Senate Committee on Public Safety Meeting

Senate Public Safety Committee.

Welcome. We're gonna begin as we always do with a blessing and a prayer, and I'm gonna call on with absolute notice to our favorite reverend, our very own senator Kim Jackson, if you would please.

Let us pray.

Holy god, we thank you for the opportunity to gather with one another to do the work that you've called each and every one of us to do.

We ask your blessings upon

all public safety officials,

our law enforcement,

our EMTs, our firefighters,

our heroes,

so many who work to keep us safe.

We play your blessings upon them and their families,

and we give thanks for the men and women who fight on behalf of us in foreign countries as well. Be with them and bless them. Amen. Amen. Thank you so much.

Before we begin today, we have a brand new member of our committee, senator

Dickerson. Would you like to take a moment to just do a quick introduction for all those who are in the crowd and the millions listening on live stream. Yeah. Thank you, chairman. I appreciate that. It's my absolute honor honor and pleasure to be here today and be part of the, public safety,

committee.

I'm a lifelong resident in Cherokee County. I represent District 21, which is Cherokee County in the North part of Fulton County, which, is Alfred and Milton in Avalon.

Spent my time in, in,

as far as,

went to Hickory Flat Elementary and Dean Russel Middle School and Sequoia High School. I started my first company when I was 15 years old. When I graduated, I had five employees. Over the years, I've had 22 different companies ranging from five employees to 550

employees. So one of the big things that we we've always continued to support, through our family and through our family foundation is our public safety and our veterans, our firefighters, our police officers. It's absolute pleasure to be here and be on this committee,

and my,

my sincere appreciation to chairman Albers and, and accepting me to be on this committee as well. So, again, thank you so much for for being here. Thank you, senator. Thrilled to have my Cherokee delegation mate here on the committee.

We also have some of our same familiar and new faces here representing us from our senate press office,

from our, office of policy and legislative analysis, from our legislative council,

as well as very excited that we have miss Kiki here, who's our intern,

for our committee from Georgia Tech, another,

very smart, college student to keep us all straight. And, of course, we have mister Will Spencer next to me,

who, helps to run all things in our office and our committee.

Today, we're going to be hearing one bill. We have a sign up sheet. Where is that located? Right up front. Alright. It's located right up front there. So anybody that wants to speak for or against the bill that we have in front of us today, please make sure you fill in all of the different boxes. Otherwise, we'll not be able to hear from you today. And also remind the committee members and other folks of an event we're having tonight at, 05:30 to get there.

So I hope to see all of you later today. Is it 05:30?

05:30. Yes. At 06:30.

You will be a little late. Yeah. But we will wait. We'll hold everything for you.

Alright.

Before we begin on our first bill, we have obviously not met and since, last legislative session.

We,

during that time, just wanna let you know, as we have,

directly get to deal with all of our state law enforcement,

all of our fire service, our department of driver services,

and all the other folks the public safety committee tends to work with. I do spend a lot of time meeting with those folks off session,

including the Department of Corrections, whether that be,

visiting some of our prisons, going to our state patrol post,

meeting with the leaders of those organizations, etcetera.

Couple of things that I'd like to offer the committee members

during the session as well as after.

If you have not before or not in some time, I would like to request

that you take a ride with the Georgia State Patrol,

and spend a few hours with them. The best time to do that, is when we have our joint task force working with our local PDs

here in the Greater Atlanta area. But it is a great experience to see what our fine men and women are doing every day,

as well as we will set up a time to go visit,

at least one of our prisons, sometimes two, like we have done in the past,

and likely go over to the GBI where we have some new, and exciting technology used to help, beat back the bad guys. So,

just wanna make that available to everybody, and you can contact, either Will or myself, and we're happy to schedule a separate tour

or time for you to ride along. Of course, we'll get the other dates out as soon as we can.

Alright. Today, we're gonna hear senate bill one one six by our very own

senator Tim Bearden.

Senator, would you like to stay here, or would you like to go to the podium? The choice is yours. I'll stay here if that's good. It will be just fine. Alright. Everybody, I just wanna let you know you have a substitute

in your,

folder, and it is big changes from last year.

Changes 2025

to 2026.

Aside from that, this is the same bill, so I will turn it back over to the senator.

Thank you, mister chairman. I appreciate it. Make sure we're working off substitute senate bill one sixteen

l c six three zero zero six seven s.

