--- title: House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 26, 2026 collection: meetings id: 2026-03-26/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security cite_as: House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 26, 2026, video https://vimeo.com/1176649111 (machine transcript by Georgia Commons) canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security.md text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security/text source_url: https://vimeo.com/1176649111 date: 2026-03-26 status: machine transcript corpus_version: meetings-2026-10-23-8c15ead0f18d license: Machine transcript and summaries by Georgia Commons from the General Assembly's public video; the video stays on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel; see about.md publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice. up: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26.md previous: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/house-judiciary.md next: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-26/house-governmental-affairs.md index: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/index.md chamber: House body: House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee body_url: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/house-public-safety-and-homeland-security.md meeting_kind: committee session: 2025-2026 Regular Session start_time: 2026-03-26T10:00:00-04:00 location: 506 CLOB duration_seconds: 5319.0 video_id: 1176649111 video_title: 3.26.26 Public Safety and Homeland Security agenda_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Public Safety%2FUPDATED Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee Meeting Notice 3-26-26.pdf bills_discussed: - SB 586 - SB 482 summaries_model: gpt-6.1-sol transcript_turns: 263 --- # House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, March 26, 2026 House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee; March 26, 2026; 2025-2026 Regular Session. Video, on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel: https://vimeo.com/1176649111. Agenda: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/agendas/house/Public Safety%2FUPDATED Public Safety & Homeland Security Committee Meeting Notice 3-26-26.pdf. > This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. ## Summary written by Georgia Commons Written by gpt-6.1-sol from the transcript below. It is not part of the record. Quote the transcript or the video, not the summary. The committee approved a substitute for [SB 586](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb586) allowing sheriffs to donate impounded livestock, as its presenters described. The committee also approved [SB 482](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb482), concerning access to booking photographs, law enforcement video and government recordings of deaths. Discussion focused on family privacy, public access to police footage, press exemptions and which relatives could receive protected recordings. After a recess to work on amendments, members added a press exemption to the death-recording restrictions and expanded the family relationships covered. Both bills passed by voice vote, with no numerical counts announced. ## Bills discussed (2) Each account was written by gpt-6.1-sol from the stretch of the transcript it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda. ### SB 586. "K-9 Law Enforcement Heroes Act of 2026"; enact [SB 586](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb586) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:22:36](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1356s), turns 3 to 16. The presenters explained a substitute that would allow sheriffs to donate impounded livestock to a nonprofit, individual or other entity the sheriff considers capable of caring for the animal. One presenter said sheriffs currently must feed animals while advertising for their owners, then sell or kill unclaimed animals rather than give them away. The presenter said the substitute would add donation to the notice and owner-reclamation provisions and require donation when an auction attracts no bidder. A second presenter described a Paulding County auction that cost $750 to $1,000 in attorney fees alone and brought in $2, in addition to animal-care costs. The presenters supported donation as a humane option that could reduce sheriffs’ expenses. No substantive questions were raised. The committee approved the substitute by voice vote, with no numerical count announced. ### SB 482. Law Enforcement Officers and Agencies; persons requesting booking photographs to provide the first and last names of the individuals in the photographs; require [SB 482](https://georgiacommons.org/bills/2025-2026/sb482) (2025-2026 Regular Session). From [0:27:53](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1673s), turns 16 to 258. The sponsor presented a substitute intended to identify requesters of booking photos and police videos, reduce agency burdens and prevent commercial exploitation. The sponsor said credentialed Georgia Press Association and Georgia Association of Broadcasters members could bypass in-person affidavit requirements. Video requests could identify a person or an approximate date, time and location, with redaction provisions protecting others. An added section would restrict government recordings depicting death or distress immediately before death, while allowing court-approved disclosure after an investigation closes. Its author cited requests for fatal-incident footage and demands for payment to remove posted footage. Members questioned the narrow family definition, exclusive press exemptions and delays in public access. The sponsor and section’s author said existing restrictions during open investigations would remain unchanged. Press association witnesses sought an exemption from the death-recording restrictions. Georgia Justice Project supported the first two sections. An ACLU of Georgia witness opposed the video restrictions, citing police accountability, family access and First Amendment concerns. The sponsor disputed that assessment and said the two-week period gave families notice and time to object. After a recess, members adopted amendments exempting credentialed members of the two press associations from the added restrictions and expanding covered relatives to siblings, legal guardians and similar relationships demonstrated to a court. The committee approved both amendments and the amended substitute by voice vote, without numerical counts. ## Transcript (263 turns) [0:21:29](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1289s) All right, good morning, everyone. We're gonna go ahead and get started. We, um, as tends to happen to- towards the end of session with these committee work days, we all got a lot of places to be at the same time, so we're gonna try to get through this as expeditiously as we can. And, uh, again, since we all need, uh, more prayer, we're gonna ask Chairman Jaspers if he'll open us up with a word. Chairman Jaspers. [0:21:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1311s) Let's all bow our heads together please. Heavenly Father, thank you for allowing us to have another, what a beautiful day in Georgia to be inside and, and do your work. You know, please put your hedge of protection, wisdom around us as we work on this day before day 38 to, uh, you know, we know there's a lot of stress and strain in our world, and, and just please help keep us calm and kind to one another. And, uh, please bless our servicemen, uh, in the, in the Far East. We know, we're just also worried about them. [0:22:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1343s) But thank you for the, for what you do for us and your sons. In this, in your name. Amen. [0:22:30](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1350s) Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to, um, we're gonna do Senate Bill 586 real quick. This is, um, it's, uh, Chairman Rick Williams' bill, but, uh, we're gonna have, uh, Chairman Momtahan or Ann Gullett come up and, uh, present the substitute for Senate Bill 586. [0:23:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1384s) All right, y'all are, y'all are ready to go. The floor is yours. [0:23:08](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1388s) I'll start it. So this is LC630178S. Uh, back in 2023 we had a bill, um, it went through, it went through ag, uh, made it to the Senate, came out of Senate, uh, to rules and got stuck there. But suburban Atlanta is a little different than other places. Um, as we know, when livestock gets loose, the, the responsibility of livestock that gets loose is with the sheriff. Um, today, when