SB 160 - "Blue Lives Matter" Protection of Public Safety Officers
Caitlin V Fox
Georgia State University College of Law, cfox16@student.gsu.edu
Joseph A. Wallace Jr.
Georgia State University College of Law, jwallace7@student.gsu.edu
[Page 89]
Code Sections: O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-2, -560, -561, -562 (amended); 16-5-19 (new), -21, -24 (amended); 16-10-24, -56 (amended); 45-9-85 (amended)
Bill Number: SB 160
Act Number: 198
Georgia Laws: 2017 Ga. Laws 500
[Page 90]
Summary: The Act redefines and broadens protection for public safety officers who are subjected to violent attacks while engaged in their duties. The Act creates original jurisdiction and stiffens penalties for juvenile offenders charged with violent crimes. The Act also increases indemnification payments made to the surviving spouse of a law enforcement officer who loses his or her life in the line of duty.
Effective Date: July 1, 2017
History
On August 14, 2016, in Marietta, Georgia, a fifteen-year-old shot a police officer while the officer was in the line of duty.1 Less than eight hours earlier, an unidentified assailant shot and killed another police officer in Eastman, Georgia, while that officer was also on duty.2 Authorities apprehended and charged the fifteen-year-old "with violating Georgia's Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act, aggravated assault on a police officer, entering [an] auto[mobile], possession of a firearm during commission of a felony, and theft by receiving."3 These acts of violence against law enforcement officers, and the media attention they received, sparked the creation and support of Senate Bill (SB) 160: "Back the Badge Act of 2017."4
The Back the Badge Act embodies the principles of the growing Blue Lives Matter movement spreading throughout much of the
[Page 91]
United States.5 The movement responded to the Black Lives Matter movement, which was started to protest the troubling number of black citizens killed and mistreated at the hands of white police officers.6 These acts of violence reached a national climax in July 2016 when three brutal incidents occurred in a span of just four days.7 On July 5, 2016, Alton Sterling was shot to death by police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, while selling CDs outside of a convenience store.8 On July 6, 2016, Philandro Castile was killed by a police officer during a traffic stop in St. Paul, Minnesota.9 Following these events on July 8, 2016, five police officers in Dallas, Texas, were shot and killed at a demonstration against police violence.10
In response to these incidents, more than a dozen states have proposed laws that impose harsh penalties on individuals who commit crimes against law enforcement officers.11 This year, thirteen states have introduced some version of these Blue Lives Matter bills.12 Arkansas, Kentucky, and Mississippi expanded the type of employment receiving enhanced protection under their bills to include firefighters and emergency medical providers; Kansas and Missouri increased the number of offenses covered when committed
[Page 92]
against law enforcement officers; and Arizona expanded the scope of protection under its bill to include off-duty peace officers not engaged in police activities.13 Of the states that have enacted Blue Lives Matter laws, Georgia is the only one that includes mandatory minimum sentencing in its provisions.14
The number of states that have proposed and subsequently enacted such legislation is relatively low; many of the bills were heavily criticized and failed to pass.15 Common criticism of these Blue Lives Matter bills stemmed from the ambiguous text of the statutes and the possibility of overly broad interpretations.16 Other criticisms included the bills' possible effects on law enforcement and their relationship with citizens.17 Many critics felt the laws would not only make it more difficult to prosecute police officers and easier to prosecute confrontational protesters, but these laws would also deepen the divide between law enforcement officers and citizens.18 Georgia legislators attempted to account for both the seriousness of crimes against law enforcement officers and the criticism of laws enacted to quell such violence; several bills were drafted with those aims in mind.19 After much debate, SB 160 made its way through the Senate and the House of Representatives and became a conglomeration of bills.20 Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed SB 160 into law on May 8, 2017.21
[Page 93]
Bill Tracking of SB 160
Senate Consideration of SB 160
Senators Tyler Harper (R-7th), David Shafer (R-48th), Jeff Mullis (R-53rd), Greg Kirk (R-13th), Bill Cowsert (R-46th), and Steve Gooch (R-51st) sponsored SB 160.22 The Senate read the bill for the first time on February 14, 2017, and committed the bill to the Public Safety Committee.23 The Senate Public Safety Committee favorably reported the bill by substitute on February 22, 2017.24
The Committee substitute included most of the introduced bill's text. However, it made a few significant changes. First, the Committee substitute expanded the superior court's ability to transfer to the juvenile court an aggravated assault if committed with a firearm and an aggravated battery if either are committed against a public safety officer.25 The superior court would be able to use the criteria set forth in Code section 15-11-562 to determine whether transfer was appropriate.26
Second, the Committee substitute clarified the definition of a "Class A designated felony act" under the juvenile code.27 Under the clarification, a "Class A designated felony act" includes aggravated assaults that are, in part, either not against a public safety officer or not involving a firearm.28 Because the Committee substitute amended the definition of a "Class A designated felony act" under the juvenile code hinges in part on whether a firearm was used, the Committee substitute included a definition of "firearm."29 A "firearm" is defined as a "handgun, rifle, shotgun, or other weapon which will or can be
[Page 94]
converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge."30
SB 160 was read for the second time on February 23, 2017.31 On February 24, 2017, the Senate read the bill for the third and final time.32 The Senate passed the Committee substitute of SB 160 that same day by a vote of 40 to 12.33
House Consideration of SB 160
Representative Bert Reeves (R-34th) sponsored SB 160 in the House.34 The bill was first read in the House on February 27, 2017, and was assigned to the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee.35 The House read SB 160 for the second time the following day.36 While in the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee, Representatives Reeves and Alan Powell (R-32nd) and Senators Kirk and Harper worked together to change SB 160.37 On March 22, 2017, the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee favorably reported the bill by substitute.38
The House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee amended the Senate Public Safety Committee substitute of SB 160 in seven distinct ways. First, the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee created a new definition of a "public safety officer" which included more than peace officers and correctional officers.39 The Committee removed
[Page 95]
"officer of the court" from the definition and replaced it with three specific occupations previously considered "officers of the court."40 These occupations are "jail officer," "juvenile correctional officer," and "probation officer."41 The House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee then added stand-alone definitions for all three occupations.42
Second, the House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee added tougher punishments for certain aggravated assaults when committed against public safety officers43 Under the Senate Committee substitute, all aggravated assaults committed against public safety officers were to be "punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than [twenty] years."44 The House Committee substitute broke down aggravated assaults into three separate sections—A, B, and C—and added distinct penalties for each.
Under Code section 16-5-21(c)(1)(A) (Section A), an aggravated assault against a public safety officer that "occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least [seventeen] years of age," shall be punished by imprisonment "for not less than ten nor more than [twenty] years."45 Thus...
