, in our community, it's getting more disjointed, and people need to know.

671. 2:44:23

     Well, I w- I would counter that, if I may-

672. 2:44:26

     Yeah

673. 2:44:26

     ... Chairman, by saying our, our friends in the media over here, i- if there's a child molestation arrest or a, uh, let's, let's use that as an example-

674. 2:44:34

     Sure

675. 2:44:34

     ... that happens in Jasper in Forsyth County, it's gonna be, and I'm sorry, I don't know the, the, the record for Jasper, what, what the, the newspaper name is, right? But the Forsyth County News has got, it's gonna be front page on the Forsyth County News. I could, I could pull up the, the website right now and show you hundreds of those from different cases for serious crimes. But they're not gonna have a kid's photo that got arrested for DUI or underage possession of alcohol or, uh, some kids that broke into the high school field to leave some graffiti, you know, as, as a prank.

676. 2:45:04

     Sure.

677. 2:45:04

     They're not gonna be on the front page for those families to have to deal with and those kids to have to deal with as they're trying to get into college or into their career path. But legitimate media is gonna, gonna report to that community, and the communities are gonna drive that, I believe, sir, by what they wanna do, right? I- if, if the newspaper or, or the, the print media or the, uh, you know, our television friends, uh, you know, in broadcast are not doing it, they're gonna get the push for more. And I think that has always been, before the day of the internet and before the day of now for-profit, uh, that was always how we got it.

678. 2:45:41

     Uh, and if you look at these things as they're printed now from s- whatever organization might print those, a lot of times it's just a picture. It doesn't even say what they're arrested for. Or you can click on something and it might give you something, and I have personally seen some of those images appear, "Hey, this, this person was arrested," with a name, and it disappeared the next day. But I know for a fact it was a legitimate arrest because it was made out of my organization. So why did it disappear? I question that.

679. 2:46:08

     Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Ron.

680. 2:46:11

     Thank you, sir.

681. 2:46:13

     Okay. Looks like that's all the questions. Thank you, Sheriff.

682. 2:46:15

     Thank you, Chair.

683. 2:46:15

     Appreciate you being here. All right, Sheriff Henderson.

684. 2:46:22

     You gotta follow that.

685. 2:46:23

     I hope for everybody's sake I'm hitting cleanup here.

686. 2:46:26

     Well, I wish you were, but not quite.

687. 2:46:28

     Oh, Lord. Well, I'm Ashley Henderson. I'm the sheriff of Paulding County, and I appreciate my good friend, Senator Strickland, for bringing this measure to you. Um, so this is a situation, uh, that's kinda multifaceted, but I can tell you one thing that I know for a fact, the Georgia Open Records Act was not designed for entities to make money. This law, as it stands right now, was created prior to Facebook and all that it brings to us. And so, uh, my friend here, I understand your concerns. Every sheriff in Georgia, uh, I would submit, has a way for citizens to go online and look and see who has been arrested.

688. 2:47:05

     So if you go to the Paulding County, uh, Sheriff's Office website, uh, or even our mobile app, you can go on there and you can look up John Johnson, got arrested for whatever the charge is. And here's the interesting thing, and this is what I wish, uh, some of the online entities would do. When that individual bonds out of our facility, guess what happens? That image goes away, or the image doesn't, but the information goes away, and I wish that's what they would do. If they would do that, we probably wouldn't have the issues that we're having. But I'm gonna tell you a couple quick stories. I know the hour's late, but we had an individual, a young man, who was, uh, having some issues with a former spouse.

689. 2:47:38

     He was alleged to have molested his own child. Um, our detectives investigated and ended up securing warrants. This individual's, uh, image was posted online. He was dubbed a child molester. He sat in our jail for two weeks. He went to a probable cause hearing and because of some jurisdictional, uh, concerns about this particular case, the magistrate judge threw the warrants out. Guess what didn't get thrown out? The slandering of this guy on social media as a child molester of his own child. No further charges have been taken.

