Uniform traffic citations as accusations.

- When the state filed uniform traffic citations with the court, the citations functioned as an accusation, commenced the prosecution, and established the term of court at which the right to a speedy trial attached. Clark v. State, 236 Ga. App. 130, 510 S.E.2d 616 (1998), aff'd, 271 Ga. 519, 520 S.E.2d 694 (1999).

Defendant's demand for a speedy trial was not timely filed when it was filed in the next term following the filing of the formal accusation, rather than in the next term following the filing of the uniform traffic citation. Clark v. State, 271 Ga. 519, 520 S.E.2d 694 (1999), affirming Clark v. State, 236 Ga. App. 130, 510 S.E.2d 616 (1998).

Information written on the defendant's uniform traffic citation functioned as a valid order or citation, issued by police, for the defendant to appear before a municipal judge at a later date to answer the charge against the defendant. Beaman v. City of Peachtree City, 256 Ga. App. 62, 567 S.E.2d 715 (2002).

Prosecution by formal accusation.

- Oath and attestation upon the uniform traffic citation issued under O.C.G.A. § 40-13-1 is apparently an "affidavit," developed by the Commissioner of Public Safety for the prosecution of traffic offense cases; this "ticket" alone suffices to prosecute a traffic violation. But when the arresting officer neglects to sign, under oath and before an authorized magistrate, the "arresting officer's certification" on the citation attesting that the officer reasonably believed the defendant committed the offense, prosecution by formal accusation, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7-71, is the correct procedure. Evans v. State, 168 Ga. App. 716, 310 S.E.2d 3 (1983).

Limitations on prosecution.

- When uniform traffic citations were issued within two years of the date offenses occurred and, later, the state filed amended accusations, the trial court did not err in refusing to dismiss charges on the ground that the statute of limitations expired because the amended accusations did not constitute the commencement of a new prosecution and there had been no final disposition of the previously filed accusations. Prindle v. State, 240 Ga. App. 461, 523 S.E.2d 44 (1999).

Uncompleted jurat portion of officer's certification.

- Probate court's denial of the defendant's motion to quash a traffic citation which was defective because the jurat portion of the arresting officer's certification had not been completed was harmless error. King v. State, 176 Ga. App. 137, 335 S.E.2d 439 (1985), overruled on other grounds, Copeland v. White, 178 Ga. App. 644, 344 S.E.2d 436 (1986).

Accusation can be specific when affidavit general.

- Accusation cannot be broader than the affidavit, but, as the greater includes the lesser, if the affidavit is general, the accusation can be specific. McCann v. State, 158 Ga. App. 202, 279 S.E.2d 499 (1981).

Purpose of the identifying number is to provide the person receiving the citation or that person's attorney a means of locating the docketed case. Hyatt v. State, 134 Ga. App. 703, 215 S.E.2d 698 (1975).

Demand for speedy trial.

- Defendant's demand for a speedy trial upon receipt of uniform traffic citation and complaint form was not premature since such a citation itself contains the accusation, the preferring of which is a prerequisite to a demand for speedy trial. Majia v. State, 174 Ga. App. 432, 330 S.E.2d 171, aff'd, 254 Ga. 660, 333 S.E.2d 834 (1985).

Mere issuance of a uniform traffic citation, without subsequently filing the citation with the clerk of the courts, is not sufficient to authorize the entry of a filed demand for speedy trial pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7-170(a). Ghai v. State, 219 Ga. App. 479, 465 S.E.2d 498 (1995).

Transcript of proceedings.

- In misdemeanor cases, it is discretionary with the trial court as to whether the proceedings are transcribed. Thus, absent a demand for a transcript, prepared at the request of the demanding party, the reporting of such a case is not required as a matter of law. Ward v. State, 188 Ga. App. 372, 373 S.E.2d 65 (1988).

Venue not affected by use of citation form.

- Uniform traffic citations are not evidence, and thus cannot provide the factual basis necessary to establish venue. Graves v. State, 269 Ga. 772, 504 S.E.2d 679 (1998), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. State, 272 Ga. 900, 537 S.E.2d 80 (2000), reversing Graves v. State, 227 Ga. App. 628, 490 S.E.2d 111 (1997).

Conviction not affected by use of old citation form.

- Validity of the defendant's conviction for driving under the influence was not affected by the fact that the uniform traffic citation issued to the defendant was not the form then in use, when the citation showed on the citation's face that the citation had been approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-13-1. Hudson v. State, 261 Ga. 414, 405 S.E.2d 495 (1991).

Cited in Smith v. State, 140 Ga. App. 339, 231 S.E.2d 91 (1976); Holland v. State, 151 Ga. App. 189, 259 S.E.2d 187 (1979); Boss v. State, 152 Ga. App. 169, 262 S.E.2d 527 (1979); Cargile v. State, 244 Ga. App. 871, 262 S.E.2d 87 (1979); McSears v. State, 247 Ga. 48, 273 S.E.2d 847 (1981); Weaver v. State, 179 Ga. App. 641, 347 S.E.2d 295 (1986); Dixon v. State, 196 Ga. App. 15, 395 S.E.2d 577 (1990); Poppell v. State, 209 Ga. App. 91, 432 S.E.2d 573 (1993); State v. Black, 213 Ga. App. 331, 444 S.E.2d 368 (1994); State v. Gerbert, 267 Ga. 169, 475 S.E.2d 621 (1996); Millan v. State, 231 Ga. App. 121, 497 S.E.2d 664 (1998); Roberts v. State, 280 Ga. App. 672, 634 S.E.2d 790 (2006).

Purpose of uniform traffic citation.

- Because a citation serves as the formal accusation against a convicted driver, local jurisdictions may transmit traffic ticket information electronically to the Department of Public Safety, but not as a substitute for sending the citation copy. The uniform traffic citation must also be forwarded to the department. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U91-2.

All law officers must use the uniform traffic citation when enforcing traffic laws and ordinances. 1973 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 73-18.

Certification.

- Certification contained within the uniform traffic citation is not required to be sworn to before a judicial officer; an oath administered by a notary public is sufficient. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-5.

There is no statutory requirement for a certification as provided for by the uniform traffic citation. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-5.

Since the certification is part of the citation, it should be completed as near to the time of arrest as possible and at least prior to the filing of the citation with the clerk of court; generally, this should be done within 48 hours of the arrest. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-5.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 141. 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Courts, §§ 51, 52.

C.J.S.

- 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 29 et seq.