livestock gets loose, um, that could mean a potbelly pig, it could mean a chicken, it could mean all kinds of different things, but the sheriff is responsible for it. [0:23:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1425s) They run ads, they feed, they feed the animal. So if it's a, a horse who eats a lot of food, they feed the animal, comes out of their budget, multiple weeks while they run ads to say, "Hey, if this is yours, come get it, please." If no one comes and gets it, they have two choices today. They can either kill it or they can auction it. Um, a lot of times when they auction it, there's no value. Potbelly pig, you can't, you don't eat potbelly pigs. Um, you, uh, there's no value to it. They can't recoup their money. Um, and so, uh, but that's not good, uh, stewardship sometimes of what you can do. [0:24:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1458s) So what, today they can't give them away. So why is there not an option to give, to give that animal away ver- versus killing the animal necessarily for someone willing to take it who has the means to provide for that animal? So what this does is it, um, gives the sheriff the opportunity, uh, if you look at line 17, uh, through 19, donate it to a nonprofit organization, an individual or an entity deemed by the sheriff to have the means to take care of that animal. Um, that's what this is doing. [0:24:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1490s) Uh, it's in the line 35 through, I'm sorry, 36 through 38. It includes it in the, uh, the notice that goes out, uh, in the paper. Um, section two is just talks about donation. The owner of an impounded livestock should have the right anytime before the donation or sale. So today it just says sale because they either sell it or kill it, and they don't have to do it if they, they kill it. And then section three is, is the same. If there's no bidder for the livestock, uh, the sheriff shall donate the livestock to a nonprofit, um, or an entity that can handle it. [0:25:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1525s) So this is just trying to, uh, give sheriffs more options for livestock. Uh, I think, uh, Representative Momtahan has a, a couple of stories that happened here locally with us, but I know it happens especially in, uh, suburban and metro Atlanta, metro areas. [0:25:39](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1539s) Yeah, thank you, Chairman. Chairman, if I may, um, just out of color, we, uh, just recently had an auction in Paulding County. Uh, I think they had a potbelly pig, they had a lamb, uh, but it could be- [0:25:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1551s) Chicken [0:25:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1552s) ... you know, it could be a chicken re-. And they're having to spend $750 to 1,000 just in attorney's fees alone to do this auction process, uh, to get it put in the paper, to, you know, to, uh, to, to have it, to have the actual auction. And, and that was all, I think they received $2, was what they got. Now, that's on top of feeding these animals and, and all the other things. And so this is just like a, a humane way for us to treat, uh, these animals. Uh, I don't think anybody wants to kill, uh, Little Bo-Peep, uh, by, by any stretch of the imagination. [0:26:26](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1586s) Uh, and so they wanna make sure that they're going to a humane place, and I think, uh, that's what this bill does. I know it's important to our sheriff. It's, it's likely important to sheriffs all across our state, uh, when we're handling this kind of livestock. But, uh, we appreciate, uh, y'all's favorable consideration of, uh, now SB586. [0:26:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1609s) Okay. Did you say- [0:26:53](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1613s) There was a lamb. But a little old Pete. Yeah. So Marty, Marty had a little lamb. Marty had a little lamb, that's right. There we go. All right. And unfortunately, the sheriff almost had to kill it. That's a shame. All right. That would be a shame, sir. That's, uh, any questions from- He got it for $1. Yeah, he got it for $1. Any questions from members of the committee? All right, seeing none, what is the will of the committee? Make the motion to pass. Second. Second. All right, a motion to pass and a second. We have a light blinking now. Is that for a, well, discussion? We're in a mood for discussion. Would, would you like to discuss something? [0:27:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1644s) About being in the policy making feels and all the feels of the- ... policymaker, so I'm ... That's it. Okay. All right. All right. Representative Panitch feels good. All right, we have a motion- ... and a second. Uh, seeing no further discussion, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed, same sign. All right, it carries. Thank you. You're welcome. All right, Chairman Strickland. Back with a new and updated version of Senate Bill 482. [0:27:59](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1679s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I think the sub, we just got more copies. They're s- they're still being passed out. I can wait a second, make sure everybody gets it if y'all would like. But I'm working off of LC630175S. And I can tell you based on the feedback I received from the committee, I believe we have addressed all of the concerns from the committee. We have not addressed everybody's concerns in the room, but this bill will get us to a place where we will know exactly who is getting mugshot images. [0:28:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1714s) We'll know exactly who's getting body camera footage. We will ease the burden off of our law enforcement at the same time when it comes to how these requests are made. Um, but we are gonna hopefully start the process of recognizing our state that body camera footage and mugshots are not entertainment. They're news. They're something that should be reserved for open records, but not preserved for entertainment and for making money in our state. So I'll walk through the changes we made from the original version if you like, Mr. [0:29:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1744s) Chairman. If you look at the LC, we first off divided law enforcement video out from mugshots. I mentioned the first time I presented, this bill was about mugshots originally. Senate added in law enforcement video, but frankly, we didn't have the discussion that we're able to have with this committee about how we need to treat that a little bit differently. And so you'll see first, um, s- lines 18 through 31 deal with the booking photo, I'll call it mugshot. Um, and you'll see the change is lines 29 through 31. We discussed this in committee. [0:29:35](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1775s) This will make this section not apply, um, which means they would go through the traditional means of requesting the records, including via email. Um, if you are a bonafide credentialed member of the two press associations recognized under Georgia law, these are people that will know who they are. They're credentialed members of the press. They already have certain privileges under Georgia law. And then you'll see section two is the new section that deals with law enforcement videos. Other than the same carve out, lines 56 through 58, for the credentialed members of the press, we also added additional language for everyone to identify the video that they want versus having to potentially identify every individual in a video. [0:30:16](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1816s) Now you'll see on lines 40 through 41, you could give the first and last name of an individual depicted in a video or the approximate date, time, and location of the encounter or interaction that's depicted. If you know what you're looking for or have any clue what you're looking for, now you'll be able to identify that. And then we also included a suggestion to this committee, uh, actually I think it was Representative Holcomb him- himself that suggested this, lines 50 through 53. Law enforcement officers mentioned that they have to go through and review these body cam, uh, or videos to make sure they do the redactions required, and that codifies that on lines 50 through 53, and it confirms that while the identity of people not depicted, um, will be redacted or could be redacted, the iden- ident- individual identified in the, um, request and the images of law enforcement personnel would not be redacted. [0:31:12](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1872s) Lastly, um, that is all for my