O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-404 (2019)

Attorney General’s subpoena and hearing powers; procedural rules; court enforcement orders; self-incrimination; confidentiality

✓ 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) To carry out the duties prescribed by Code Sections 10-1-394, 10-1-395, 10-1-397, 10-1-398, and 10-1-403, the Attorney General, in addition to other powers conferred upon him or her by this part, may issue subpoenas to any person, administer an oath or affirmation to any person, conduct hearings in aid of any investigation or inquiry, prescribe such forms, and promulgate such procedural rules and regulations as may be necessary, which procedural rules and regulations shall have the force of law. (b) The recipient of an investigative demand or subpoena may file an objection with the Attorney General within the reasonable time allotted for responding on grounds that it fails to comply with this part or upon any constitutional or other legal right or privilege of such person. Upon failure of a person without lawful excuse to obey an investigative demand or subpoena, the Attorney General may apply to a superior court having jurisdiction for an order compelling compliance. The court may issue an order directing compliance with the original demand or subpoena or modifying or setting aside such demand or subpoena based on any objection that was raised before the Attorney General. (c) The Attorney General may request that a natural person who

SELLING/OTHER TRADE PRACTICES

refuses to testify or to produce relevant matter on the ground that the testimonial matter may incriminate him be ordered by the court to provide the testimonial matter. With the exception of a prosecution for perjury and an action under Code Section 10-1-397, 10-1-398, 10-1-399, or 10-1-405, a natural person who complies with the court order to provide a testimonial matter after asserting a privilege against self-incrimination to which he is entitled by law shall not be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise. (d)(1) Information obtained pursuant to investigative demands, subpoenas, oaths, affirmations, or hearings enforced by this part shall not be made public or, except as authorized in paragraph (2) of this subsection, disclosed by the Attorney General or his or her employees beyond the extent necessary for the enforcement of this part. (2) The Attorney General or his or her employees shall be authorized to provide to any federal, state, or local law enforcement agency any information acquired under this part which is sought pursuant to an investigative demand or subpoena by such agency. State or local law enforcement agencies shall be authorized to provide any information to the Attorney General when the Attorney General issues an investigative demand or subpoena for such information.

History

Ga. L. 1975, p. 376, § 14; Ga. L. 1984, p.

441, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 1659, § 5; Ga. L. 2015, p. 1088, § 2/SB 148.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2010–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Doyle v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C., 695 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Doyle v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C., 695 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 10-1-404 (b). Therefore, “the kind of [investigative] authority that existed in the cases cited by [Appellant] is lacking, and thus the policy against interfering with administrative investigations must give way.”

Fin. Educ. Servs., Inc. v. State of Georgia, 785 S.E.2d 544 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “The administrator of the Fair Business Practices Act served this function under former OCGA § 10-1-404 (a). And we note that in this regard, this case is no different than Tri-State; both here and there, the investigative demand was issued by the administrator of the Fair…”

Hair Restoration Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Hair Restoration Specialists of Atlanta v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “d/b/a Hair Restoration Specialists of Atlanta filed this direct appeal to challenge the superior court’s order compelling it to comply with an investigative demand issued by the Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division pursuant to the Fair Business Practices Act, OCGA §…”

Tamah Jada Clark v. State of Georgia (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Carr and the State of Georgia filed an application in superior court pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-404 (b) to compel Tamah Jada Cark and Consonantia Divina, LTD to comply with investigative demands relating to enforcement of the Fair Business Practices Act, OCGA § 10-1-390 et seq.”

Reservation Servs. Grp., LLC v. State of Georgia Ex Rel. John D. Sours, Adm'r of the Fair Bus. Practices Act (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The State then filed a petition in superior court to compel compliance with the investigative demand pursuant to OCGA § 10-1-404 (b). The superior court granted the petition, and RSG appealed directly to this Court.”

— 10-1-404(b) — 1 case

State Ex Rel. Doyle v. Frederick J. Hanna & Assocs., P.C., 695 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. 2010). “” OCGA § 10-1-404 (b). Therefore, “the kind of [investigative] authority that existed in the cases cited by [Appellant] is lacking, and thus the policy against interfering with administrative investigations must give way.”

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.