House subcommittee narrows GPS-tracking warrant rules and advances bill
Loading...
Summary
A Judiciary subcommittee advanced HB1270 (LC630093) with amendments that require higher judicial review, allow judges to set jurisdictional reach, and add duration and specificity requirements for GPS/mobile tracking warrants.
Representative (sponsor) told the Judiciary (non‑civil) subcommittee that HB1270 (LC630093) is intended to tighten the standards for mobile tracking warrants after search warrants are issued, saying judges should set clear guardrails for when a GPS device may be attached to a vehicle.
The bill as amended requires that a superior court judge — rather than a broader set of judicial officers — review applications for mobile tracking devices, gives the issuing judge discretion to limit the geographic scope of the order (single county, multiple counties or statewide), and asks applicants to specify the requested duration of tracking and the justification for that duration. Sponsor comments emphasized past instances where warrants were later found to lack sufficient probable cause and were thrown out.
Maisie Lynn Guertin, executive director of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told the committee she supports more precise drafting and offered a technical amendment that would require the application to identify the person and describe the object or vehicle to be tracked and to state the requested duration and justification. She said those details help ensure judges can evaluate whether the surveillance will target the correct person or property.
Committee members debated language that would require applicants to state whether the vehicle or object is co‑owned or co‑used; some members said title records make that check feasible while others warned that a strict 'not co‑owned' requirement could unduly preclude surveillance of commonly co‑owned vehicles. The committee revised the amendment to require a statement as to whether an object or vehicle is co‑owned or co‑used so the judge has context when deciding whether to issue an order.
After discussion, the subcommittee adopted the Leverett amendment and voted to give HB1270 a do‑pass recommendation as amended. The committee did not produce a roll‑call tally in the transcript; the voice vote was recorded and the chair announced the motion carried.
What happens next: HB1270 will proceed toward the full committee with the subcommittee’s adopted amendments; legislative counsel will prepare the typed amendment language for review before final drafting.