bill originally, or my issue that I brought to the committee. Section three adds in another bill, what was another bill, and if it's the pleasure of the committee, could become part of this bill, that was filed by Chairman Gullett that somehow got out of the House Judiciary Committee. And we took the version that came out of the House Judiciary Committee, did not make the House floor, so if you are not on that committee, you may not have seen this one. But it deals with all audio, video, video recordings from any state or local government agency that shows a deceased person or otherwise shows that person's death or shows that person distressed immediately preceding his or her death. [0:31:54](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1914s) That language is on line 64 through 66. That would not be something that would be disclosed under our Open Records Act with the exception you'll see starting on line 78. There's a process where s- after a case is closed out, if someone can show a court that they have the proper need for that, and it serves the public interest and outweighs any privacy interests that may be asserted by the deceased person or their next of kin, they could still get that video. So there is that, uh, that ability to still get something if you can make that showing. [0:32:27](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1947s) That's recognizing that individuals that have, um, videos of someone that they loved dying, suffering, um, should not be out there for YouTubers, again, to make money off of. And if there's a legitimate need for that, they will be able to get it under Georgia law, but it will not be just provided to people for some kind of sick entertainment to, again, make money. So that is the bill, Mr. Chairman. H- and I appreciate the committee's work on this Y'all helped, in my opinion, if you, if you agree with me, hopefully you move this bill. [0:32:57](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1977s) You've got a bill that's in a really good place. You've perfected it, and I think it's gonna make a big difference in our state. Happy to take any questions. [0:33:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1985s) All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have, uh, just a couple. Let's see. Representative Cummings, yours was on first. [0:33:13](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=1993s) Well, thank you. Thank you for this work on, on this. I have two main things. I was curious as to why only Georgia Press can obtain, um, any of this. And then my other big concern is the definition of next of kin. This reads spouse, an adult child, or parent. So if you have a sibling who is single, the parents are dead, and that person has no kids, like my sister, I would not be able to get any of this. [0:33:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2025s) And so I have a huge, um, problem with that. And, um, it also doesn't inc- include legal guardianship for adoptive children. So I think that next of kin as it's defined is just way too narrow, and it should just be the regular legal definition of next of kin and legal guardian. [0:34:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2045s) So let me address your first question. I may have to have Chairman Gullett, if he wants to weigh in on why that definition of next of kin was used, 'cause that was... I took the version that passed the House Judiciary Committee, to be honest with you, and you see the definition there, so you see exactly what it is. [0:34:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2058s) Yeah. [0:34:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2058s) Uh, I don't have any particular thoughts on whether that ought to be expanded. Uh, if you expanded it, it would protect more people, and so I have no opposition to that. But I may be missing something, and so if anybody wants to weigh in on that, that has more background, I'll let them do that. Why just the Georgia Press Association? Why just the Georgia Association of Broadcasters? Thank you. You got my lifeline. The, the... Because the whole point of going in person and sign the affidavit is we want to know who's getting the images and who these people are. Because getting the image and posting it does potentially subject you to a claim from the attorney general. [0:34:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2092s) And so there is a policy reason to make sure we know who's getting the images or the videos. The reason we left these two groups in, because the only two groups that I could find that are codified under Georgia law and also under Georgia rulemaking, like the GBI, that gives privileges these two associations, they are Georgia-based associations that offer credentials. Could there be other groups that come out in the future that offer credentials that may want to be added to this? That's something that the future legislatures could decide. But we carved them out because they already have a process under Georgia law. [0:35:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2123s) They have privileges already under Georgia law, things like, um, going to disaster scenes first. Um, Georgia Association of Broadcasters, for example, has certain requirements they have in issuing public service announcements on behalf of the federal government. They're regulated by the FCC. And, and part, as part of that, they have privileges. And so those are the only two that we know under Georgia law. Um, and then I'll let... If that answers that question, I'll let Chairman Gullett address the definition. [0:35:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2149s) Sure. Um, make sure I have the right, uh, 175S. Uh, yeah. So this version is the one that passed out of, um, House Judiciary, like, uh, Chairman Strickland said. This language came from, uh, death scene photos today. So death scene photos, um, back in 2010, there was, uh, there was a situation that happened. Um, someone got decapitated i- on the Appalachian Trail. The, uh, publisher of Hustler Magazine was trying to publish those, those images of the crime scene. [0:36:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2183s) Um, and this is the language that came up in its current law today outside of the, being attached to a video, um, of someone dying or in, you know, uh, or in the process of, of dying. Um, and so that's what we, we just mirrored that language. There was no real, uh, thought behind expanding that. I don't particularly see... I know I talked to you. I don't particularly see an issue with that. Just have to be careful about what that looks like, um, and making sure that it really is the next of kin. I know from the probating process, uh, there, maybe there's some legal, uh, way of making sure that it, it truly is the next of kin and it's not, you know, a fifth cousin, you know, 18th removed or something that's getting it. [0:37:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2224s) Maybe that is the next of kin. But somehow if there's a better definition of next of kin, I don't, I don't think that materially changes what I'm trying to do. I want the next of kin to get the video. [0:37:11](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2231s) Well, the normal legal definition is the closest living blood relative, so that really could be the fifth c- cousin if nobody, if there's no oth- other person alive. [0:37:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2244s) Sure. [0:37:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2244s) But to me, it should also include legal guardians because adopted children, they don't have a blood relative. [0:37:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2253s) Yeah. Right. [0:37:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2253s) And so under this definition, um, and but particularly for, for, for me, it leaves out some ways- [0:37:39](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2259s) I, I don't think it says blood, though. It just says on, on number two, it just says if there's a living spouse. Just, it's if there's no living spouse, an adult child of the deceased person. I have an adopted child. He's just, you know, it... I think he would qualify for there. But I, I don't disagree. What- whatever you guys wanna make it, materially it doesn't change it for me. As far as, uh, the next of kin, it just needs to be the next of kin and not some broad. So however you guys wanna define it, I don't, I don't particularly care. [0:38:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2287s) Okay. So at the appropriate time, I would like to offer that. [0:38:09](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2289s) Do you... Well, let me ask you this. Do you have a place in Georgia Code where next of kin is already defined in law? 