690. 2:48:09

     This guy's done. Y'all, that's not fair and it's not right. I wanna tell you one more situation. We had an individual who, um, I think he ended up taking someone's purse at Kohl's in Hiram. And, uh, Representative News, one of my, my representatives, so she knows exactly who this is. Individual took a, uh, a purse, got charged with theft of mislaid property, came to turn himself in. All was fine and well. Well, one of my employees, and I own this because it was my employee's mistake, inadvertently keyed in the charge of rape in addition to theft of mislaid property.

691. 2:48:42

     This guy's a community coach. Maybe he's a thief, maybe he's not, but certainly he is not a rapist. Absolutely not. So this poor gentleman was dubbed as a rapist in the community. I've got the, I'm not gonna say what community organization, raising Cain about, "Why is this guy allowed to coach kids? He's a rapist," this and that. Y'all, he didn't rape anybody. It was a mistake on our part, and I had to own that, and I had to, uh, reach out to this individual and, and genuinely and sincerely apologize. But that's what... Those are the problems we, 'cause I saw that stack of papers. That's fine and dandy.

692. 2:49:12

     I guarantee you there are way more negatives to these mugshots getting put out there. Y'all, the monetization of these mugshots and these images, that is not what this Open Records Act was about and should be about. And sheriffs across Georgia are plagued with these problems, and I urge you and I beg you to please, uh, consider this bill with the amendments made, uh, to, uh, approve that and get it on the floor of the House.

693. 2:49:38

     All right. Thank you. I have no questions.

694. 2:49:39

     Thank you.

695. 2:49:39

     Thank you. All right. Wade Askew.

696. 2:49:50

     Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Wade Askew from Gold Dome Partners, representing Georgia Justice Project. Thank you, Chairman, for bringing this bill. I'm realizing we've sat up together a lot of times over the years-

697. 2:50:00

     Mm-hmm

698. 2:50:00

     ... and this is probably the last time.

699. 2:50:02

     Maybe.

700. 2:50:02

     So forgive me if I get emotional up here, but, um, we are very supportive of this bill. Uh, I'll be brief. Many of you know Georgia Justice Project represents hundreds of people every year who are trying to move on from a past arrest or conviction, and this is, uh... And we were there in 2013 and 2014 alongside Chairman Strickland and others, uh, for kind of the first wave of reforms here. And we have unfortunately seen over the years how they have not worked as the industry has evolved in the ways that you've heard at length today.

701. 2:50:38

     Uh, and so we think that this is frankly the measured approach, um, that this is the approach that still allows newsworthy images to get out, even pre-conviction. Uh, this is, you know, if, if someone moves next door and you're concerned, you know, who's Joe Smith next door, you can go to your local law enforcement agency and, or wherever that person came from, and say, "I want..." You do-- Is there a mugshot on Joe Smith? Give their name, uh, that, that you notarize that statement. Um, and so that you're gonna comply with the law.

702. 2:51:10

     So we do think that this is a measured approach. One thing that I would, uh, also add to that in terms of weighing up a scheme where we wait until conviction, but then if a conviction hits, then everything operates as we do now. As Chairman Strickland alluded to earlier, I do think that that frustrates the efforts that this body has made over a long period of time trying to help people be able to move on, even from a conviction that we have deemed, uh, as a state eligible for restriction and sealing.

703. 2:51:42

     We see all the time people come to our office with something minor from years ago. The average age of a GJP client is 43 years old. Their average age when they got convicted was about 22. And so... And when we talk about offenses that were actually eligible, uh, for us to help with, we are typically talking misdemeanors. We're talking minor stuff. 20 years later, it's still plaguing them. It is still keeping them from holding a stable job, advancing in their career. We can help restrict, seal, you know, do the expungement, all the things this body has deemed we should be able to do in that situation to help them move on, get in a, a good job, support their family.

