[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6324597,"mediaKeyId","2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4","parentId",2337860,"title","Committee hears bills to protect jurors, adults at risk and prohibit nonconsensual deepfake explicit images","audioSeconds",1970,"startMs",1868000,"endMs",3838000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4&start=1868&end=3838","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4/thumbnail_1868000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6324597/Georgia/Committee-hears-bills-to-protect-jurors-adults-at-risk-and-prohibit-nonconsensual-deepfake-explicit-images","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324597-eb4c23e65e05d61e0f459ed98148f748/orig.mp4?Expires=1775346714&Signature=fTnuOrb97r6CY6l2Jrr9CdtO8GfJ1i2v6WOX1CXjpntnQtO~mEQ8J78KL-l0UjS5dEQN-eCQGPlostgivGzodppt1KHmTTjsONJHxQ2VxUZZ6NwafD8wF5eMue-mgN2ED5Xa~Wh~2~Vqe6ui~mmFd3qKq4hu69Z7cgj~Dbql91zY-j0u3eJhDYTY4lhD~PHXyPR3xaKh~~gX3R3uA9YhmIccei8y7h1P70iQwuj7JBbC~cJMLm4Rzq2vznliFzYq~I45AluhiNqG7NU0LHhG~dNEuivXGER4WSdnfzodGJLTRvqc5N8Dx~ZWDmKJfQEWKs80P06ynX0u5v1BR4UnuQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","WI State Legislature ","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety held a public hearing on three bills addressing jury intimidation, protections for adults at risk, and the creation and distribution of nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfake images.

Senate Bill 5 (juror threats): The sponsor described SB 5 as a measure to treat threats against jurors — and threats against a juror’s family — with the same felony-level penalties that currently apply to physical battery against jurors. The sponsor said the bill would allow judges to bar a person convicted of a crime from contacting a juror, similar to existing authority to bar contact with victims or witnesses. The sponsor and Representative Sartwell, who coauthored the measure, said jurors and their families should be protected from threats that could improperly influence verdicts. During committee questioning, members discussed a drafting fix from the prior session that had unintentionally reduced penalties; the current draft restores the intended felony level.

Senate Bill 15 (adults at risk): The committee heard from the bill sponsor about aligning protections for \"adults at risk\" — defined in statute as an adult whose physical or mental condition substantially impairs their ability to care for themselves and who is experiencing or at risk of abuse, neglect, self-neglect, or financial exploitation — with statutes that currently protect people age 60 and older. The measure would allow prosecutors to seek asset freezes when a defendant is charged with financial exploitation of an adult at risk, permit certain hearings by telephone or live audiovisual means, increase penalties for sexual misconduct when the victim is an adult at risk, and allow sentence enhancements where appropriate. The sponsor said the Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities and the Alzheimer's Association support the measure; a board representative registered in favor.

Senate Bill 33 (deepfake explicit images): The committee heard from the Senate author that advances in artificial intelligence are facilitating the creation and dissemination of nonconsensual sexually explicit images (so-called \"deepfakes\"). SB 33 would make it a felony to create, store, reproduce, or disseminate sexually explicit deepfake images without the depicted person's consent and a misdemeanor to reproduce intimate images that were taken voluntarily but not intended for wide sharing. The sponsor told the committee the proposal is a redraft of a 2023 bill that previously passed the Senate and would also criminalize hacking or stealing intimate images from a device.

Committee reaction and context: Committee members questioned drafting details, the interplay with existing statutes, and operational issues such as how adult-at-risk status would be determined in practice and how restrictions on contact or asset freezes would be implemented. Several members described the bills as aimed at protecting vulnerable people and the integrity of the justice system; others raised concerns about proof standards and potential prosecutorial discretion in applying aggravators.

