Senate Judiciary Committee passes bill to seal first-offender records at sentencing

Chairman Hagan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that House Bill 162 (LC 481348) ‘‘did not make it to the Senate floor’’ previously and described the bill as aimed at preserving the intent of the First Offender Act by sealing qualifying records earlier in the process.

The bill would require judges to seal an eligible defendant’s criminal record at the time of sentencing instead of waiting until discharge, a change sponsors and advocates say is intended to prevent publicly searchable background checks from undermining what the statute was intended to accomplish: giving someone a practical second chance to obtain employment, housing and other opportunities after a single qualifying offense.

The change does not expand the class of eligible offenses, Chairman Hagan said, and ‘‘the crimes that are excluded are of a particularly violent nature or crimes against children,’’ noting that those categories remain ineligible. Hagan also emphasized that judges retain the right to refuse to accept a first-offender plea and retain authority to unseal records later if appropriate.

Wade Askew of the Georgia Justice Project, who said he worked with Judge Stevens of Glynn County on operational language, said the Senate Judiciary amendment was technical and meant to ensure that parties who need prompt access to a sealed file can get it without court orders. ‘‘There’s a notice on top of the file that the clerk has put on that says these parties are entitled to access with this, no need for a court order, no need for any process,’’ Askew told the committee.

Robert Smith of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Council said the bill explicitly preserves access for criminal-justice agencies and for other entities ‘‘as required by federal and state law.’’ He told the panel that the language in the bill addresses concerns raised by law enforcement and other agencies about operational access to sealed records.

Committee members raised several operational and legal concerns during questioning. A member identified in the transcript as Leader of Frustrations asked whether the bill removes a court’s balancing test between public access and the interests of a first-offender defendant; the member noted potential consequences for public-safety reporting and for background checks tied to firearm possession and employer or landlord screening. Chairman Hagan and Askew acknowledged those concerns and pointed to changes in the bill intended to preserve access where necessary—for example, language intended to allow access for firearm background checks and criminal-justice agencies.

Committee members also discussed whether the bill could make judges more reluctant to offer first-offender treatment because of operational uncertainties. Askew said he had worked with superior court judges, including Judge Stevens, to revise the operational provisions and that judges who had raised concerns were satisfied with the changes during that vetting.

Votes at a glance: The committee voted to pass House Bill 162 (LC 481348) by voice vote. The transcript records a motion to pass and a second, followed by a voice vote; no roll-call tally or names for the mover and seconder were recorded in the transcript.

The sponsor closed by saying the bill grants the intended practical relief of sealing at sentencing and expressed willingness to address remaining concerns from stakeholders. ‘‘Hopefully, we can work on some of those concerns that were brought up today,’’ Chairman Hagan said.