O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53 (2019)

Preservation of documents; classification of information and documents; divulgence of confidential state secrets; conduct of hearings

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Subject to other laws, the board shall preserve on file all documents on which it has acted in the granting of pardons, paroles, conditional releases, and other relief. (b)(1) All information, both oral and written, received by the members of the board in the performance of their duties under this chapter and all reports, files, records, and information coming into their possession by reason of the performance of their duties under this chapter shall be classified as confidential state secrets until declassified by the board; provided, however, that the board shall be authorized: (A) To disclose to an alleged violator of parole or conditional release the evidence introduced against him or her at a final hearing on the matter of revocation of parole or conditional release; and (B) To disclose information as provided in Code Section 42-961. (2) The department may make supervision records of the department available to officials employed with the Department of Corrections and the Sexual Offender Risk Review Board, and to the sexual offender as set forth in Code Section 42-1-14, provided that the same shall remain confidential and not available to any other person or subject to subpoena unless declassified by the commissioner of community supervision. (c) No person shall divulge or cause to be divulged in any manner any confidential state secret. Any person violating this Code section or any person who causes or procures a violation of this Code section or conspires to violate this Code section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) All hearings required to be held by this chapter shall be public,

and the transcript thereof shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section. All records and documents which were public records at the time they were received by the board shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section. All information, reports, and documents required by law to be made available to the General Assembly, the Governor, or the state auditor shall be exempt from subsection (b) of this Code section.

History

Ga. L. 1943, p. 185, § 20; Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 210, § 1; Ga. L. 1975, p. 786, § 4; Ga. L. 1982, p. 3, § 42; Ga. L. 2011, p. 620, § 2/SB 214; Ga. L. 2013, p. 1056, § 2/HB 122; Ga. L. 2015, p. 207, § 7/HB 71; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 5-89/HB 310; Ga. L. 2017, p. 585, § 2-15/SB 174; Ga. L. 2023, p. 637, § 6-6/HB 188, effective May 4, 2023. The 2023 amendment, effective May 4, 2023, substituted “Sexual Offender Risk Review Board, and to the sexual offender as set forth in Code 42-1-14, provided” for “Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, provided” in the middle of paragraph (b)(2).

Annotations

Cross references. Management of records of state entities generally, § 50-18-90 et seq. Code Commission notes. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2015, the amendment of subsection (b) of this Code section by Ga. L. 2015, p. 207, § 7/HB 71, was treated as impliedly repealed and superseded by Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 5-89/HB 310, due to irreconcilable conflict. Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2023, “Section” was inserted following “Code” in the middle of paragraph (b)(2). Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not

codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall become effective July 1, 2015, and shall apply to sentences entered on or after such date.” Ga. L. 2023, p. 637, § 1-1/HB 188, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “This Act shall be known and may be cited as ‘Mariam’s Law.’” Ga. L. 2023, p. 637, § 7-1/HB 188, not codified by the General Assembly, provides, in part, that “the punishment provisions of this Act shall apply to all offenses committed on and after July 1, 2023.” Administrative rules and regulations. Risk Assessment and Classification, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Rules of Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, Rule 594-1-.04. Law reviews. For annual survey of death penalty law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 197 (2004). For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015). For article on the 2017 amendment of this Code section, see 34 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 115 (2017).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - This section is not unconstitutional under Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IV, Sec. II, Para. I (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IV, Sec. II, Para. I, II and § 42-9-19). The confidentiality provisions of this section apply to all information, documents, memoranda, and records of the board except those required to be made available to the General Assembly under Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IV, Sec. II,

Para. I, and except transcripts of any hearing conducted by the board in any matter. Morris v. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1177 (1980). Exemption from confidentiality requirement. - This section expressly exempts from confidentiality any information which, by virtue of Ga. Const. 1976, Art. IV, Sec. II, Para. I (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IV, Sec. II, Para. I, II and

§ 42-9-19), is mandated for inclusion in a fully detailed annual report to the General Assembly of the reasons for granting sentence relief to a prisoner. Morris v. State, 246 Ga. 510, 272 S.E.2d 254, 1980 Ga. LEXIS 1177 (1980). State Board of Pardons and Paroles’ only description of the disputed documents was the Board’s characterization of two cover letters as “critical” of the prisoner; because the state had a compelling and justifiable interest in creating and preserving the privilege in O.C.G.A. § 429-53(b), the privilege was not waived merely by the Board’s reference to, and brief description of, a few privileged documents. Taylor v. Nix, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1351, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65155 (N.D. Ga. 2006). Inmate not allowed to examine file. - Refusal of a parole board to allow an inmate to examine the inmate’s file does not assume the proportions of a deprivation of the inmate’s rights under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Jackson v. Reese, 608 F.2d 159, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 9841 (5th Cir. 1979). Unpublished decision: State prisoner’s motion to compel was properly denied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the documents requested from a parole board, although the documents might have been relevant to one or more of the prisoner’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, were still subject to the confidential state secrets privilege under O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b). Taylor v. Nix, 240 Fed. Appx. 830, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15724 (11th Cir. 2007). In camera inspection of parole files of persons other than defendant. - At least in the absence of a reasonably specific request for relevant and competent information, the trial court may decline to conduct an in camera inspection of parole files of persons other than the defendant. Stripling v. State, 261 Ga. 1, 401 S.E.2d 500, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 96, cert. denied, 502 U.S. 985, 112 S. Ct. 593, 116 L. Ed. 2d 617, 1991 U.S. LEXIS 6855 (1991).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Availability of information to Governor. - It was not the intent of this section that the records of the board be kept secret from the Governor; files relating to a parole action should be made available to the Governor at the Governor’s request. 1967 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 67-51 (decided under Ga. Const. 1945, Art. V, Sec. I, Para. XI (see now Ga. Const. 1983, Art. IV, Sec. II, Para. II)). Board of Corrections may make referrals to local, community recreation officials indicating that a released inmate has recreation skills which might be helpful to the community, provided that the board first obtains the inmate’s signed