704. 2:52:20

     That mugshot's still there. They still have that scarlet letter. They're still not able to move forward. So even in those instances, we still have to weigh, uh, the risks. And on the matter of public safety, I would say we know that someone with a job, if you get a job with a past conviction, you are half as likely to be convicted again. We also know that if someone goes three to five years post-arrest without getting arrested again, they are no more likely to be arrested in their life than anyone in the general public.

705. 2:52:52

     So as a matter of public safety, it is actually very, uh, advantageous to let people move on. Uh, and so we think that this bill both protects the presumption of innocence, but also allows people to move on even if they have been convicted, uh, while weighing up all of these interests. Um, we have lastly seen that things like disclaimers, they're, they're not adequate. One that-- Once those images are out, the damage, uh, the damage is done. Uh, so with that, I again appreciate, uh, the chairman, I appreciate all the comments of law enforcement behind me and appreciate all their work every day, and I'm happy to take any questions.

706. 2:53:33

     I don't see any questions for you. Thank you for being here.

707. 2:53:34

     Thank you.

708. 2:53:35

     Blake Feldman.

709. 2:53:48

     Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, members of the c- committee. I'm, uh, Blake Feldman, Senior Policy Council with the Southern Center for Human Rights. Uh, um, mostly speaking because we switched from support to oppose. Uh, we supported the as introduced version, and then with the amendment with the law enforcement video, uh, we no longer support it. Um, I'm going to have to talk to, uh, others to know exactly where we're gonna land right now.

710. 2:54:24

     I know that we are very pleased with, uh, the changes. This is a much better bill to us than it was as passed the Senate. Um, uh, I do think, uh, we are still just... We're a little bit, uh, concerned with, uh, treating law enforcement video this way, though. Um, so we would prefer for that section to be struck and for this to be about booking photographs. Um, and I'll be quick also.

711. 2:54:54

     It's, to us, um, there seems to really be a consensus, uh, minus one, uh, publication, that there's a real problem with websites exploiting, uh, people who've been, legally innocent people who've been charged and arrested, um, with crimes, uh, accused of a crime, uh, maybe never even convicted. Um, an in-person request is designed to be an obstacle for those requests. Um, there's really-- we don't understand the discernible reason when it comes to body-worn cameras and dash cameras.

712. 2:55:33

     Like, I mean, I'll have-- There may be some, uh, YouTubers who request these. There, there's not this cottage industry, uh, that we are aware of. Um, and there's a very important distinction between body-worn cameras and a booking photograph. People have mentioned looking at the jail docket gives you the exact same information. Uh, that's the information that is in the public interest. Uh, whereas body-worn cameras have been, uh, law enforcement likes them for maintaining trust with community because we'll be able to exonerate an officer if they're accused of something that they didn't do.

713. 2:56:13

     Uh, people in the community have asked for them, uh, as an accountability tool. I started, um, honestly, for about two and a half years in Mississippi, I worked with every single sheriff's, or offered to work with every single sheriff's office and our 150 lo- largest cities', uh, municipalities, their chief of police, on developing body-worn camera policies. There's, there is-- It's very important when body-worn cameras were just deployed so quickly for us to talk about when should they be activated, when should they be deactivated.

714. 2:56:50

     Uh, what happens when you're talking to an apparent victim, uh, to a witness? Uh, do you need to inform them that they are being recorded? Do you have to honor a request to turn off? When you are reviewing footage, what can you redact? What shouldn't you? Retention. I think those are all complicated and real questions that are about balancing transparency, uh, with, uh, right to privacy, uh, and fairness, um- I think that, like, I think that those problems should be addre- addressed in standard operating procedures or a statewide legislation of what minimum things need to be in those.

715. 2:57:27

     I don't think that, um, putting in a version of the obstacle that has been erected for booking photos, but a l- slightly less burdensome, uh, hurdle, but still the same one that no other record, no other public open record in Georgia requires, which is in-person requests. Um, I think that that's, that's a quick way to seem like you're addressing the issue, but, like, the real addressed i- issue is getting into, uh, these, uh, standard operating procedures, is our position.

