O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) A law enforcement officer, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General may require the disclosure of stored wire or electronic communications, as well as transactional records pertaining thereto, to the extent and under the procedures and conditions provided for by the laws of the United States. (b) A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall provide the contents of, and transactional records pertaining to, wire and electronic communications in its possession or reasonably accessible thereto when a requesting law enforcement officer, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General complies with the provisions for access thereto set forth by the laws of the United States. (c) Search warrants for production of stored wire or electronic communications and transactional records pertaining thereto shall have state-wide application or application as provided by the laws of the United States when issued by a judge with jurisdiction over the criminal offense under investigation and to which such records relate. (d) A subpoena for the production of stored wire or electronic communications and transactional records pertaining thereto may be issued at any time upon a showing by a law enforcement official, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General that the subpoenaed material relates to a pending criminal investigation.
(e) Violation of this Code section shall be punishable as contempt.
History
(Code 1981, § 16-11-66.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 299, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1023, § 1; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1432, § 4; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 16.)
Annotations
Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2002, p. 1432, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: ‘‘This Act shall be known and may be cited as ‘Georgia’s Support of the War on Terrorism Act of 2002’.’’ Law reviews. - For annual survey on
criminal law, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 79 (2013). For note on 1993 enactment of this Code section, see 10 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 109 (1993).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Tapley v. Collins, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (S.D. Ga. 1999); Barlow v. Barlow, 272 Ga. 102, 526 S.E.2d 857 (2000);
Luangkhot v. State, 292 Ga. 423, 736 S.E.2d 397 (2013).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case:
Lofton v. State, 854 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. 2021).
Lofton v. State, 854 S.E.2d 690 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 16× “13 In addition to challenging the release of cell phone records under 18 USC § 2702 (c) (4), Registe also argued that the release failed to comply with OCGA § 16-11-66.1 (d), which provides: “A subpoena for the production of stored wire or electronic communications and…”
Hampton v. State, 763 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 12× “1 (a) provides: A law enforcement officer, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General may require the disclosure of stored wire or electronic communications, as well as transactional records pertaining thereto, to the extent and under the procedures and conditions provided…”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).
· cites it 2× “2001); Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66.1 (1996); Haw. Rev.”
Byers v. State, 857 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 4× “665, 668-670 (2) (763 SE2d 467) (2014) (defendant did not have standing to seek suppression under OCGA §§ 16-11-66.1 (a) and 16-11-67 of text messages associated with account that he had not shown was his; “[T]he focus of OCGA §§ 16-11-62 through 16-11-67 is the protection of…”
Outlaw v. State, 858 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 4× “OCGA § 16-11-66.1 (a) permits a prosecutor to require the disclosure of cell 6 Before trial, Appellant filed a motion to suppress the CSLI evidence derived from the MetroPCS records; the trial court ultimately denied the motion summarily.”
Luangkhot v. State, 736 S.E.2d 397 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 2× “If our legislature had intended to grant superior courts the authority to issue wiretap warrants effective for interceptions outside their circuits, it could have done so explicitly, as it has done in other areas.”
State v. LEDBETTER (& Vice Versa), 899 S.E.2d 222 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 4× “42 (ii) Ledbetter next argues that the warrant is invalid under OCGA § 16-11-66.1 (c), which allows the “state-wide application or application as provided by the laws of the United States” of search warrants for production of certain communications and records “when issued by a…”
State v. Harris, 799 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-11-66.1; 18 USC § 2703 ; OCGA § 17-5-21; and Hampton v.”
Smarr v. State, 732 S.E.2d 110 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “”); OCGA § 16-11-66.1 (a) (“Alaw enforcement officer, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General may require the disclosure of stored wire or electronic communications, as well as transactional records pertaining thereto, to the extent and under the procedures and…”
Tapley v. Collins, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1366 (S.D. Ga. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66.1; see Tapley dep. at 78-79.”
Registe v. State, 734 S.E.2d 19 (Ga. 2012).
· cites it 10× “OCGA § 16-11-66.1 states: (a) A law enforcement officer, a prosecuting attorney, or the Attorney General may require the disclosure of stored wire or electronic communications, as well as transactional records pertaining thereto, to the extent and under the procedures and…”
Brandon Zayac v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “” Instead, Appellant claims that OCGA § 16-11-66.1 (c)2 and 2 See OCGA § 16-11-66.”
— 16-11-66.1(a) — 2 cases
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.