Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dna Collection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Public Safety Committee approves bill to require DNA collection from charged people with immigration detainers
Summary
The Georgia Senate Public Safety Committee passed substitute Senate Bill 116, which would require DNA samples from individuals charged with misdemeanors or felonies who have or are eligible for an ICE detainer; the vote was 5–3. Supporters cite public-safety benefits; critics raised privacy and constitutional concerns.
The Georgia Senate Public Safety Committee on a substitute to Senate Bill 116 voted 5–3 to advance legislation that would require DNA collection from people charged with a misdemeanor or felony who "have an ICE detainer notice" or are "subject to" an immigration detainer, according to committee debate and testimony.
Senator Tim Bearden, the bill’s author, described the substitute (LC 630067S) as a modification of last year’s measure that changes the trigger for DNA collection from "convicted" to "charged." "It marks out who has been convicted of and changes it to charged with a misdemeanor or felony," Bearden said, arguing that samples would help solve crimes and connect suspects to unsolved offenses.
The bill drew sharp questions from several committee members about scope and constitutional protections. Senator Kim Jackson asked whether the language requiring DNA from people "charged" could mean routine misdemeanor stops—"Like a vehicle violation is a misdemeanor"—would result in arrests for the purpose of taking DNA. Bearden and other supporters said DNA collection in practice would occur when a person is brought to a station and is subject to an immigration detainer and that, in their view, the intent is to avoid duplicative gaps when federal authorities do not collect samples consistently.
Privacy and legal objections were raised by public witnesses and committee members. Maisie Lynn Guertin, representing the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, warned the substitute expands the system beyond convictions and noted Georgia’s constitution provides broader privacy protection than federal law. "To get my DNA, you actually have to invade my body," Guertin said, arguing that Georgia’s privacy framework calls for careful limits and expungement or oversight mechanisms.
Kyle Gomez Lineweber, speaking for Kamikaze Georgia, urged the committee to narrow any expansion of biometric collection, saying "DNA is not like a fingerprint. It contains deeply personal biological information" and warning that tying collection to immigration flags could produce unequal treatment for similar offenses.
Sheriffs’ representatives signaled practical support for tools that aid investigations but raised implementation concerns. Terry Norris, speaking for sheriffs, said they "support anything that controls crime" but noted questions about who is responsible for taking samples, potential duplication with existing federal collection, and county costs.
Committee members also sought specifics about cost and data retention. Bearden and witnesses recalled prior review that suggested a swab cost could be "about a dollar," but committee testimony did not provide a verified, current estimate. On data retention, committee discussion indicated samples would be entered into the FBI database; the committee was told the DNA in that system would not be automatically removed if charges were dropped.
Senator Jackson offered an amendment to replace the phrase "is subject to" with "has an ICE detainer notice" to reduce ambiguity about when samples would be required; the committee voted the amendment down by hand count, 3 in favor and 4 opposed. Vice Chairman Senator Robertson then moved to pass the substitute; the motion was seconded by Senator Payne. The committee approved the substitute, 5–3, and the measure will be sent to the Senate Rules Committee.
The hearing record shows a mix of public-safety arguments for broader access to genetic identifiers and sustained privacy, constitutional, and implementation concerns from defense attorneys, civil-rights advocates and some senators. The committee did not adopt language adding state-funded appropriations, explicit expungement mechanisms, or additional procedural safeguards during this session; supporters said implementation details and related bills (including discussion of a separate related Senate bill) could be addressed later.
The Senate Rules Committee is the next stop for the substitute to Senate Bill 116.