No committee votes on these bills were recorded during the hearing portion on the transcript; the items were discussed and the committee carried over its roll call from the executive session. Each bill’s authors asked for the committee’s support and the record shows bipartisan references to refining technical language ahead of possible votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety February 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Judiciary committee took public testimony on bills to criminalize threats to jurors and their families (SB 5), strengthen protections for \"adults at risk\" including asset freezes for alleged financial exploitation (SB 15), and prohibit nonconsensual sexually explicit deepfake images and theft of intimate images (SB 33).","taxTitle","Judiciary, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Georgia","taxId",17672,"location","Georgia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324602,"Committee splits on bill to limit judge-initiated complaints against officers in officer-involved deaths; advances with no recommendation",1032,669000,1701000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4&start=669&end=1701","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4/thumbnail_669000.jpg","/articles/6324602/Georgia/Committee-splits-on-bill-to-limit-judge-initiated-complaints-against-officers-in-officer-involved-deaths-advances-with-no-recommendation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324602-bbf7a951218d10216e7e5c296f60ad87/orig.mp4?Expires=1775346714&Signature=GEBFS-qlTWDCRjm0gf4dfu7NbnB7LRnTph-pts6aqRpmM7MdaTbmbd3mCCVL4BNYgkIK8g8AJpetzekA~1s-dRSRraTlr9GqGI23glyMZRuWlCH1srGarlXq7se3K3J4-kKeQWhLDvXLyKE3EGSlwYhSdNJVMtH-IxVMAtGLT2o-BBnTwWughylSDNfCCHxeITLc0wVpd1W9~VFIY9FoWuHsOMMfyAxzd94n8sEeBbXAjuBimUtP70oJe3jYcfCZ6h-XtqfAnMIgbdBw8lz9gFrPvZLLknTWQwEeqcgs0uuBv2pRIkRD3Mb9jZSJK8bbGgL~AukHU2d4N1uKQ4VO0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety forwarded Senate Bill 25 with no recommendation after a 4–4 tie. The bill would limit a judge’s authority to permit the filing of a complaint against a law-enforcement officer involved in a death unless the judge finds new or unused evidence that warrants further review.

Why it matters: The proposal drew sharply divided views at the committee hearing. Opponents said the measure denies families and victims an avenue for independent judicial review that exists for other suspects; supporters said the measure protects officers from indefinite, duplicative investigations after full inquiries have already concluded.

What the bill does: Committee counsel summarized current law as generally vesting charging discretion with district attorneys but preserving a process for a judge to independently determine whether charges should be brought when a district attorney declines. SB 25 would bar a judge from permitting the filing of a complaint against a law-enforcement officer in an officer-involved-death case unless there is new or unused evidence presented at the hearing.

Committee debate: Senator Rice argued the bill would “lose an avenue for justice” for families whose loved ones died in encounters with officers and said it grants “a special privilege” to officers that other defendants do not receive. Rice cited memoranda from the state bar and the ACLU that raised concerns about unequal treatment and described practices in which officers can make additional statements after reviewing video evidence.

Senator James, identifying himself as a former law-enforcement officer, contended that the process for interviewing officers is not mischaracterized in testimony and said the bill still allows a judge to act when new or unused evidence is presented. He and other supporters described cases in which officers underwent repeated investigations and said the bill would prevent perpetual re-investigation once adequate evidence had been examined.

Senator Drake and others said the proposal risks sending the wrong message to victims and their families and would inappropriately restrict their access to judicial review in serious officer-involved death cases.

Committee action: The committee recorded a tied vote (4–4) and advanced SB 25 without a committee recommendation. The transcript shows an earlier passage entry in the hearing that the measure \"passes\" during an on-the-record vote, but the executive-session summary documents the outcome as a 4–4 tie and advancing with no recommendation.

Next steps: Because the committee produced no recommendation, SB 25 may next be considered by the full Senate under the chamber’s procedural rules; the committee record left its roll call open during the session and carried it over to the end of the hearing.