'Cause you said the way it's defined in law is in the next of kin relative. [0:38:19](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2299s) No, I've looked at that. [0:38:19](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2299s) That- [0:38:20](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2300s) I've looked it up real quick. [0:38:21](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2301s) Okay. [0:38:22](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2302s) But we can look at our- [0:38:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2303s) Okay. So all right. Okay. [0:38:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2304s) Uh, the probate law, when someone dies without a will, does define the process. And so there may be some language we can take from there. [0:38:30](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2310s) Yeah. If you can find one that's already in code, that'll just make it easier for, for Megan to, to do. [0:38:35](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2315s) Okay. [0:38:35](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2315s) That way we, we have one and we're not trying to write one on the fly, so. [0:38:38](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2318s) But the way it is currently is also defined in law. So again, I don't particularly think it changes it. [0:38:42](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2322s) Right. Yeah, and that is the, uh, to, to the author's point to this part, that is a way it's defined in that code that I believe Speaker Ralston, uh- [0:38:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2330s) That's right [0:38:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2330s) ... was involved in that back in- [0:38:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2332s) That's right [0:38:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2332s) ... uh, back in the day, so. Okay. Uh, Representative Holcomb [0:38:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2338s) I, I wanna echo the same concern about the next of kin language and would be supportive of, of trying to change that. Because the way that it reads now is it's a shall on line 72, and so if these three conditions don't exist, you can't get to the subparagraph B because there wouldn't be anybody that would fall under next of kin, and I think the court's analysis would stop there. Um, the other thing that I wanna say is I, I appreciate the amendments to, um, Chairman Strickland's bill, and I also very much agree with the intent of what Chairman Gullett is trying to do, and we've had conversations about this before. [0:39:39](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2379s) I have no interest, and I don't think, um, without being too presumptuous, any member has any interest in, um, having the release of death photos for which there is no public interest. My concern with how this is drafted is it's limited to closed criminal investigations, and so that's pretty long in the process. There could be a compelling public interest need to have some of this information shared sooner, particularly if there's a law enforcement, um, involved shooting. [0:40:11](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2411s) So I, um, I don't know exactly how to fix that all that easily. I just wanna share that with the committee in terms of a concern that I have. [0:40:21](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2421s) Can I respond to that, too? So, and we've talked about this. Today, um, it's not open, just like those videos aren't open to sub- uh, subject to open records today when the investigation is open. They are only subject to open records once the investigation is closed today. So we're not changing that aspect of this. Um, and I think it's just a policy, you know, disagreement that we have of when those videos are there. But if you release the videos, and sometimes maybe that's a key part of the investigative process of, as, as far as convicting someone, there's, you're opening that up to where someone, um ... [0:40:55](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2455s) It makes it more difficult for the prosecution of the case, um, potentially. So just be aware what, what the ask is there. It's, there's a reason that they're not open and, uh, subject to open records until the, the investigative process is closed as it is today. [0:41:10](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2470s) And I would echo that. That's my understanding, is we're not, we're not making these, um ... If they're not currently available, we're not changing that. We're not doing anything different when it comes to closed criminal investigation, 'cause if there's a criminal investigation regarding a video, it would not be disclosed right now anyway. That's why I believe that language is there, because once that's done, now we are restricting it unless you can make this showing. [0:41:31](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2491s) Okay. Thank you. [0:41:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2494s) All right. Chairman Werkheiser. [0:41:37](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2497s) Thank you, Chairman. Um, two things real quick. One, um, so this is gonna preclude someone copy and pasting 12 emails to five larger counties and saying, "I want footage of every DUI arrest in the last 30 days." It's gotta be very tailored. Okay, that part's good. [0:41:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2518s) That's correct. [0:41:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2518s) Little concern on why the incredibly narrow pho- um, on lines 29 through 31. [0:42:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2527s) Being a member of that association, um, 'cause I mean, like The Gazette cited numerous cases of properly using and crimes being solved. Um, just give me some explanation on that. [0:42:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2545s) Well, again, I, I, I think it's dangerous for us as a legislature to start defining who is legitimate press. [0:42:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2553s) Well, isn't that what we're doing? [0:42:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2554s) No, I think we're avoiding that. I think you're threading the needle by this change by saying that we're just gonna recognize if you're credentialed. There's two groups we know of under Georgia law that do oversee credential- and offer credentials to members of the press, and these individuals already have certain privileges under Georgia law already to do things other people can't do without those credentials. And so that is my way of trying to thread that needle, of us not defining who the press is, us saying there's already associations that have certain authorities under Georgia law that offer credentials. [0:43:06](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2586s) 'Cause the whole goal is not to give them any certain privileges that other people wouldn't have, but it's to say that the in-person request with the affidavit is not necessary because you, we already know who you are. So- [0:43:20](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2600s) So could The Gazette apply to be a member of? [0:43:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2604s) Yes. They- [0:43:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2605s) Okay [0:43:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2605s) ... there's nothing that would prohibit anybody from applying to be a member of these two associations. They are private associations. [0:43:30](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2610s) And then they could decide if they want to accept their membership or not? [0:43:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2613s) And then... That's correct. [0:43:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2614s) Okay. [0:43:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2614s) And then it'd be up to legislature to decide if these two groups are being too exclusive, and we decide down the road that we need to change this. But keep in mind, again, these groups already have a lot of privileges. The broadcasters have the federal privileges that I mentioned earlier. They're regulated by the FCC. I, I think they have to be members of the FCC. And so it's a little bit different. It's a, especially a big structure for them. The Georgia Press Association, as far as I know, is the only press association we have in Georgia that offers credentials, that has