Georgia House Bill HB247

Georgia 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 2/11/25

Caption

Motor vehicles; restoration of licenses; authorize written consent for release of certain information to be obtained and transferred electronically

Summary

HB247 amends Georgia law governing driver improvement clinics and DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Programs, which are part of the process for restoring driving privileges after certain offenses. The bill allows written consent for release of confidential DUI program records to be obtained and transferred electronically, rather than only in paper form, and it continues to permit those records to be shared with the Department of Driver Services and the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities under an interagency agreement. The bill also revises program standards and fees. It increases the maximum fee for a defensive driving course from $95 to $125, raises the assessment component fee for DUI risk reduction programs from $100 to $150, and raises the intervention component fee from $235 to $350. It further specifies that only clinical evaluators licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities with training in alcohol and drug abuse evaluation or assessment may conduct clinical evaluations, and it clarifies that intervention fees may cover document transfer costs tied to the required assessment component.

Impact

HB247 would amend Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, specifically the statutes governing defensive driving clinics and DUI alcohol or drug use risk reduction programs. Its legal effect is to modernize consent procedures by expressly authorizing electronic collection and transfer of written consent, while also tightening qualifications for clinical evaluators and increasing the fee caps that approved programs may charge. The bill would affect DUI offenders seeking license restoration, program providers, clinical evaluators, and the state agencies that oversee and receive program records.

Sentiment

The bill appears to be framed as an administrative and programmatic update rather than a major policy shift, with its provisions suggesting support for modernization, clearer oversight, and higher program fees. The available vote history shows at least one Senate motion to print failed 20-30, which indicates some resistance at that stage, though no committee transcript is available to show detailed debate. Overall, the bill’s text suggests a practical regulatory measure, but the recorded vote implies it was not universally embraced.

Contention

The most likely points of contention are the fee increases and the requirement that only licensed clinical evaluators with specific training may perform clinical evaluations. Program operators and affected motorists may object to the higher costs, while supporters may view the increases as necessary to cover program administration and materials. There may also be debate over the handling of confidential DUI records and the shift to electronic consent, though the bill expressly preserves confidentiality and limits disclosure to specified agencies.