Criminal procedure; inclusion of certain contact information on bonds and recognizances; require
Summary
HB 222 amends Georgia criminal procedure law governing bonds and recognizances in criminal proceedings. Specifically, it requires that every bond or recognizance securing a person’s appearance in a criminal case include legible contact information for the principal and each surety: full name, mailing address, email address, and phone number. The bill revises Code Section 17-6-73 to expand the information that must appear on these documents.
The measure is administrative in nature and is aimed at improving the completeness and usability of bond records. By requiring email addresses and phone numbers in addition to names and mailing addresses, the bill likely makes it easier for courts, law enforcement, and other parties involved in criminal proceedings to contact principals and sureties when needed. It also includes a standard repealer clause to eliminate conflicting laws.
Impact
HB 222 changes Georgia’s bond and recognizance requirements under Title 17, Chapter 6, Article 3 by adding mandatory contact-information fields to the information that must be entered on criminal appearance bonds. The affected parties are criminal defendants who post bond, their sureties, and the courts or officials who process these documents. The bill does not create new offenses or penalties, but it does impose a documentation requirement that may affect bond preparation and recordkeeping practices statewide.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly noncontroversial and received unanimous support in both chambers. It passed the House 169-0 and the Senate 52-0, indicating strong bipartisan agreement and little to no opposition during floor consideration. No committee transcript was provided, but the voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a routine procedural update rather than a substantive policy change.
Contention
There is no recorded substantive contention in the available materials. Because the bill simply expands required contact information on bonds and recognizances, any concerns would likely have centered on administrative burden, privacy, or implementation for defendants and sureties, but no such objections appear in the provided discussion or voting record. The unanimous votes suggest those issues were not significant enough to generate opposition.
Criminal procedure; authorizing bail to be me with a surety bond; requiring Court of Criminal Appeals to adopt uniform statewide bond schedule. Effective date.
Relating to the access to and use of certain criminal history record information, to the procedure for obtaining that information, and to the correct terminology for certain licenses the issuance of which requires a criminal history background check.