(Ga. L. 1968, p. 1399, § 5; Ga. L. 1983, p. 680, § 1; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 42; Ga. L. 1984, p. 1361, § 1; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 42; Ga. L. 1985, p. 283, § 1; Ga. L. 1997, p. 851, § 1; Ga. L. 2013, p. 1056, § 1A/HB 122; Ga. L. 2017, p. 585, § 2-4/SB 174.)
The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, added subsection (d); and redesignated former subsection (d) as present subsection (e).
The 2017 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, substituted the present provisions of subsection (c) for the former provisions, which read: "(c) All institutional inmate files and central office inmate files of the department shall be classified as confidential state secrets and privileged under law, unless declassified in writing by the commissioner; provided, however, these records shall be subject to subpoena by a court of competent jurisdiction of this state."
Cross references.- Privileged communications generally, § 24-5-501 et seq.
Inspection of public records generally, § 50-18-70 et seq.
Law reviews.- For article commenting on the 1997 amendment of this Code section, see 14 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 230 (1997). For article, "Death Penalty," see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 51 (2014). For article on the 2017 amendment of this Code section, see 34 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 115 (2017).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Constitutionality.
- Georgia Supreme Court held that it is was not unconstitutional for the State of Georgia to maintain the confidentiality of the names and other identifying information of the persons and entities involved in executions, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36(d), including those who manufacture the drug or drugs to be used. Owens v. Hill, 295 Ga. 302, 758 S.E.2d 794 (2014).
Prisoner's challenge to Lethal Injection Secrecy Act.
- Condemned prisoner's challenge to the state's method of execution based on Georgia's Lethal Injection Secrecy Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36, was not timely because the Act was not a change to the injection protocol itself. The Act merely altered how the state responded to requests for information about executions, which was different from how the state carried out the protocol. Gissendaner v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., 779 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1580, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1849, 191 L. Ed. 2d 661 (U.S. 2015); cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 1581, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1857, 191 L. Ed. 2d 661 (U.S. 2015).
Prisoner's emergency motion to stay the prisoner's execution was denied because the motion was made at the last moment and without adequate explanation, the prisoner did not show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and the equities counseled against imposing the stay since the prisoner did not identify a cognizable liberty interest infringed by the Georgia Lethal Injection Secrecy Act, O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36, the prisoner did not appeal the dismissal of the prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, the prisoner failed to state a claim that could be redressed, the prisoner's conclusory allegation about an alternate drug source was implausible, Georgia's current protocol had been used at least seven times in the last year without incident, and the prisoner was provided with Georgia's analysis, drug logs, and testing results. Jones v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 811 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 998, 194 L. Ed. 2d 16 (2016).
Change in law did not affect statute of limitations on method of execution claim.
- Neither the Georgia Department of Corrections' anticipated use of an adulterated pentobarbital nor the lethal injection secrecy act, O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36, established a significant alteration in Georgia's method of execution sufficient to restart the statute of limitations on a death row inmate's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, which had expired. Wellons v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 754 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2014).
Changes made in 2013 were not substantial changes to Georgia's execution protocol and the defendant's method- of-execution claim accrued in October 2001 and must have been filed by October 2003 to be timely; the defendant's federal complaint challenging lethal injection, filed on May 12, 2017, was over ten years too late. Ledford v. Comm'r, Ga. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2017).
Cited in Presnell v. State, 274 Ga. 246, 551 S.E.2d 723 (2001).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Declassification by commissioner.
- Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 42-5-36 investigation reports and intelligence data prepared by the Internal Investigations Unit of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation (Corrections) are classified as confidential state secrets and privileged under law except as declassified in writing by the commissioner of offender rehabilitation (corrections). 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-4.