authorization. 1972 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 72-148. Misdemeanor files should be kept confidential and it is inconsistent with privacy to place the files under custody of some person or persons other than the board as the board alone is entrusted with the safekeeping of these files. 1963-65 Ga. Op. Att’y Gen. 318. Board must declassify, by a resolution passed at a duly constituted session of the board, all records which the board seeks to have destroyed that are not included in one of the statutory exceptions relating to records of the board. 1971 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 71-196.

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. Right to assistance of counsel at proceedings to revoke probation, 44 A.L.R.3d 306.

Invocation and effect of state secrets privilege, 23 A.L.R.6th 521.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: Head v. Stripling, 590 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Head v. Stripling, 590 S.E.2d 122 (Ga. 2003). · cites it 12× “Defense counsel also sought to obtain Stripling's parole file because they believed there might be important evidence contained therein.”
Pope v. State, 345 S.E.2d 831 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 4× “The state relies upon OCGA § 42-9-53, which classifies records in the possession of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles and forbids the disclosure of information contained therein except under certain conditions not applicable here.”
Stripling v. State, 401 S.E.2d 500 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 4× “Stripling sought a pre-trial in-camera review of his parole file and the parole files of his father and brother.”
Hardaway Co. v. Rives, 422 S.E.2d 854 (Ga. 1992). · cites it 8× “owever, it is apparent that this definition cannot be the legislatively intended meaning in the Georgia Code, as a close variant of the term, "confidential state secrets," has been used in statutes that concern subjects at a lower level than national or state security, see OCGA…”
Walker v. State, 327 S.E.2d 475 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 4× “Walker further contends that OCGA § 42-9-53, on which the trial court relied to deny Walker's disclosure motion, is unconstitutional if it allows the suppression of exculpatory or potentially mitigating evidence in a death penalty case. We need not resolve the constitutional…”
Isaacs v. State, 386 S.E.2d 316 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 42-9-53; Potts v. State, 259 Ga. 96 (10) ( 376 SE2d 851 ) (1989); Pennsylvania v.”
Nathaniel Porter, Jr. v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., 461 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2006). “O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53. We agree with the district court’s denial of the appellants’ motion.”
Potts v. State, 376 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “A defendant has access to other, non-confidential information about his behavior in prison, and we do not find it necessary to ignore the confidentiality provisions of OCGA § 42-9-53 in order to satisfy the defendant’s right to present mitigating evidence.”
John Eldon Smith v. Ralph M. Kemp, Superintendent, Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Ctr., 715 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir. 1983). “O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53. It is suggested that such a record might contain some support for the contention that, before petitioner’s trial, a promise had been made to Maree.”
Taylor v. Nix, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “The Board objected to producing these documents on the grounds that they are confidential state secrets in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b) (1997), which provides, “All information .”
William M. Taylor v. Milton E. Nix, Jr., 240 F. App'x 830 (11th Cir. 2007). “” O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b). The record demonstrates that the district court, after reviewing the contested documents in camera, explicitly found that they were subject to the confidential state secrets privilege.”
Kenneth McGoy v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., 164 F. App'x 876 (11th Cir. 2006). “O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b) (2005). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found the facts before it did not rise to the level necessary to overcome the state’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their parole records.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 42-9-53(b) — 3 cases
Taylor v. Nix, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1351 (N.D. Ga. 2006). “The Board objected to producing these documents on the grounds that they are confidential state secrets in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b) (1997), which provides, “All information .”
William M. Taylor v. Milton E. Nix, Jr., 240 F. App'x 830 (11th Cir. 2007). “” O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b). The record demonstrates that the district court, after reviewing the contested documents in camera, explicitly found that they were subject to the confidential state secrets privilege.”
Kenneth McGoy v. Walter S. Ray, Jr., 164 F. App'x 876 (11th Cir. 2006). “O.C.G.A. § 42-9-53(b) (2005). The district court did not abuse its discretion when it found the facts before it did not rise to the level necessary to overcome the state’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of their parole records.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.