716. 2:58:06

     Uh, so we would love for that very important conversation with balancing transparency, accountability, and right to privacy in body-worn cameras, uh, for that to be, uh, reserved for a more thorough, uh, debate and policy, uh, solution at the state level. Um, and I just want to reiterate, reiterate we are big fans of, uh, the all, I guess, Section 2 of... We're big fans of the portion, uh, strengthening the, uh, restrictions for access to booking photographs.

717. 2:58:43

     Now you got a couple of questions. So, uh, Representative Cummings.

718. 2:58:50

     Um, hi. Thank you for your testimony. I just wanted to address real quick your question about, um, why include the body cam videos, and I know there's no clear answer to all of this, and I understand your concerns, but I can share one personal, um, thing with you with the body cam. I have a close friend whose, um, fiance was riding a motorcycle, went into a back of- slammed into the back of a truck that stopped, and he was decapitated.

719. 2:59:21

     And the body cam video when the police arrived on the scene showed that, and within a couple of weeks was all over YouTube. So while the family's grieving, while we're all coming to grips, it didn't happen here, it happened in, in, in another state, and, um, that was traumatic beyond the trauma of the accident happened, happening anyway. So that's one personal example that I can share with you, and they were unable to get that video taken off. It took months, and months, and months, and months, and months to try to get that video, and of course, the YouTuber wanted money.

720. 2:59:55

     So that's one-

721. 2:59:56

     Um-

722. 2:59:56

     ... abuse that I can, you know, personally say. Does that address some of your concerns, especially when it comes to police interaction? No. And I know it, it doesn't. But there are legitimate abuses here, and I think that this bill, um, is not perfect, but I think that it will address some of that, especially the, um, posting of body cam videos for money when it's just for the salacious fact of a terrible, tragic incident happening.

723. 3:00:26

     Thank you.

724. 3:00:28

     All right, thank you. Representative Neal?

725. 3:00:30

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I guess my first question is, you said, because I'm looking at the first original bill as proposed originally, and you said everyone was on board with that version. It's a two-pager.

726. 3:00:42

     Is, is it essentially the Section 2?

727. 3:00:45

     I think so. It's like a page and a half, if that.

728. 3:00:47

     To be, to be fair, it's, it's the same bill without, um, video in there.

729. 3:00:51

     Yes.

730. 3:00:51

     Okay.

731. 3:00:52

     That's

732. 3:00:52

     And then my second question was, um, in this regard, like, so I, I agree with the overall goal of the bill and I, but I also hear a lot of the complaints when it comes to press and all these different issues related to it. But also another question I had was about the germaneness. So if booking photos are 35-119, and body cam footage is in the 50, Title 50, are we allowed to put those two together? Would we have a...

733. 3:01:22

     Do you want me to... I mean, it's-

734. 3:01:23

     I'm not, so-

735. 3:01:23

     Either one.

736. 3:01:23

     I don't mind.

737. 3:01:24

     Okay.

738. 3:01:24

     They're all subject open records. Um, the reason they're put together is we c- we created a process for mugshots, I call it, for, for, um, the images in those past bills, and so we're now basically just adding that to the same section. So it, I know your question is, but it's not really treated separately under the code, 'cause this is a whole new section as to how we release these things.

739. 3:01:46

     Okay, so you're saying, is this version like re- creating a new section-

740. 3:01:50

     It is

741. 3:01:50

     ... essentially?

742. 3:01:51

     So the amendment would create, would actually divide out videos one code section over. It makes it 31-119.1 instead of just 19.

743. 3:01:59

     And I say that because I think it would defeat the purpose of us trying to move some good legislation, trying to help people, and it still gets struck down because if we're putting the code sections-

744. 3:02:09

     Yeah

745. 3:02:09

     ... together, or how that can look. And so-

746. 3:02:11

     I don't, I'm not, I'm not having concerns of that. I, and-

747. 3:02:13

     Gotcha

748. 3:02:13

     ... Legislative Council will probably tell us if, if there was an issue on germaneness or it can be determined on the House or Senate floor, too, of course.