As chairman said, the same bill that we passed out of this committee last year,

bill basically just states, if you look on line 28,

it marks out

who has been convicted of and changes it to charged with a misdemeanor or

felony.

So if

illegal illegal alien in this country, you're arrested for a misdemeanor or felony,

we would take the DNA sample to put in the database

just to make sure that we have that,

check back, make sure there's no crimes maybe outstanding that was not

solved, and DNA could be a big

process of solving that crime. Or if someone comes back in this country, commits a a crime, we can find out who that individual is. It's very short to the point bill. And,

ask for this committee's

recommendation of passage just like we did last year.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, senator. Questions of committee members? I see one from senator Jackson. Thank you, mister chairman. And, we may have answered this, and I just don't remember.

But, just a question about the language here is charged and not arrested on line 28.

So

would this mean that all law enforcement officers would be required to detain and bring in would to actually to arrest and take them into

custody if someone

were

I'm not just can you just tell me about the functionality? Right? Because a a a vehicle

stop. Right? Like, a vehicle violation is a misdemeanor.

Mhmm. So would people be able to get a ticket and report later for their DNA swab? Just tell me how this would work, if you don't mind.

Well, basically, if there's a vehicle stop and they are brought in to the station because

we have no proof who they are, we find out that they're illegal at that time, then they would be could be held at the detention center and or the department,

whatever it may be. And at that time, because of the charge, they would have to do the DNA sample. And if they are

what's the word we're exactly looking for? They're subject to a immigration detainer. So

Right. Just point of clarity if I may, mister so would this require every person who is given a misdemeanor ticket for a vehicle stop to be taken in to custody, or could a law enforcement officer just issue a ticket? That's I'm just trying to make sure. Okay. Let's distinguish between every person. No.

I'm sorry. Every I'm sorry. Every person who falls under your statute. Yes. Thank you for that. They fall to be

illegal in this country, and they're brought to the station.

And ICE's contact, like, they should be under, I believe it was, house bill 11 o five.

And it's found that they are here illegally and they're subject to the detainer being placed on them, then a DNA swab would be taken at that time to be put into the database. But they could be issued a ticket at their window and go home without being taken in. Is this possible?

That would

be

a good question.

But the way I understand it, once they're brought in

and given that so I guess I would be up to the discretion

on that one for a misdemeanor.

But they would be, hopefully, they wouldn't. No. They wouldn't because they'd be, if the detainer's put on them,

then they shouldn't be going anywhere until they're turned over to ICE. Okay. So one follow-up question. Sure. Who pays for the DNA swabs? Where is the burden of the cost for that?

On this, it doesn't say anything about subject to appropriations, so that would fall on to the, jurisdiction that has the, individual.

So that would be the county jail with so

and do you have any sense of how much that might cost the county jail to have to do these CDN swaps? Checked that last year, and I can't remember the cost of last year because we had that. There. I don't have a notes from last year on, on that one. So but we did look at the cost. I don't think it's a large cost. There are many type of tests that you can use. That's I believe it was about a dollar. It was cheap. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Other questions from the committee members?

Senator Wicks.

I have a question. How are you doing today? I'm good. How are you doing? I'm doing well.

I have a question in reference to does this violate the Fourth Amendment

of individuals?

Not one moment.

Unreasonable search and seizures. Under unreasonable search and seizures?

No.

Of, DNA

evidence without probable cause?

This bill?

They've been taken in. They've been charged with a mister mayor felony, and it's been shown through ICE that there's gonna be a they're subject to the detainer. So

and we're also talking about, legal here in this country. Mhmm.

And then one follow on question, mister Sherman. I'm sorry. No. You're fine. Who has access to this data,

that

that requires it to store, like, in banks? What agency has the capability to receive this data once it's,

collected?

Right now, I believe it will go into the FBI database.

And then once it's,

once they're cleared of the charges and the charges are dropped, how is it disposed?

It won't be disposed of. You're talking about are we taking the DNA out of the database? Mhmm. No.

Follow-up question from senator Jackson.

Yeah. Thank you. Just from that similar line and questioning from my colleague here.

So it's my understanding if a a person is taken into custody on the federal level. So,

if a person has a detainer, that means that ICE is gonna come and get them.

The feds are already doing those DNA swabs. So just as a matter from, like, an administrative

level,

why would we not just let the feds do that as opposed to duplicating the the process?

