Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Domestic Violence Registry topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee debates domestic‑violence registry; survivors urge action, lawyers flag technical and constitutional concerns

Georgia House Committee (full committee hearing) · February 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A proposed GBI registry for recidivist domestic‑violence offenders drew strong survivor advocacy and shelter testimony, but committee members and defense counsel raised technical questions about definitions, retroactivity, first‑offender and pretrial‑diversion treatment and public posting of adjudications.

Lawmakers debated a proposed searchable registry of recidivist domestic‑violence offenders to be maintained by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

Representative Hagan said the registry — sparked in part by Tennessee’s new database — would list offenders after a second conviction and remove them after five years for a second conviction or 10 years after a third. The bill as presented applies only to convictions (not arrests) and contains exceptions for certain first‑offender treatments and pretrial diversion outcomes.

Supporters — including domestic‑violence shelter leaders — urged passage, saying registry information could help prospective partners, shelters and advocates make safer choices. "If it saved one life, that's one life we have saved with this bill," said a shelter director.

Opponents and defense representatives urged more precise definitions and safeguards. The Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers asked the committee not to post first‑offender adjudications publicly, arguing those protections exist for a reason. Questions focused on family‑violence definitions (which can sweep broadly to include past household members), inclusion of first‑offender adjudications and pretrial diversions, and a proposed effective date that would avoid surprising people who later became eligible for the registry.

The committee did not vote on the measure and asked the sponsor to work with stakeholders on a substitute clarifying definitions, notice and removal procedures.