749. 3:02:21

     Yes.

750. 3:02:22

     Okay. I'm good.

751. 3:02:24

     All right. Thank you.

752. 3:02:26

     Thank you.

753. 3:02:26

     No more questions. Reagan Marsh?

754. 3:02:35

     Thank you.

755. 3:02:36

     Forgot about you.

756. 3:02:38

     Still here.

757. 3:02:42

     Yeah.

758. 3:02:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Reagan Marsh. I'm with, uh, Troutman Strategies. I'm here on behalf of the Georgia Press Association. Um, also have Jaylene Hunter, executive director of the, uh, Georgia Press Association with me today, who can answer questions if need be. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Fundamentally, the Press Association believes that a mugshot is an open record owned by the citizens of Georgia, and, uh, they should be a- available just like any other open record.

759. 3:03:16

     Um, but we also believe that we live in a world where information is, um- Unlimited and a- available in perpetuity, and that creates a conflict between the public's right to see a mugshot and a person's right to privacy. And this is not theoretical. I mean, we've heard law enforcement up here today and in prior hearings on this in the last session and in the last year or two, uh, talk about this issue. That, that has never, that has really never happened as I've worked on this issue for over 10 years.

760. 3:03:51

     So the tide is sort of turning on this, where this right to privacy is starting to overtake, in some situations, the person's right, the public's right to know, uh, when people are being arrested. And we've seen different levels of this. You know, I mean, there are definitely some cases where the person's right to privacy, um, it, it, it, uh, trumps, uh, the public's right to know, and a lot of those are cases that are u- smaller offenses or cases that, uh, aren't prosecuted or cases where the person may have not been guilty of anything.

761. 3:04:26

     And then there's also some cases where I think there is public's right to know, and we've heard about those too. I mean, we've heard about situations where a mugshot can help, um, prevent additional crimes. We've heard about, uh, cases where, uh, you know, a, you may not want your child hanging around a person that was accused of a certain crime, or you may wanna know if your neighbor committed a, committed a certain crime. So it's not an easy issue, uh, to address. But I think, again, like the sponsor pointed out, if we don't acknowledge this conflict, we run the risk of losing all access to mugshots, and we've seen that happen in other states, and I think that's why we are here offering some compromise, uh, even when, with some of the other people in our industry may not agree with this.

762. 3:05:11

     But, um, you know, what we've tried to do is, is offer a way, uh, to, to still have newspapers, broadcasters, and other peoples, other people in the press to have access to these records, uh, in a way that is, um, not cost-prohibitive and, um, a, a way that is, uh, efficient. And to that end, uh, I know we've talked about some ways to carve out the press here, and we'll try to make that in a way that's, that's, um, inclusive and ex- exclusive.

763. 3:05:48

     But it, you know, it's hard to do, but I think we've come up with a way to do that. So if you're gonna move forward with this bill, uh, we would ask that, uh, you consider a, a carve-out in there, um, that would allow, um, bona fide members of the press to be able to still request these records, uh, without going in person and filing the, um, affidavits and, um, and having to do it separately. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

764. 3:06:18

     All right. Representative Neal.

765. 3:06:19

     Uh, just a quick question. Thank you, Chair. Um, do you have that drafted already? 'Cause we're trying to work on a solution. Do you have that drafted already? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Can you get it to us? Yes, ma'am.

766. 3:06:31

     Okay. I don't see any more questions.

767. 3:06:32

     Thank you.

768. 3:06:33

     All right. Jeremy Collins.

769. 3:06:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, I will be brief 'cause I know the hour is long. Um, I heard Mr. Marsh say that some in our industry might not agree with his approach. I will tell you that the Georgia Association... I'm sorry. I'm here representing the Georgia Association of Broadcasters. Um, that's your local radio and TVO station, radio and TV stations in Georgia. Um, the broadcasters do agree with the Press Association on what he mentioned, um, towards the end of his testimony about the potential carve-out language.