We have had and seen instances throughout the country where people just do not

abide by the

by the detainer

and let them go back to the streets.

Now have I seen that here in Georgia?

Not to my knowledge.

Right. If someone but if someone does

not

recognize

the detainer and decides to let someone go, they could.

And this is also going

from a convicted to being charged with.

So

as, senator Wicks said, you know, they might be found not guilty on on a charge, but they will still be here illegally, and we will have the DNA to check check to see if there's any other type of offenses or future offenses.

Right. Just but for point of clarification, the only people who are being swabbed are people who've been charged and who already have a detainer on them. So that means based on bills that we've passed out of this committee already,

in Georgia, you have to comply with that detainer. We've passed that bill. You don't get

to snub your nose to it and say, oh, I'm not gonna comply. So every jailer in Georgia

already has to turn these folks over to the federal government where they will be swabbed.

So Right. Just help me understand

why we would be doing this twice,

and why can't we just let the federal government take it since it's going in the the federal FBI dat database in the first place. I believe I could provide just a little little bit of context that might help. This goes back to when, we passed house bill 11 o five. I actually sponsored and carried that legislation in the senate.

The challenge that we have had, if you look back the last fifteen years, we'll say, to cover a broad different amount of administrations both in the federal and state level,

is sometimes ICE was doing their job, and sometimes they were not doing their job.

So we can only hold someone for so long before they would just simply not pick them up.

And and they were directed not to pick them up. So I'm not faulting the agents in any which way, shape, or form, but I'm faulting the leadership that told them not to. So without that happening, that means that DNA is never taken. If the DNA is taken and we have them in Georgia and we can connect that to other crimes and find people that have a systematic problem who have broke, many laws, then it's a chance for us to really go after and take those hardened criminals off the street.

Thank you. May may I ask a follow-up question? Sure. Actually, this may be for, the the vice chairman,

my fellow

whip in the room.

Just in time. I apologize meeting late. I was meeting with DFACS. So

I appreciate your service. Yeah. They released me from custody.

But which service is that? Your service, care for defects and for our our state's great children, and we share that in common. So I appreciate that, sir.

I just a question about due process. This is back to my colleagues around the Fourth Amendment. So,

due process

requires there have to be or probable cause requires that there has to be a reason for us to suspect that a person

has done something

in order for us to do a search and seizure. Right? So in order to search my house, you can't just say, hey. You look like you might have done something. There has to be probable cause. Correct? There's there's multiple ways, and I've I've got my partner here with me. There's multiple ways to conduct a search. You can conduct a search,

by asking somebody, may I search your property? And they can say, yes.

And they'll normally you sign something and you go in and search.

If there's something open that is easily seen,

you can do search.

Something called exigent circumstances

that can lead to a search. Or there's a search warrant that requires a sworn to affidavit

that you can search. And your vehicle is an extension of your home, and so those

are applicable to your vehicle as well as your as your abode.

So can you speak to your person? What what is required in order to give consent to Search your person? Search your your person, which would include, I assume, the collection of DNA. And you and you don't always now the you're talking about the collection of DNA? Mhmm.

Well, in some cases, you would you would have to have a search warrant to do that. But,

if you're searching for a specific reason,

then somebody cannot self incriminate.

And, again,

I've got, senator Bearden here beside me. If if I'm

if this is a murder case and I wanna gather somebody's a DNA sample,

in in many cases,

they would be required to get a search warrant. That person would have to submit

to a DNA

test. But if it is used to identify, like fingerprints and things like that, no search warrant is required.

So in this case, this is a person who has a ICE detainer. And I just walked in, so I'm not familiar with what we're reading. It's okay because you're just giving us some legal background here from your Well, I'm giving you law enforcement background. Law enforcement background. Apologies. Yeah. Law enforcement background. Me with an attorney. My Yes. My father will come down from heaven and smite me. So in this case, a person has a nice detainer,

but they're being charged with a misdemeanor, not a felony, but charged with a misdemeanor.

What is the probable cause

that allows us to collect their DNA? I don't think it would be probable cause. We anybody charged with a misdemeanor that goes into a county jail in Georgia,

are fingerprinted,

mugshotted,

and it would fall within that category.

It's an identifier is all it is.

Right. So in your opinion,

the collection of DNA would not be appropriate for a misdemeanor?