privileges. Even things like going on the Senate floor or House floor, we don't let everybody come on there without credentials. [0:44:09](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2649s) Okay. Well, I appreciate the bill. You've done a good job. Thank you. [0:44:12](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2652s) Thank you. [0:44:13](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2653s) All right. Thank you. All right. We don't see any other quest- I spoke too soon. Chairman Jasperse. [0:44:20](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2660s) Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On Chairman Gullett's, on yours, so- [0:44:26](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2666s) It's you [0:44:26](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2666s) ... because this is all new to us and we're kind of going through it, this doesn't prohibit, um, the news as they do now, unfortunately, have to show crime scenes of, of whatever may happen that they do from long distances? [0:44:44](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2684s) This doesn't preclude the news... Say that one more time. I'm sorry. Doesn't preclude the re- [0:44:48](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2688s) I know you're playing on your phone- [0:44:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2689s) I'm trying to get the a- [0:44:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2689s) ... but I'll just let you be [0:44:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2689s) ... I'm trying to get the bill in front of me. I'm sorry. [0:44:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2691s) Searching for the answer. [0:44:54](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2694s) All right. I get- [0:44:54](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2694s) Looking it up, looking up the answer. Is that what's, uh- [0:44:56](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2696s) That's what we do. [0:44:57](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2697s) No, no. [0:44:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2698s) Yeah, so this doesn't preclude like a, the news as they do now, we have the news here right now- [0:45:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2704s) Sure [0:45:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2704s) ... of showing a crime scene that happened that day- [0:45:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2707s) No [0:45:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2707s) ... on the spot as news? [0:45:08](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2708s) No, it's only the video, uh, like the, the government video of, in my part, it's, so if someone dies, it's the government video that saw that death happen or the right proceeding of the death. Perfect situ- like a couple situations. The CEO of MARTA, um, unfortunately ended his life- [0:45:27](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2727s) Sure [0:45:27](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2727s) ... uh, on a MARTA station. There have been repeated, uh, video requests of that person jumping, you know, in front of the train. This would preclude, this would, this would handle that situation, a government MARTA camera. Another situation is the CDC had a, a shoot- an active shooter who, who murdered a, a police officer. Um, that was captured on a, a GDOT camera. There have been many, many open records, uh, for the death of that officer from the GDOT camera. [0:45:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2758s) So much so, it was given. There's no... They, they have to give it out. Um, the family asked for it to be re- you know, removed from websites that were, that were profiting off of this, and they've extorted, basically. They said, "Sure, we'll do it, and for X amount of dollars," and X amount of dollars was tens of thousands of dollars. So, uh, that's a situation. I have a situation in, in my county, um, where a, a, a, uh, an individual was, was stabbing her son in the parking lot of an apartment complex. Uh, multiple stabs. The child, the child was dead on the, in the parking lot when the officers arrived on scene. [0:46:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2794s) Um, they ended up, um, she ended up coming at them with a knife after s- s- some, some deliberation and talking. Uh, and, and that threat was ended with her, too. But the, the requests were much more so for her stabbing her child, uh, for the open records than it was for the police-involved shooting of that. Because there are people who are, who are sick who wanna watch this online or make money off of it online. So this is what this is trying to address. It's not trying to, uh, restrict anyone from getting the, the, the video they want. [0:47:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2825s) If a family member, uh, wants to, to, you know, the next of kin wants to get that out there, that's their, that's their right. I don't think anyone should have a problem with that. But just from, uh, just for people making money and profiting, this is what this is trying to address. [0:47:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2838s) And if I can, I, Mr. Chairman, I'd love to hear from the Georgia press, what their thoughts are then, you know, on this. Also, make sure their availability of it. [0:47:28](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2848s) Sure. [0:47:28](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2848s) On the paper. [0:47:28](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2848s) And I, and I will say section three was something that, um, I was, I was, a member of this committee asked me to make sure we try to include back. If it's gonna hold the bill, I don't want to. I think it's, uh, if that's the killer of the bill, I'm willing to take that off. This is not something that... I thought it was an addition to, a good place to go, and it's something that some of the committee members wanted, but I don't wanna, uh, hold the bill up either. [0:47:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2870s) Sure. And we have some people signed up to, uh, to speak. I don't see, um, anybody from the press signed up to speak, but if somebody would like to. Reagan, you wanna address Chairman Jaspers? [0:48:03](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2883s) Can I address Chairman Jaspers? [0:48:04](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2884s) Yeah, go ahead and, and just, uh, if you wanna speak to what Chairman Jaspers was asking, I'll turn the podium mic on there for you. [0:48:10](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2890s) Uh, yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My name is Reagan Marsh, here on behalf of the, I'm, I'm with Troutman Pepper. I'm here on behalf of the Georgia Press Association. I also have Jaylene Hunter with me, executive director. Um, on section three, this is, uh, as, as stated, is based on the crime scene foot- crime scene footage open records exemption, and it's almost exactly like it except that it is missing, um, in the crime scene exception, there's a press carve-out, sort of like you see in the other parts of this bill. [0:48:40](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2920s) I think ideally, uh, from the press's standpoint, we, we would like to see that included. [0:48:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2929s) Thank you. [0:48:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2930s) All right. [0:48:50](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2930s) Mr. Chairman. [0:48:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2932s) Yes, sir. [0:48:56](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2936s) Our other representative of the press. [0:48:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2938s) Jeremy Collins here representing the Georgia Association of Broadcasters. I echo what Mr. Marsh said as well. Um, and I've also got Rainey Gravely here, the president of the association. Thank you. [0:49:09](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2949s) Okay. Thank you. Does that cover your question, Chairman Jaspers? [0:49:13](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2953s) Yes, sir. [0:49:13](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2953s) All right. Thank you. All right, uh, Wade Askew. [0:49:20](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2960s) 30 seconds. [0:49:21](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2961s) Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Wade Askew from Gold Dome Partners representing Georgia