HB 315, titled the “Law Enforcement Partners Act,” amends Georgia’s criminal code to create a statutory definition of “law enforcement officer” for purposes of the state’s crimes and offenses provisions and arrest authority provisions. The bill defines the term broadly to include peace officers, certain state and federal officers assisting during a declared emergency or disaster, appointed police chiefs or department heads who have not yet completed required training, out-of-state certified officers employed by Georgia agencies who have not yet completed Georgia training requirements, and full-time federal officers in good standing who are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests under federal law.
The bill also adds a cross-reference in the arrest statute so that the same definition applies when determining who qualifies as a law enforcement officer under Code Section 17-4-20. In practical terms, the measure standardizes terminology across related statutes and clarifies which officers may exercise arrest-related authority under Georgia law, including in emergency response settings and in situations involving officers who are newly appointed or trained outside Georgia.
Impact
HB 315 would amend Code Sections 16-1-3 and 17-4-20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated. Its main legal effect is to establish a formal definition of “law enforcement officer” and apply that definition to Georgia’s arrest authority statute, thereby affecting how state and local agencies, officers, and courts interpret officer status for criminal law and arrest purposes. The bill could also affect interagency cooperation during emergencies and the treatment of certain out-of-state and federal officers working in Georgia.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or recorded vote information was provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be a technical and clarifying measure intended to align statutory definitions and support law enforcement operations. The title and structure suggest a generally pro-law-enforcement purpose.
Contention
The bill’s most notable potential points of contention are the inclusion of officers who have not yet completed Georgia training requirements and the broad recognition of out-of-state and federal officers. Supporters may view these provisions as necessary to ensure operational flexibility, especially during emergencies and staffing transitions. Critics could question whether the definition is too expansive or whether it sufficiently protects Georgia’s training and certification standards before granting arrest-related authority.