No. I just said we collect. It's an identifier. Yes. It would be.

No. That's what I'm saying. If somebody goes in for for a you have to understand a DUI,

first DUI Is a misdemeanor. Is a misdemeanor. When people go into jail, they are processed the exact same way of somebody charged with a felony is processed.

They are mugshot.

They, fingerprints are collected

and used used for identification purposes. And those fingerprints that are collected are sent into

a local I mean, excuse me, a state and federal system and held in there,

so

for forever.

They have mine, and I'm sure they have most everybody in the room's fingerprints on file. And that's exactly

the same

this DNA would be an identifier if if I'm understanding where this legislation is going to.

Yeah. I I, appreciate that. I think, again, my are fourth amendment concerns here as to whether or not this is a violation. Even if someone is here illegally, they still have rights by virtue of being in this country,

on this land. You're you do not get rights because you become a citizen. You get rights to due calls, to probable calls, to due process as a result of us deciding that that should be the standard for all humans who live here. And so I'm deeply concerned that this is a violation

of a human's rights. And and I really I don't think that this body would be doing this for an American citizen. We would not say if you're charged with a traffic violation, we wanna collect your DNA because we

we we care about our DNA. We understand that to be important information that's not just about identif of that identity. So I'm just naming that. I'm very concerned about this being a violation of of rights. And, senator, I appreciate that, one of our committee members,

senator Rick Williams, is not here right now because he is with his bill that we passed last year at the House Public Safety Committee,

which is to take DNA for people who have committed crimes here in Georgia. And to me, DNA

is just a modern day form of the fingerprint. We didn't have DNA back then. We didn't have facial recognition. Those things have come to pass. And I think what we've learned with collecting DNA is it does two things. First and foremost, it's exonerating

those who are innocent. I mean, we've seen that many times, which I think is a positive. But at the same time, it is a modern day forum where we've also connected the dots to many, many bad actors, whether it be

rape, murder, assault, etcetera. So, that's where we probably have a bit of a disagreement, but I appreciate that. Final word on that, senator Robertson. I I think one thing we we have to consider when we talk about this, and I understand some of your concerns about rights and and being a free American.

It's it's someone as reading it who's been charged.

So

they are different from the average

Joe

American. So if you if this bill were to allow,

law enforcement to stop people walking down the sidewalk and collect DNA from them, then I would be gravely concerned.

I think once you're charged,

then

I think it is very much,

within the rights to collect an identifier,

whether it be fingerprints,

DNA,

retina scan, whatever is coming forth,

to identify the individuals

for the system.

Alright. Any final comments from the bill's author before we take public feedback?

Alright.

We've got three people signed up,

for this, for this bill. We'll begin with, miss Maisie Lynn. Why don't you come up to the podium, please, and always begin by,

telling us your name and who you're representing. Of course.

It's good to see you, chairman and members of the committee. I'm Maisie Lynn Guertin. I represent the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,

and I'm also a tech grad. So go jackets, Kiki. Welcome. There are not that many of us around. We have to stand together

around here.

So a lot of what I have wanna bring to you have been discussing already.

Of course, as you've mentioned, there's another bill happening in another hearing room right now on this similar issue. And one of the troubles that they run into is where this conversation started and that's cost.

The most recent substitute version of that bill

actually added,

some language that will require the state of Georgia to incur all of the costs associated with the DNA collection contemplated under SB 29. So whether that

contemplated under SB 29.

So whether that becomes appropriated or not, I guess, will be another conversation down the road if that bill passes. But,

there has been a lot of discussion over the course of that bill about cost,

to your point, Snyder Jackson.

One of the distinctions

between and I I will with all due respect,

vice chairman Robertson,

when a person is simply charged with a crime,

they are just like every average Joe citizen because they are still presumed innocent Absolutely. Until they're proven guilty. Absolutely. And in this bill, just as in the other, we are talking about those people that are simply charged.

And,

as senator Jackson alluded to,

every misdemeanor in Georgia

is

a crime. Every speeding ticket,

every broken taillight ticket,

every

every moving violation that we have is a misdemeanor in Georgia. The only crime I can crime I can think of that we have decided to make civil at this point is a seat belt violation. That is one you cannot go to jail for. But you can technically go to jail for up to twelve months for any of your moving vehicle violations in Georgia. And so

And so that's that's the scope of this bill that it goes well beyond,

the worst of the worst. It goes well beyond serious violent felonies, which is what senate bill 29 is after,

and the other

that you all have already contemplated,

is very expansive.