Justice Project. Uh, we've long been supporters of the first two sections of the bill. Uh, you heard my testimony the other day, so here for any questions, but otherwise, that's all I got for you. [0:49:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2974s) All right. [0:49:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2974s) Thank you. [0:49:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2974s) Thank you very much. And Sarah Hunt Blackwell. [0:49:44](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=2984s) Good morning, Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Sarah Hunt Blackwell. I'm the senior policy counsel at the ACLU of Georgia, an organization that enhances and defends the civil liberties and rights of all Georgians. I'd like to thank Chairman Strickland and the members of this committee for engaging in robust discussions about this bill, SB 482. This is legislation that should not be taken lightly. Prior to crossover day, this was not a bill that we had many concerns about. While restricting access to booking photos does have First Amendment implications, we appreciate the severity of companies holding these images for ransom and causing sometimes irverse- irreversible damage to people's lives. [0:50:21](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3021s) However, the addition of language restricting law enforcement video raises many alarms for us, and the sub that's being introduced today is a worst case scenario for government transparency, accountability, and First Amendment rights. The ACLU of Georgia oppo- generally opposes the law enforcement video restrictions, in part because of how it could significantly impair access to videos of officer-involved shootings and other potential misconduct made by law enforcement. In an instance where an officer-involved shooting ultimately leads to someone's death, sections two and three of this bill ultimately restrict access to that footage only to the deceased person's Spouse, adult child, or parents. [0:51:03](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3063s) Then any one of those persons must go and request the footage in writing, in person. What if the deceased person does not have a spouse, adult child, or living parents? Or if they do, what if any one of those family members do not live in Georgia and have no means of getting to the jurisdiction to request the video in person? This bill leaves gaping holes for people who do not fit neatly into these very narrow categories. But even if all the categories are indeed met, lines 90 to 94 require that even the next of kin to the deceased person would not be able to receive the video for two weeks after they request it. [0:51:42](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3102s) So a mother whose child was killed in an officer-involved shooting would not be able to see what happened to her child for two weeks after requesting that information. How is that protection? There is one more very serious issue I'd like to raise. This bill comes at the same time as Senate Bill 268, which is on its way to the House floor. That bill creates cri- the crime of interference with a first responder when a person remains within 25 feet of law enforcement. Basically, that legislation makes it more difficult for the public to exercise their First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers. [0:52:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3137s) So taking SB 482 and SB 268 together, these bills completely gut the public's access to recordings of police activity. SB 268 restricts the public taking videos in real time, and this bill, SB 482, restricts the public's access to videos after an incident has occurred. By allowing these bills to move forward, this legislature is limiting government transparency and accountability from all sides and stripping people of their First Amendment rights. [0:52:48](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3168s) We understand the sensitivities around exploiting people's most vulnerable moments, but placing an almost impenetrable shield around observance of law enforcement actions is not the solution. I urge that you all please do not pass this bill in its current form. Thank you, and I yield for questions. [0:53:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3187s) Okay. I, uh, I don't see any questions. I, I, I don't know that I completely agree with your assessment there on most of those things, but, uh- It's not true ... And Chairman Strickland, do you want to respond- It's just- ... or, or ask a question? My response would be the ACLU should care about people being tried in the court of public opinion. The idea that you're gonna take someone's mugshot, and ACLU supports that, let, going online and be, and people making money off that when you have, you've been charged with a crime that could be dismissed, even if you've been found guilty. [0:53:41](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3221s) The ACLU should be against that. And these body cam videos, the idea that ACLU supports having someone's image or someone's body cam go to a YouTuber that then makes money off that when their child was killed in that video, their spouse, their parent was killed in that video, is insane. And any, any body cam anybody wants, if you can name the officer, officer-involved shooting, if you know the officer's name, if you know where it took place, approximately when it took place, you can still get the body cam. The idea this restricts that is absolutely insane and not true. [0:54:13](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3253s) Okay. Mr. Chairman, if I may? Yes, ma'am. Sure. We, we don't have any, uh, opposition to the mugshot portion of the bill, just for clarification. All right. Do, do you- But our opposition is to the law enforcement video portion. Have you seen the- But what he said is not true about if there's a officer-involved shooting- Sorry ... you know the officer's name, you can get the body cam. Yeah. Not if the person- Hey, hey ... not if the person has passed away. Hey, everybody. Let's, let's talk to me. Thank you. Um- People shouldn't be to come to committee and say things that are not true about bills. I understand. That's not true. Thank you. Have you seen the substitute? We added some language with that, that Representative Holcomb had wanted about the approximate date, time, and location. [0:54:43](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3283s) So- Yes ... I think there are avenues, the point he's trying to make, there are avenues for people to get that body cam footage. Um, and, and we can, we've debated Senate Bill 268 through other committees that I'm on, so- Right ... so we'll have that, but thank you for your input. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, anybody else on the committee got any questions, uh, for the author before we move on? I think there's gonna be some amendments. It looks like there's some discussion going on over there, uh, with legislative council. Representative Panitch, do you really want to say something this time? [0:55:14](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3314s) I do. Okay, good. There you are. Not just that I feel good. You kept pushing your button and turning it off, so. I, I ke- I kept going back and forth. But the, would the author have any objection if, if we're going to, um, to cite to the intestacy statute in order to figure out who the next of kin is? Right. Would the author have any objection to carving out, aside from a nominated executor, because it's possible that, uh, somebody was appointed to handle the affairs of that person. Yeah. So from my, again, that's, it's not something I've spent a lot of time working on. [0:55:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3345s) It was Chairman Gullett's bill. But I'll say from my perspective, the broader that is, the better, because the whole point of that is saying that if it's someone you have a close relationship to, um, you get the, you get the notice that it's gonna be released. That's that two weeks that was mentioned. You get notice of the release, and you get a chance then with that two-week notice to object to it, and then you get into the situation where there has to be a finding. And I think it's important, I know it's a little bit of lawyer talk, but it's important that the, what the court would look at in weighing whether or not to release someone, the image of someone dying or, or being, or being killed, would be whether the public interest outweighs any privacy interests. [0:56:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3383s) And in making that determination, the court shall consider whether