The bill, introduced by State Representative Rob Teihet, a democrat who is also running for Attorney General, would require anyone arrested for a felony to provide a DNA sample at the same time that fingerprints and mug shots are taken.

The bill is being pushed by the Surviving Parents Coalition, a group of parents whose daughters were killed in violent crimes. 3 years ago, Joan Berry, whose daughter Johnia was killed while a student at the University of Tennessee, pushed the law in Tennessee. “The Johnia Berry Act was passed in Tennessee and that same year an arrest was made due to a DNA match, so Jonia’s murderer was finally found,” she says.

The Surviving Parents Coalition says that mandatory DNA sampling for those arrested on felony charges in Georgia would solve murders and keep people safe. At a news conference, Teihet presented data showing that almost 130 crimes could have been prevented in 3 states if DNA had been collected.

Teilhet says he knows that the state budget is lean and the GBI already has trouble keeping up with current DNA tests. “There is a backlog now,” he says. “One of the things we as a state have to do is simply decide that, consistent with our values, this is a priority.” Officials have said that while the biggest downside of the bill would be the cost, in the long run, it would create more criminal justice jobs.

21 states already have laws requiring DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony, and Georgia may be the next when Teilhet introduces the legislation. Teilhet says he’s aware that privacy advocates may have problems with mandatory testing, but he has law enforcement backing it as an additional crime fighting tool.

For example, if a 17-year-old boy takes a pornographic photo of his 17-year-old girlfriend and sends it to his friend; both boys are guilty of a 20-year felony. In Georgia, sending a pornographic photo via text message of someone under the age of 18 is a felony, even if the sender is a minor.

One aspect of Georgia law that is often misunderstood by teenagers has to do with underage drinking and driving. While many teenagers think they can have a few drinks and drive without getting a DUI, this is not true. The blood alcohol level in Georgia must be .02 or higher for an underage person to get a DUI, and many teens don’t realize that only one drink will often put them over this limit. For anyone under the age of 21 to get behind the wheel of a vehicle with any alcohol on their breath, they are absolutely risking, and probably will get, a DUI.

Another common question teens often ask is if an underage person is at a party that has alcohol, but is not drinking, can they be arrested? The answer is no. It is not against the law to be at a party where kids are drinking alcohol; it’s just against the law to be drinking as well. If police do come and you have not been drinking, Morgan recommends asking for a Breathalyzer to prove your innocence.

Morgan, the author of “Ignorance is No Defense,” a guide for teenagers and their parents on Georgia law, wants to provide teens and their parents with information meant to deter the act of crimes, as well as to help teens avoid becoming the victims of crimes. He believes most young people will make wiser decisions if they have given it some thought ahead of time and have the legal knowledge.

Kathy Hodges, a counselor at Savannah Country Day School where the program will be held, said the program will help students to make good decisions. “We’re concerned that kids can make decisions without really understanding the full ramifications of them,” said Hodges. “We feel that part of our obligation in educating kids is to help them understand the consequences of decisions.”

If the bill passes, it would go into effect July 1 and make Georgia the 20th state to make texting while driving illegal. Nine states ban text messaging for teen drivers.

According to Rep. Peter Barca, a bill author, texting while driving “is more serious than driving drunk because your eyes are off the road for just too long. Make no mistake about it: People are killed by people texting messages.”

The bill has the support of AAA Auto Club, which wants to see similar laws passed in every state by the year 2013. Kevin W. Bakewell, senior vice president of the AAA Auto Club South, said the ban on texting is AAA’s top legislative priority, as multiple studies have shown the practice to be an extremely dangerous distraction for drivers due to the extended time drivers’ eyes are off the road.

Peake says the bill is a step in the right direction for Georgia. He stopped short of a total ban on cell phone use and says the legislation addresses the “more dangerous” practice of texting. “I used to text like crazy while driving, I had no idea what was going on around me, and that’s scary. I knew I needed to make some changes before I hurt myself or someone else.”

Peake said the law may also be difficult to enforce, but hopes that having a law on the books which could cost drivers who get caught at least a $50 fine and two penalty points on their driver’s licenses would be a deterrent. A study in California shows that a ban in the state reduced texting while driving by 70 percent.

In one of the Georgia cases, Presley v. Georgia, the Supreme Court came to a conclusion on two open issues concerning closed courtrooms.

The trial judge had kicked out an uncle of the defendant during jury selection and said her courtroom was too small to accommodate both potential jurors and the public. The defendant, Eric Presley, who had been convicted of trafficking in cocaine, appealed the conviction and claimed his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial had been violated.