What's also expansive in Georgia is our constitutional

protection of privacy.

In fact, the Georgia constitution's

privacy protections

go beyond those of the federal constitution.

So while in our country,

it has been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that DNA collection can happen at arrest in certain cases. The case is Maryland versus King. It's a 2013

case.

Georgia does not function under a reasonable expectation of privacy,

scheme. We actually have a fundamental,

expectation of privacy in Georgia. It's much more protective

as you can imagine

we all want.

So we have not contemplated

this scenario yet under,

our Georgia constitution. But when we have contemplated things like

breathalyzers,

anything where you have to overtly provide

a sample,

breath, urine, those have been deemed to be protected.

The they cannot be compelled without a warrant as senator Robertson was saying.

And we believe that this is gonna fall under that same concern because, you know, unlike a fingerprint that I'm leaving behind right now and someone can come behind me, mister Norris, with his kit and collect,

the only way you're gonna get my DNA is if you come I know.

You're the only person in the room that I know would know how to do that besides senator Robertson, and we've already gotten a little bit of conversation going.

You can come behind me and collect it. I've left it behind. I have no right to protect that at this point.

To get my DNA, you actually have to invade my body.

You know, there are conversations that happen in and around this courthouse about civil asset forfeiture. I'm sorry. Maisel, before you go on? Yep. When you say invade your body Yeah.

You're talking a cheek swab is invading your body different than rolling fingerprints? Put a device into

a a crevice of my body. You would have to put a swab inside my mouth. And you think that is that much worse than than rolling everybody's fingerprints 10 times?

You're going inside my body. I'm not I I I I'm not sure I could say it's a scalable

worse better, but you're definitely having to go inside of a person's body inside their mouth. I I would think a cheek swab versus 10 fingerprints with ink is a lot less

invasive.

Well, we'll disagree about that. I can like I said, we can tap our fingers. We can roll them. But,

when we talk about civil asset forfeiture forfeiture under the stone, a lot of the times the conversation revolves around whether or not you would feel comfortable with someone taking your property

subject to merely being arrested.

And a lot of the conversation I've heard over time

from

a more libertarian conservative,

voice in this space is, no. We don't want people's property being taken from them until they're convicted of a crime. But in this case, you're acting you're asking for their bodily

parts of their body to be taken from them for merely being arrested for potentially

a broken taillight.

The scope of the bill is is extreme

and especially when you compare it to the

'19 o four

is when

we passed paragraph 13, but I would have to get back to you on that one

to be sure.

And, Maisie, we're gonna have to wrap this up. Do a couple questions with other folks. That. Yes. I'm I'm gonna recognize senator Beard for a quick question.

You brought up Maryland versus King. Correct? I did. Did that go to the Supreme Court? It did. What happened?

Yeah. So in that like I said before, the federal constitution

is not as protective as the Georgia constitution. And so in the in a federal scheme, we have the the Supreme Court of Georgia has agreed that it is constitutional

to take DNA at arrest.

I did say that earlier today, and it it's just I stand by that. They they have said that.

And,

I believe the majority mentioned that methods that serve legitimate government interest and accurately identify suspects all around crimes

and ensuring public safety, they viewed it as a minimal intrusion compared to the benefits. Is that correct? That is what they said. And at the beginning of the argument in that case, it's kind of interesting. Justice Scalia was on the bench at that time and still alive. And at the start of the oral arguments, here's what he said.

If you conduct

a lot of unreasonable searches and seizures,

crime prevention would be more effective.

That proves nothing.

That's why we have constitutional

protections. Alright. If you have no other questions, I

One quick question from senator, Robertson. We gotta move on. Maisie, I I appreciate the fact you said the judge was on the bench and still alive. That helps a lot.

But I do wanna point They are not. That's true. Or at least they're sleeping sometimes. I do wanna point out on on line 28.

Mhmm.

It says,

who has been

charged with a misdemeanor or felony

and is subject

to an immigration

detainer notice. Right. So the broken taillight, why that's a very minimal

thing to go through,

is it not true under this legislation

that if somebody stops somebody with a broken tell if they stop me with a broken tell light, I wouldn't be subject to this. Right? Wouldn't be. Okay. So it would be somebody who is subject to an immigration detainer. Correct? Right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Alright. Thank you very much. Next, mister Kyle Gomez.