such disclosure's necessary for the public evaluation of governmental performance, the seriness- seriousness of the intrusion of the family's right to privacy, and whether such disclosure is the least intrisive, uh, least intrusive means available considering the availability of similar information, other public records. So I think what you want to think about is who should be able to argue about the family's right to privacy. That's the point of that, is that's the person that would be able to say, "This is our family's right to privacy." So policy-wise, we should decide who should have that standing. [0:56:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3418s) If it's someone that's, has that close family relationship, I would argue they can, they should have that standing in court. Is this an in camera inspection, or is this a- I believe that is built in [0:57:12](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3432s) Meaning it's just the judge, not- It is in camera, and I think it's in the bill- [0:57:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3437s) Okay [0:57:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3437s) ... kind of on the line. [0:57:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3437s) Thanks. [0:57:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3437s) I remember reading that. [0:57:19](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3439s) Thank you. [0:57:20](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3440s) Uh, but let's make sure. I think it's... [0:57:26](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3446s) Give me one second, I'll find it. [0:57:28](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3448s) I'm gonna pull you. [0:57:29](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3449s) You're pardon. [0:57:29](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3449s) Okay. [0:57:30](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3450s) In there in camera. Yes. Look at lines 86 through 87. The court shall review the recordings- [0:57:36](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3456s) Okay. Yeah, I see them [0:57:36](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3456s) ... in question. [0:57:37](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3457s) Thank you. [0:57:37](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3457s) That means the judge will look at it in their chambers with the parties. [0:57:48](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3468s) Okay. All right. Uh, looks like we've exhausted all of our questions now. Uh, I'll entertain a motion on this bill. Somebody who'd like to make one? [0:57:57](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3477s) Motion to pass. Second. [0:57:59](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3479s) All right. We have a motion to pass and a second. And now we'll look at some motions for amendments. Representative... Nope, you did it again. Representative Cummings. [0:58:14](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3494s) Um, I- I'd like to make an amendment to add the appropriate statute, which I think has been done, and that's, um, title 53, um, 1-1 and 53, um, dash 17-12. I'm not sure if that entire statute needs to be in there, but... And I think they already added it in. Maybe she could read it. [0:58:40](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3520s) Um, I don't know where [0:58:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3525s) that one is. [0:58:47](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3527s) Okay. [0:58:47](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3527s) I sent it. She says she sent it to you. [0:58:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3531s) Okay. 53-1-1 and 53-17 what? [0:59:00](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3540s) All right. Representative Holcomb, did, did you have a, an amendment you wanted to propose? [0:59:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3547s) Yes, sir. Uh, are, are we in that posture? Sorry. [0:59:09](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3549s) We are in that posture. [0:59:10](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3550s) Okay. Um, the amendment that I have is pretty simple. It would be to replicate what is currently on lines 29 to 31, which reads, "This code section shall not apply to requests for booking photographs made by bona fide credential members of the Georgia Press Association or the Georgia Association of Broadcasters." And we would replicate that, um, after line 108. So there would be a similar section F with that exact same language, just at the end of Chairman Gullett's section. [0:59:42](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3582s) Okay. Chairman Gullett, would you consider that a friendly amendment? [0:59:46](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3586s) Yeah, I talked to him. I think, uh, he gives his support, and I don't, uh... It's where we are. I'm good with that. [0:59:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3591s) Okay. [0:59:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3591s) Thank you. [0:59:51](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3591s) Thank you. All right. Uh, Chairman Jaspers. [0:59:56](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3596s) Just a comment on my friend on the end there. Should that, instead of booking photographs, should that read audio, visual, or images? [1:00:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3605s) Yes. [1:00:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3605s) You know, that, so it really replicates inside the- [1:00:08](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3608s) You're exactly right. That's a great catch. You're exactly right. [1:00:11](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3611s) Okay. And, and I'm sorry, let me... And that's my fault. Uh, so you made the motion on that amendment. Is there a second on that amendment? [1:00:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3618s) Second. [1:00:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3618s) Second. [1:00:19](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3619s) Okay. Then we kind of did that out of order. We had a little discussion already. So, uh, did you need to amend your, your motion? [1:00:26](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3626s) I do, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry about that. And thank you, Chairman Jaspers, for catching it. We're all working quickly here. So what we'd want to have that say is, "This code section shall not apply to requests for audio or video recordings pursuant to this subsection." [1:00:43](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3643s) That would add images, too. [1:00:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3645s) Audio, video. Audio, comma, video, or images pursuant to this subsection. And let me just clear that w- with ledge council, if that makes sense. [1:00:57](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3657s) Okay. [1:00:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3658s) Does that make sense? [1:00:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3658s) I was- [1:01:00](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3660s) We could still, on 64 through 65, and restate it if you wanted. Audio or video recordings from device, well, that include audio, video, and images of deceased person. [1:01:10](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3670s) That's where I got that from. [1:01:12](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3672s) You might could also just say this code section does not... Well, now we're not creating a new code. So you say 53... Let's see. Paragraph 53 does not ap- would not be applicable to those organizations. I guess we could give ledge council the authority to write it right. [1:01:40](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3700s) Okay. If y'all want to- [1:01:42](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3702s) All right. Give us one second [1:01:43](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3703s) ... figure that out. Yeah. And I think, uh, Megan, we're, we're trying to do these one at a time. So if you wanna let Megan work on that one, then y'all can work on this one. We got, we got plenty of lawyers in the room, so. [1:01:54](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3714s) Get a lot of opinions. [1:02:01](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=3721s) All right. We'll stand at ease for just a couple minutes while we get this