In 1984, the Supreme Court had ruled that the press and the public have a First Amendment right of access to jury selection. Tuesday the court extended that right to criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment for Presley’s case. “There is no legitimate reason, at least in the context of jury selection proceedings, to give one who asserts a First Amendment privilege greater rights to insist on public proceedings than the accused has,” said the opinion.

The Supreme Court also concluded that a defendant seeking to open a courtroom does not need to present alternatives to the trial judge. Whether trial judges are given alternatives or not, the majority opinion said, they “are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accommodate public attendance at criminal trials.”

Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed, saying the majority should not have decided the two questions in summary fashion without a full briefing and argument.

The second Georgia case, Wellons v. Hall, ordered the federal appeals court in Atlanta to reconsider its decision that there was nothing legally wrong with two gifts that had been given to court personnel by the jurors in a capital trial. The two gifts were a chocolate penis for the trial judge and chocolate breast for the bailiff.

“Judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect,” the unsigned majority opinion said.

The decision instructed the appeals court to reconsider the case in light of Cone v. Bell, a Supreme Court decision from last April clarifying how federal courts may take account of state court rulings in habeas corpus cases. Four justices dissented. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, said that the majority had treated the appeals court with disrespect, “as though we were schoolmasters grading their homework,” and that “an appropriately self-respecting response” from the appeals court “would be summary reissuance of the same opinion.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also disagreed saying the gifts were “strange and tasteless” as well as “facially troubling,” Justice Alito added that the Supreme Court should either have agreed to hear the case or denied review, but sending the case back for reconsideration was inappropriate.

The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, has received a new lease on life in the form of recent rulings from various Federal District Courts and state courts.  The rulings tackle the controversial issue of police officers searching the cell phones of individuals without first obtaining a search warrant.  Many of these cases arise after people have been pulled over during a traffic stop, are seen violating ‘hands-free’ laws, or if a person has been seen using the phone during the commission of a crime, such as drug dealing.  With the increase in “no texting while driving” laws and the proliferation of cell phone hands free devices, this is an issue sure to be argued over for some time to come.

One of the most recent cases to address this situation was the Supreme Court of Ohio’s ruling in State v. Smith. In this particular case, Smith was arrested on drug charges and during this arrest, the police found a cell phone on him, which was thought to have been used in the alleged drug transaction.  Subsequently, the police searched Mr. Smith’s phone without a warrant or his consent.  During this search, they found calls and phone numbers of individuals that Smith conducted drug sales with.  He was charged with various offenses, including drug possession and possession of criminal tools.  Mr. Smith attempted to suppress the evidence gleaned from the cell phone, arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated when the officers searched his phone without a warrant.  The trial court denied this suppression, citing a 2007 federal court decision, United States v. Finley.

The Finley case is one of two conflicting federal court cases regarding the search and seizure of cell phones.  The court in Finely ruled that a cell phone was akin to a closed container, and as such, is subject to a search without a warrant upon arrest.  In the current case, Mr. Smith appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained through a warrantless cell phone search.  Although the second district court of appeals upheld the decision, the dissent cited the other federal case on this issue, United States v. Park. In this case, the court held that a cell phone is not in fact a “closed container” and that a warrantless search of cell phone data is unconstitutional per the Fourth Amendment.

Upon reviewing Mr. Smith’s case and the constitutionality issue of the cell phone search, the Supreme Court of Ohio noted the unique nature of the circumstances.  Specifically, the court recognized that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor another state supreme court had ruled on this particular Fourth Amendment problem.  Using the two conflicting Federal cases as precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the court in Park. The Court addressed the idea of a cell phone as a closed container, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had defined a container as ‘an object capable of holding another object.’

Here’s the kicker, though: The court, however, found that this definition extended only to objects capable of holding physical objects, not data and information contained in a cell phone.  As such, the Ohio Court found that a cell phone was not a closed container in the same sense as considered in Finley, and therefore not subject to a warrantless search.  Additionally, the Court noted that there was a particular expectation of privacy associated with cell phones, which further encouraged the need for a warrant to inspect its contents.

Therefore, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the warrantless search of a cell phone obtained during a lawful arrest is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment when said search is unnecessary for the safety of the officers or other extenuating circumstances.

This landmark case is sure to provide great precedent for future cases addressing this same issue.  It is likely that other state courts will validate the search based on the Finley decision.  The conflicting Federal cases are also likely to eventually lead to this Fourth Amendment issue being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court.  Until then, it is always best to obey the hands free laws of your state, as well as know your rights to search and seizure under the Constitution.

For more on this topic of the constitutionality of cell phone searches by law enforcement officers, I recommend you check out Bow Tie Law’s Blog, where you will find a blog post discussing some other rulings involving cell phone search and privacy issues. This particular blog does a great job highlighting some of the legal issues we face in the 21st century with the onset of new technologies like cell phones and hands free devices.