HB 267 revises several provisions in Georgia law governing driver improvement clinics and DUI alcohol or drug use risk reduction programs. It increases the authorized fee for a defensive driving course from $95 to $125 and raises the combined DUI risk reduction program fee from $335 to $395, while preserving the Department of Driver Services’ authority to set standards for course content, instructors, attendance, examinations, and audits. The bill also expressly allows DUI risk reduction instruction to be delivered through remote participation platforms using in-person instruction providers, and it maintains the existing framework for certification, reporting, and state administrative fees.
The bill also adds a new restitution requirement for certain homicide by vehicle convictions involving DUI-related conduct. When an adult is convicted of causing a death through driving under the influence and the deceased was the parent or guardian of a minor child, the court must order restitution in the form of financial assistance to each minor child until age 18 or high school graduation, whichever comes first. In setting the amount, the court must consider the child’s needs, the surviving caregiver’s resources, the child’s standard of living, educational and emotional needs, custody arrangements, and child care expenses. The restitution remedy is supplemental and does not replace other civil or criminal remedies.
The bill’s impact on state law is twofold: it updates the fee structure and operational rules for driver safety and DUI education programs under Title 40, and it creates a new mandatory restitution obligation in vehicle homicide cases tied to DUI offenses under the homicide by vehicle statute. It also preserves the role of the Department of Driver Services and other state agencies in certifying programs, auditing providers, and regulating program standards, while allowing correctional facilities to operate qualifying programs without the fee provisions that apply to private providers.
Overall sentiment appears mixed but generally supportive of the bill’s public-safety and victim-compensation goals, as reflected in its passage in the House by a substantial margin. The Senate later voted to table remaining legislation on the Rules Calendar, which suggests the bill did not advance cleanly through the full legislative process despite earlier support. The available record does not include committee debate, so the main points of support and opposition must be inferred from the bill’s structure and votes rather than direct testimony.
The main areas of contention are likely the higher fees imposed on defensive driving and DUI program participants, the use of remote instruction, and the mandatory restitution provision for offenders whose conduct results in the death of a parent or guardian. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability, victim support, and updated program administration, while critics may question the increased costs, the scope of mandatory financial assistance, and the administrative burden on courts and program providers.
HB 267 amends Title 40 of the Georgia Code to increase fees for driver improvement clinics and DUI risk reduction programs, authorize remote participation in DUI instruction, and reinforce certification, audit, and reporting requirements for program providers. It also amends the homicide by vehicle statute to require courts to order restitution in certain DUI-related fatality cases for the benefit of minor children of the deceased, creating a new ongoing financial-assistance obligation tied to criminal sentencing.
The bill appears to have had broad but not unanimous support. It passed the House by a wide margin, indicating significant backing for its traffic-safety and victim-compensation provisions. However, the later Senate motion to table remaining legislation suggests the bill encountered procedural or substantive resistance before final enactment, leaving its overall trajectory somewhat uncertain. No committee transcript is available to show detailed debate.
Likely points of contention include the increase in mandatory fees for defensive driving and DUI risk reduction programs, which may be viewed as burdensome for defendants and participants. The new restitution requirement for offenders convicted in DUI-related vehicle homicide cases is another likely flashpoint, especially because it mandates financial assistance for minor children and requires courts to evaluate family finances and custody circumstances. The allowance for remote instruction may also raise questions about program quality and oversight. Support would likely come from lawmakers focused on roadway safety, accountability, and support for victims’ families, while opposition may come from those concerned about cost, implementation, and sentencing expansion.