Thank you everyone,

for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kyle Gomez Lineweber, and I'm here on behalf

of Kamikaze Georgia,

a nonpartisan organization with over 15,000

members working to strengthen democracy

and ensure government systems are fair, transparent, and accountable to all people.

SB one sixteen would require DNA collection from individuals who have been merely charged, not convicted,

if they are subject to an immigration detainer

even when the underlying charge is a misdemeanor. That represents a significant expansion of state biometric surveillance and raises court issues

of fairness, privacy, and equal protection under the law.

Georgia's existing DNA system was built around serious criminal convictions,

and s p one sixteen shifts that framework

by tying permanent genetic collection

not to guilt or even the severity of an alleged offense,

but to an immigration enforcement flag. That means two people accused of the same minor offense could be treated differently based on immigration status.

DNA is not like a fingerprint. It contains

deeply personal biological information.

Expanding the data bank to include people who have not been and may never be convicted

increases the risk of misuse,

errors, and long term privacy harms without clear guardrails in the bill.

There are also broader public safety imp implications when immigrant communities believe that any interaction with the justice system can lead to expanded surveillance

or immigration consequences,

trust in local institutions erodes. That makes people less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses,

or cooperate with law enforcement.

Outcomes that undermine rather than strengthen community safety.

At a minimum, any expansion of DNA collection should be narrowly tailored, tied to serious offenses, and include strong protections for expungement, oversight, and transparency.

SB one sixteen

does not currently meet that standard. For these urges for excuse me. For these reasons, we urge the committee to approach this bill with caution. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Alright. And last but not least, our very own Terry Norris. Come on down.

Am I a member of the committee now, sir? You should be.

Non voting. You're it was the very own part that got me. Thank you, mister chairman, and, happy New Year to all you all of you.

It's nice to see you. And, mister chairman, I'd like for you to know

as you have,

alluded to, there are two meetings occurring at this very moment for the same purpose.

As the executive director of the sheriff's association, I had my choice of which committee I'd prefer to be in front of. Strong. So I chose the upper chamber, and I like that may be made for the record show. Yes. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Please don't tell the other side. No.

The sheriffs are gonna support anything that controls crime.

And in that sense,

we're gonna support this bill. We are concerned about cost.

The the other bill, the senate bill 29 that, senator Williams has is being spoken of right now.

That provision was added in that particular bill, and we appreciate I think the senate did that last year. I'm not I'm not sure about that. So,

again,

the cost is one thing. The other bill we're concerned about

who actually is responsible for taking the sample, and we believe

there as well as here to some extent that the arresting agency slash officers should be required to do that.

There's some disagreement on this matter,

but we see a scenario if the arresting

agent

agency or officer doesn't do it, then our,

our jail officers who might be doing it for,

on a case where another agency

made made the case and made the charge and made the arrest

that our jail officer could be subpoenaed to some other faraway state for some other case because he simply or she simply

took the swab, took the, the sample. So there's some concerns there. It is my,

my guess

that at some point, these two bills may intersect

at some point, and we'd like to have that conversation,

that we've had on the other bill on this one at that time. So we thank you for your consideration. And, again,

we support the bill. We're gonna support sheriff's gonna support what is, lawful.

And if this becomes law, it certainly is lawful. Those considerations

are

well observed by many. So there's no debate there on this end. It's just we're gonna do what, you know, whatever y'all tell us to do for the most part. So

Thank you, Terry. I appreciate it. I got a question from, senator Jackson.

Thank you so much for your testimony and your expertise.

It was stated earlier that we think it cost maybe a dollar, a swab.

Can you give me any, like, a general sense of how many misdemeanors,

a year, a county, an average county might,

I'm sorry. I couldn't find that be a GCIC question. I really I really don't know that answer a bunch. You know, there's a lot more traffic cases traffic offenses or misdemeanor offenses, so there's a lot. But I would I would make one point of clarity. If you're not brought into the jail, we're not gonna know you're you've been charged anyway.

And if you're brought to the jail under level o five, we have to notify sheriffs have to notify ICE

if the proper documentation

doesn't accompany the individual

at the time of that arrest into custody. So we make that notification

to ICE. And in forty eight hours, if they haven't responded, then they're released.

