Georgia lawmakers are weighing a bill that would let police agencies keep certain recordings out of public view when someone dies — not during the heat of an active investigation, but after there’s no pending investigation, when communities are usually trying to make sense of what happened.
It’s House Bill 1223, and it plugs a new exemption into Georgia’s Open Records Act.
HB 1223 lets an agency refuse to release law-enforcement audio/video if it shows a person’s death, shows a deceased person, or shows someone “in distress just prior to death,” as long as there’s no pending investigation and the agency says release would invade personal privacy.
A judge can still order release and certain people can still get it if they qualify and submit a sworn affidavit.
What the bill says it’s trying to solve
Everyone knows what happens now. A bad incident. A rumor. A blurry screenshot. A dozen versions of the story. Then the same sentence shows up in the comments: “Release the video.”
HB 1223 is built on the idea that some recordings shouldn’t become public just because they exist — especially when they show death, or what the bill calls “distress just prior to death,” and releasing them would be an “invasion of personal privacy.”
If you’ve ever seen a family begging people to stop reposting something graphic, you already understand the emotional case for it.
What critics will say it could do instead
The obvious pushback is that video is also how the public checks power. It is how the public holds public agencies, law enforcement, and officials accountable.
If a case is closed or “not pending,” that doesn’t mean people trust the outcome. In fact, that’s often when they start asking harder questions. HB 1223 is specifically triggered when there is no pending investigation, meaning the public could hit a new wall at the exact moment officials are saying, “Nothing else to see here.”
The issue is about what the default should be when the public wants answers: transparency unless a court blocks it, or privacy unless a court orders it.
What would still be available
This is not a total “lock it in a vault” bill.
First, the bill says the recording must be disclosed if a court orders it.
Second, the bill says the recording must be disclosed to certain people if they submit a sworn affidavit attesting to the facts that make them eligible.
So, who are the certain people?
“Certain people” in this bill can include the representative of the deceased person’s estate, if the deceased is depicted or heard in the recording.
- It includes a parent or legal guardian of a minor who is depicted or heard.
- It includes a criminal defendant who in good faith believes the recording is relevant.
- It includes a party to a civil action who in good faith believes the recording is relevant.
- And it includes attorneys for those parties, and attorneys evaluating whether to bring a civil case.
Families and litigants have defined lanes in the bill. The general public and the press? The bill effectively nudges them toward court.
The vague part that will decide how big this gets: “distress”
If HB 1223 turns into a political brawl, it will be because of one phrase: “a person in distress just prior to death.”
The bill doesn’t define “distress.” That can become an issue because “distress” can be interpreted narrowly — or it can be stretched to cover a whole lot of video people would absolutely argue is in the public interest.
This is where the practical fear kicks in: the broader the interpretation, the broader the blackout.
What changes for regular Georgians
If you’re trying to understand the real-world impact, ignore the Capitol talking points and look at the pattern.
A death happens. The agency releases a statement. The community wants the video. Under HB 1223, once there is no pending investigation, an agency could deny release if the footage shows death or “distress just prior to death” and the agency says disclosure would invade personal privacy.
At that point, getting the recording becomes a court question — unless you’re in one of the qualifying categories that can request it by affidavit.
The two question lawmakers should have to answer
Who decides what “distress” means — and should the public need a judge to see what happened after the police say there’s no investigation pending?
Should the default position be to keep these videos private until ordered by a judge, or to be transparent and release them unless a judge blocks it?
Your Thoughts?
What do you think? Should police video in death cases be public or private by default?
Read The Bill: You can read the bill below.