done. [1:23:07](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=4987s) All right, everybody. Nope, maybe not. All right, everyone. [1:23:15](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=4995s) All right. We're gonna come back now, um, and see if we have any solutions to the quandary of our amendments. [1:23:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5005s) So the position we were in is, Representative Holcomb, we were in the, uh... I'll turn your mic on there. We were in discussion phase of your amendment, and then I believe you were needing to amend your amendment. So if you would please restate your proposed amendment, and then we'll see if we have a second for it. [1:23:46](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5026s) Th- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I, to make it cleaner, I'll withdraw what I said before and just start over. And so I'll move to make an amendment, um, that states, "This paragraph shall not apply to requests for audio, comma, video, comma, or images made by bona fide credentialed members of the Georgia Press Association or the Georgia Association of Broadcasters." And that would be inserted after line 108. And we'll use this paragraph because you'll see, um, up above on subsection E, it uses this paragraph, subsection D, it uses this paragraph. [1:24:22](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5062s) And so I, I think that that makes it consistent with the language that's there, and then covers the- um, the types of, of either images, videos or, or audio. So again, I thank Chairman Jasperse for catching that, um, earlier. [1:24:35](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5075s) Okay. So that would be my amendment. And that would be added as a, a subparagraph F- F ... on line 109. Yes, sir. And then, okay. Or after 108. So, all right, we, that is the motion. Is there a second on that? [1:24:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5089s) Second. [1:24:49](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5089s) All right, motion and second. Any further discussion? N- Seeing none, all in favor say aye. [1:24:53](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5093s) Aye. [1:24:54](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5094s) Any opposed, same sign. All right, that amendment is on. Do we have another amendment? [1:25:01](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5101s) Yes. [1:25:01](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5101s) Okay, are we sure? All right, give it a shot. [1:25:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5105s) On line 76, "If there is no living spouse or adult child of the deceased person, a parent, sibling, or legal guardian of the deceased person," and then there was one more sentence that, um- [1:25:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5123s) On 19? [1:25:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5124s) Yeah. To include y- your language. [1:25:27](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5127s) You want a mic? Yeah, we got her on 13 down there. So thank you. [1:25:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5133s) Um, I would also modify to what you just said, "a parent, a sibling, or a legal guardian," just for grammar purposes. Um, and then on line [1:25:45](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5145s) 75 we would strike the or and on line 77, um, after deceased person, it would be semicolon, "Or a similar familiar or legal [1:26:00](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5160s) relationship as demonstrated to a court of competent jurisdiction." [1:26:06](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5166s) Okay. All right, so we're gonna add what she had. So we're gonna add sibling or ... Terry. Or, sorry- [1:26:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5177s) Um, sibling, comma [1:26:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5177s) ... Representative Cummings. [1:26:18](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5178s) Um, sibling, comma, um, of the, sibling, comma, excuse me, or legal guardian of the deceased, and then semicolon, or a similar familiar legal relationship. Is that what you said? [1:26:31](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5191s) I think that's what we had said, right, Senator Strickland? [1:26:34](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5194s) It is. And the purpose of that is instead of trying to define every potential relationship somebody may have, it's broad enough where you would have, on the side of giving the person their day in court to argue they have this type of relationship. [1:26:46](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5206s) Okay. [1:26:48](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5208s) So after legal relation, what was the rest of the sentence? [1:26:52](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5212s) As demonstrated to a court of competent jurisdiction. [1:26:56](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5216s) All right, so in that line we're adding a sibling or legal guardian of the deceased person. [1:27:03](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5223s) Semicolon. [1:27:03](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5223s) And then semicolon, uh- [1:27:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5225s) Or a similar familiar, or a similar, comma, familiar, comma, li- or legal relation as demonstrated to a, um, competent court. [1:27:16](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5236s) Court of competent jurisdiction? [1:27:17](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5237s) Yes, court of competent jurisdiction. [1:27:19](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5239s) Perfect. Okay. That is made as a motion. Is there a second? [1:27:22](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5242s) Second. [1:27:23](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5243s) Second. [1:27:24](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5244s) All right, any further discussion on that amendment? Uh, Chairman Strickland, are you comfortable with that? Is that, are you comfortable? [1:27:33](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5253s) Y'all are doing Gullett's bill here, and I'm good with it. I think, I think it, uh- [1:27:37](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5257s) Well, I'm asking for your- ... for your, for your legal expertise somewhat. [1:27:41](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5261s) Yes, and look- [1:27:42](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5262s) So please don't bill me [1:27:43](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5263s) ... obviously if we've got something wrong, I know we'll try to sort it out in the last week here. But I think that it, I think we're in a good place where we're gonna give more people the chance to, to protect their family's videos and images. [1:27:55](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5275s) And- [1:27:55](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5275s) And so I think it's a good thing. [1:27:57](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5277s) You'd be comfortable with that amendment then? [1:27:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5278s) I would be. [1:27:58](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5278s) Chairman Gullett is as well. [1:27:59](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5279s) Yes. [1:27:59](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5279s) Okay. All right, very good. All right, all in favor of the Cummings Amendment, say aye. [1:28:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5285s) Aye. [1:28:05](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5285s) Any opposed say no. All right, that one's on as well. All right, moving on to the full bill as amended. All in favor say aye. [1:28:14](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5294s) Aye. [1:28:14](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5294s) Any opposed same sign. All right, very good. We are done and we can all go to judiciary, which it feels like we've already been in, so. [1:28:22](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5302s) It's gonna be an easy bill there. [1:28:25](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5305s) And, uh, this'll, this, this should be our last meeting of the session, so thank you all for all your hard work this session. Uh- [1:28:32](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5312s) Oh, I've been here, uh [1:28:32](https://vimeo.com/1176649111#t=5312s) ... we'll see you soon