770. 3:07:21

     Um, we worked with, um, Chairman Strickland, um, uh, when it was in the Senate and continue to work with him, um, throughout this process, and we believe that the compromise that he, um, spoke of, um, at the beginning of his testimony, um, would satisfy us, um, just some of the concerns that Mr. Marsh laid out. Um, I will mention, um, I heard, um, some others during their testimony talk about the intent and clickbait. Is this a real person?

771. 3:07:52

     Is it some- somebody from another country? Is it YouTubers? Is it for commercial, um, gain? Is it bad actors? I can speak to the broadcasters. All of our members are licensed with the FCC, so that's not going to apply to any of our broadcasters. Uh, it's hard to get an F- FCC license. I think it's probably pretty much im- impossible to get one right now, and it's hard to hold onto those license. Um, the standards are very high. You have emergency alert requirements.

772. 3:08:22

     You have community service requirements. You have, um, specific frequencies, uh, of public airwaves that that includes. Um, so our members are not, do not fall in some of those concerns that were mentioned by others. So I just wanted to offer that, um, as, um, a difference. Um, and I also know that when we, when our stories are out, if something happens, there is an update. So if it's a mugshot, if s- if something happened or a video, and s- um, we will update that information.

773. 3:08:55

     We don't just leave it on. We have a responsibility to let the public know what has happened. And I know that's a concern, uh, also that I've heard, that something's up one day, go on the, go on the next day, um, it wasn't, you know, announced that the person or, was guilty or innocent. So all of our members have that responsibility. I can go on, but I'll be quiet, um, and answer any questions, 'cause I know the hour's late, if there are any. And I just want to say thank you again to Chairman Strickland for working with us, um, during this process.

774. 3:09:25

     Okay. I don't, uh, see any questions.

775. 3:09:28

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

776. 3:09:28

     Thank you for being here.

777. 3:09:29

     Thank you.

778. 3:09:30

     And, uh, at last, it looks like we have exhausted all of the speakers on this bill, and we've almost outlasted every member of the press except one, who appreciate your, uh, tenacity.

779. 3:09:43

     Sticking with us.

780. 3:09:44

     Um, here's, here's what we're gonna do. I know that there are several members of the committee that have proposed amendments. Um, I wanted to make sure we got all of this discussion in today. I think we've had a lot of good information. I think there's, uh, a lot of people with, uh, still a lot of, uh, amendments to propose, and I am... I know you still had some things you wanted to try to get substituted in here as well. Um, and I hate to try to do that on the fly.

781. 3:10:15

     Um, I, I fear we're gonna create a mistake if we try to do that on the fly. So, um, we are gonna get a room for Thursday, uh, and come back, and, and hopefully in the meantime I want us to get together and try to work through some of these amendments, have a committee sub. Um, all of y'all are welcome to come back if the, if you'd like to then. But, uh, I wanted to make sure since y'all drove all the way down here, we got to hear from you today and get your testimony in. Um, I want us to be able to have it as least a clean a copy as we can to look at on Thursday before we vote on something.

782. 3:10:49

     I just hate to vote on anything that's gonna have a number of amendments moving in it and have that many moving parts. I think we'll make a mistake if we do that, so.

783. 3:10:58

     Chairman Jasperse.

784. 3:10:59

     Yes, Mr. Chairman, just on, just on my side, I want to make sure that the Georgia Press and Broadcasters Amendment is included when we see this.

785. 3:11:10

     Okay.

786. 3:11:10

     Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to work with you on a substitute that includes the amendments that we discussed, and then other committee members, uh, Representative Holcomb mentioned another potential amendment. I'm happy to try to bring one clean sub for the committee to look at for Thursday.

787. 3:11:24

     Okay. I think that would be ideal if we can, but Chairman Jasperse, thank you for that input. So all right, we'll stand adjourned. Thank you all for staying.

788. 3:11:42

     It looks like you were doing something very sim-