And another thing that I think

we all lose in this conversation is

simply because someone is reported to ICE as being undocumented

in this case,

and and there even is a detainer. They don't always come for them.

This bill does contemplate

anybody that's,

eligible for a detainer, meaning,

meaning that if you're arrested and you don't have the documentation, no matter what you're arrested for,

then my perception of this is the swab has to occur.

Is Is it I believe I'm right about that, chairman.

So we would do that. Now it is true that ICE is doing this now.

So it could be a little little bit of, duplication

there.

But as for the cost, it is gonna be costly to our counties,

the the folks that

elect y'all and pay the taxes for the county. So it will be a cost. But GCI I'm sorry. GBI and forensics have those numbers as well, concerning the cost as well as,

how many cases we're talking about.

Alright. Point of a clarification for the author.

Go right ahead. Yeah. So,

mister Norris testified. It's his understanding that anyone who

is undocumented

might be subject to this

he's not.

Yeah. I know. I was Okay. You do know I wasn't sure if you know I was

trying to I was trying to make sure I had the right answer to the question. Yeah. Because my I I my understanding was that they had to have a detainer.

But his He said eligible bill says subject to subject to to me as their

to the to the detainer.

So it's your understanding that they have to have a detainer, not just be eligible to get one? That's why that's why I was, like,

double checking what he said when he said eligible. Bill says subject to.

So I think there's a difference. Alright. There's a difference in the two. Okay. If I may, though, anybody that doesn't have the papers, we're gonna report that. So they are subject to it. But to me, it there it's the same terminology. They're eligible for

if they're eligible for a debt Dana because they did not have the proper

documentation

of being in the country legally,

then they are they're gonna be, NICE is gonna be notified we have that person. They don't always

file the detainer. We don't know when they do and when they don't. So

I think we're talking semantics here, maybe. I don't I'm not sure. Yeah.

Thank you. Well, we have yeah. We're gonna have to if you guys wanna talk offline, but I think we had a lot of, very

back and forth questions here. So, we're gonna have to bring that to, to a head. Good job. Alright.

Thank you all, for testimony. That's everybody who signed up on the bill. We're gonna bring it back to the breast of the committee.

And before we have any further committee discussion, I will open up to a floor for anybody for the will of the committee.

Mister chairman,

I make a motion

to pass. I've got a motion to pass from the vice chairman for LC sixty three zero zero six s, which is a substitute to senate bill one sixteen. Do I have a second?

One second. And a second from senator Payne. Now for the committee discussion. Senator Jackson. Yes. I'd like to,

offer an an amendment. I think it's a a friendly amendment.

By on line 28,

instead of is subject,

I'd like to strike that

in two, online

29,

and say,

has

an ICE detainer

notice

as opposed to subject to since that seems to be a place of,

confusion. So let me just make that clear. I would I would move to amend,

LCS

three zero zero six seven s

by striking

on line 28 is subject

to moving down to 29

and replacing that with has

an immigration notice. And and just wanna make sure everybody knows this as we have this discussion.

That is changing the existing law as it is today, not the changer. Okay? Yes. Let me, turn it back to the bill's author,

senator Bearden.

Do you have any discussion on this matter? Actually,

I have a motion. Is there a second?

I second. Okay.

Discussion.

I think the bill needs to stay

subject to,

and so it has.

Alright. So that's the the amendment be voted against. Alright. So the bill's author wants to give you the same, but we have a motion and a second on the table. I am going to take a vote on the amendment,

offered by senator Jackson. All those in favor of the Jackson amendment, please raise your hand.

Three. All those opposed, please raise your hand.

One, two, three, four. That amendment fails. We're back to the original

bill. We have a motion,

from senator Robertson and a second from senator Payne. Any further discussion

or amendments?

Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand.

One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed?

One, two, three. This bill passes.

Congratulations, senator. And this will head to the Senate Rules Committee.

And before we adjourn, a couple of quick public, announcements here. Again, we have an event tonight at 05:30 for those that are gonna be coming. And, again, all those who are interested in doing ride alongs or or, participating in other tours with our,

public safety and other agencies that we, interact with on a daily basis, I encourage that, as well as your local, sheriff's departments and police departments and fire departments that are in your community.

Please,

do that as well as your local nine one one centers,

who are the tip of the spear for our public safety professionals. Thank you all for coming, and this meeting is hereby adjourned.