O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2 (2019)

Unlawful conduct during 9-1-1 call

✓ 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) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) ‘‘Call’’ shall have the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (2.1) of Code Section 46-5-122.

(2) ‘‘False report’’ means the fabrication of an incident or crime or of material information relating to an incident or crime which the person making the report knows to be false at the time of making the report.

(3) ‘‘Harass’’ means to knowingly and willingly engage in any conduct directed toward a communications officer that is likely to impede or interfere with such communications officer’s duties, that threatens such communication officer or any member of his or her family, or that places any member of the public served or to be served by 9-1-1 service in danger of injury or delayed assistance.

(4) ‘‘Harassing’’ means the willful use of opprobrious and abusive language which has no legitimate purpose in relation to imparting information relevant to an emergency call.

(5) ‘‘9-1-1’’ means a public safety answering point as defined in paragraph (15) of Code Section 46-5-122. The term ‘‘9-1-1’’ also means the digits, address, Internet Protocol address, or other information used to access or initiate a call to a public safety answering point.

(b) A person commits the offense of unlawful conduct during a 9-1-1 telephone call if he or she:

(1) Without provocation, uses obscene, vulgar, or profane language with the intent to intimidate or harass a 9-1-1 communications officer;

(2) Calls or otherwise contacts 9-1-1, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of annoying, harassing, or molesting a 9-1-1 communications officer or for the purpose of interfering with or disrupting emergency telephone service;

(3) Calls or otherwise contacts 9-1-1 and fails to hang up or disengage the connection for the intended purpose of interfering with or disrupting emergency service;

(4) Calls or otherwise contacts 9-1-1 with the intention to harass a communications officer; or

(5) Calls or otherwise contacts 9-1-1 and makes a false report.

(c) Any person who violates subsection (b) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500.00 or 12 months in jail, or both.

(d) Any violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall be considered to have been committed in any county where such call to or contact with 9-1-1 originated or in any county where the call to or contact with 9-1-1 was received.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-11-39.2, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 318, § 1/HB 394.)

Annotations

Cross references. - Emergency telephone 9-1-1 system, § 46-5-120 et seq.

Law reviews. - For survey article on

local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprinting. - Any misdemeanor offenses arising under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2(b) are designated as offenses

for which those charged are to be fingerprinted. 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2010-2.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2022–2025 · leading case: Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan (11th Cir. 2025).
Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 9× “At the end of their investigation, Deputy Sullivan decided to charge Prospero with calling 911 for the purpose of disrupting an emergency telephone service in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2, and Lieutenant Prescott agreed with Deputy Sullivan’s decision.”
Prospero v. Sullivan (S.D. Ga. 2022). · cites it 2× “]” O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2(b). Taking the second amended complaint on its own terms, Plaintiff plausibly alleges that the misstatements here were necessary to establish probable cause and obtain a warrant.”
Prospero v. Sullivan (S.D. Ga. 2023). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2; see also, e.g., N.”
— 16-11-39.2(b) — 1 case
Prospero v. Sullivan (S.D. Ga. 2022). “]” O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2(b). Taking the second amended complaint on its own terms, Plaintiff plausibly alleges that the misstatements here were necessary to establish probable cause and obtain a warrant.”
— 16-11-39.2(b)(2) — 1 case
Emma Jane Prospero v. Deputy Ryan Sullivan (11th Cir. 2025). “At the end of their investigation, Deputy Sullivan decided to charge Prospero with calling 911 for the purpose of disrupting an emergency telephone service in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-39.2, and Lieutenant Prescott agreed with Deputy Sullivan’s decision.”
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.