The record shows sustained, substantive debate over the balance between protecting officers from repeated probes after full investigations and preserving access to judicial review for families and victims in officer-involved deaths.","The Senate Judiciary committee advanced Senate Bill 25 on a 4–4 tie, recording no committee recommendation for a bill that would bar judges from permitting complaints against law-enforcement officers in officer-involved death cases absent new or unused evidence.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6324607,"Senate committee advances bill allowing 90-day impoundment for certain traffic offenses, adds agency-policy and stolen-vehicle exceptions",95,183000,278000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4&start=183&end=278","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2337860-895e01be7659901394438b321bd3daf4/thumbnail_183000.jpg","/articles/6324607/Georgia/Senate-committee-advances-bill-allowing-90-day-impoundment-for-certain-traffic-offenses-adds-agency-policy-and-stolen-vehicle-exceptions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6324607-c983171a2b7e609b3d541b2c3e5b0e16/orig.mp4?Expires=1775346714&Signature=EA3Jn9-IsAnhjSLJ9hOPxAViCj6ywPuuiwZff0O3M0S6PWw0s9Ns8vvTPyU1x~BwvabRsFh6yANlcfYUIYviZotMaO43uwYcTlWGjF-59ITLRx~giqg12RPPCU7qxP5sJCJiN8jmW4J39hLRA0BcZHmfK3RPuqvlB-H2LzzQtnD-iKcoM~aSQOHMqShddp15-WS305Zvoxnsb9T6~99e908tMsQ~skusrNWUeOMjarYYp4jQfhS-ReX9mA3srFTYEEHB9igykpEgOIZ2o-jn8ljsHTHC2nMPUOEOm8BWbc5RiGAkUlCRxdVlK1jd6IiaiPJJm0kG4zrJ7-uUiPKMtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety advanced Senate Bill 6, which would authorize a law-enforcement officer to impound vehicles when an officer arrests or issues a citation for certain traffic violations and set a default 90-day impoundment period.

The bill, as amended, requires that an officer’s agency have a written impoundment policy before the officer may impound under the law and creates an exception allowing immediate return of a vehicle reported as stolen without payment of fees. The committee approved two amendments and then recommended passage of the bill; the executive-session tally later in the record shows the measure advanced on a committee vote of 5–2.

Why it matters: The measure expands police authority to remove vehicles tied to specified traffic offenses and establishes a presumption of a lengthy impoundment period. Advocates characterize the bill as a tool to remove repeat reckless drivers from the road; critics say the impoundment regime could impose economic harm on vehicle owners and people who lend vehicles to others.

What the bill and amendments do: Legislative staff summarized the bill to the committee, saying SB 6 would create a default 90-day impoundment period but allow local governments to adopt a shorter period by ordinance. The summary said vehicle owners could request release at any time and that courts would be required to take certain actions depending on a finding of guilt or innocence, including imposition of costs if a defendant is found guilty. Senate Amendment 1 conditions impound authority on the officer’s agency having a written impoundment policy and clarifies that courts may impose storage costs. Senate Amendment 2 adds an exception when an impounded vehicle has been reported stolen: the agency must determine whether the vehicle was reported stolen and, if so, attempt to contact and return the vehicle without fees or charges.

Debate in committee: Opponents raised concerns about the law’s breadth. Senator Royce said she would vote no because the bill “is really not as described in the testimony” and “targets anyone who has lent the a driver their vehicle,” risking job loss and other economic harms for people who did not commit the offense. She said the remedy “does not fit the crime” in many cases.

Supporters, including the bill’s sponsor, characterized the amendments as technical or requested by local law enforcement and said the changes improved the bill. One sponsor told the committee the amendments addressed concerns raised during the hearing and “made the bill a better bill.” Senator James and others said the provision allowing courts to exempt vehicles that were not operated with the owner’s consent and the stolen-vehicle exception were important safeguards.

Votes and next steps: The committee adopted Senate Amendment 1, adopted Senate Amendment 2, and then recommended passage of SB 6 as amended. The minutes record the committee advancing SB 6; the executive-session summary later lists the bill as advancing on a 5–2 committee vote. The committee carried its roll call to remain open with the public hearing and recessed the executive session pending the roll.

Details to note: The bill text referenced local ordinances as a way for municipalities to shorten the default impoundment period and left the court’s handling of costs and releases contingent on judicial findings. The committee record shows members asked about the scope of agency discretion and emphasized that an owner may request release when the vehicle was not being operated with the owner’s consent.

The committee carried the item forward; the next procedural step is the full Senate (the committee record indicates the bill “advanced”), where any final action will be recorded.","The Senate Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety advanced Senate Bill 6, which sets a default 90-day vehicle impoundment period for certain traffic offenses while adding agency-policy and stolen-vehicle exceptions.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears bills to protect jurors, adults at risk and prohibit nonconsensual deepfake explicit images

Committee splits on bill to limit judge-initiated complaints against officers in officer-involved deaths; advances with no recommendation

Senate committee advances bill allowing 90-day impoundment for certain traffic offenses, adds agency-policy and stolen-vehicle exceptions