Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448No evidence obtained in a manner which violates any of the provisions of this part shall be admissible in any court of this state except to prove violations of this part.
(Ga. L. 1967, p. 844, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-3007, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)
- For annual survey on criminal law, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 79 (2013). For article on domestic relations, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 65 (2014).
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 applies to violations of the administrative requirements of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64; to protect against tampering, alteration, or destruction of evidence, and against allegations thereof, "obtained" necessarily includes both the gathering and safeguarding of evidence. Williams v. State, 265 Ga. 471, 457 S.E.2d 665 (1995).
Noncompliance with the administrative requirements of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64 did not call for suppression of evidence developed from information gathered with a pen register where there was no showing of any prejudice to defendant's privacy interest resulting from such noncompliance. Williams v. State, 265 Ga. 471, 457 S.E.2d 665 (1995).
Construction with O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64. - O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64(c) merely provides authority to Georgia superior court judges to issue wiretap warrants upon proper application by the prosecuting attorney, and the statute contains no prohibition against evidence gathered as part of a federal investigation in compliance with the federal warrant process. Furthermore, the fact that the warrant was not initially issued by a Georgia superior court judge does not violate the requirements for obtaining a warrant codified in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64(c), and that fact does not require suppression of evidence gathered pursuant to the warrant. State v. Harrell, 323 Ga. App. 56, 744 S.E.2d 867 (2013).
Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2518 not included in allowable grounds of motion to suppress under former Code 1933, § 26-3007 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67). Ansley v. State, 124 Ga. App. 670, 185 S.E.2d 562 (1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 929, 92 S. Ct. 2503, 33 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1972).
- Supreme Court of Georgia concludes that Georgia superior courts do not currently possess the authority to issue wiretap warrants for interceptions conducted outside the boundaries of their respective judicial circuits. Luangkhot v. State, 292 Ga. 423, 736 S.E.2d 397 (2013).
Appellate court erred in affirming a trial court's denial of the appellants' motion to suppress because the warrants were invalid since the Gwinnett County Superior Court lacked the authority to issue the wiretap warrants for the interceptions in the case which took place exclusively in Fulton County. Luangkhot v. State, 292 Ga. 423, 736 S.E.2d 397 (2013).
- Trial court erred by granting the defendant's motion to suppress because the fact that the warrant was not initially issued by a Georgia superior court judge did not violate the requirements for obtaining a warrant codified in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-64(c) and that fact did not require suppression of evidence gathered pursuant to the warrant. State v. Harrell, 323 Ga. App. 56, 744 S.E.2d 867 (2013).
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67, while applicable to the content of telephone conversations, does not extend to include telephone company records. Van Nice v. State, 180 Ga. App. 112, 348 S.E.2d 515 (1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 931, 107 S. Ct. 1568, 94 L. Ed. 2d 760 (1987).
Evidence obtained surreptitiously by tape recording spouse's private telephone conversation is evidence obtained in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 and is inadmissible for impeachment purposes. Ransom v. Ransom, 253 Ga. 656, 324 S.E.2d 437 (1985).
- In a prosecution of defendant wife for solicitation of murder, where there was no state participation in an illegal tapping of initial phone conversation by her husband, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine did not require suppression of an undercover agent's subsequent surreptitiously taped conversations with defendant. Jordan v. State, 211 Ga. App. 86, 438 S.E.2d 371 (1993).
- Because none of the types of communication encompassed by O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a) were at issue, because the parties stipulated that the video recordings the victim made between the victim and defendant without defendant's consent were in a private place, and because the participant's exception in § 16-11-66(a) applied to O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 in its entirety, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67, the trial court properly excluded the recordings. State v. Madison, 311 Ga. App. 31, 714 S.E.2d 714 (2011).
Cited in Bilbo v. State, 142 Ga. App. 716, 236 S.E.2d 847 (1977); Carter v. State, 239 Ga. 509, 238 S.E.2d 57 (1977); State v. Birge, 240 Ga. 501, 241 S.E.2d 213 (1978); State v. Bilbo, 240 Ga. 601, 242 S.E.2d 21 (1978); Dunham v. Belinky, 248 Ga. 479, 284 S.E.2d 397 (1981); Quillan v. State, 160 Ga. App. 167, 286 S.E.2d 503 (1981); Kesler v. State, 249 Ga. 462, 291 S.E.2d 497 (1982); Evans v. State, 252 Ga. 312, 314 S.E.2d 421 (1984); Reeves v. State, 192 Ga. App. 12, 383 S.E.2d 613 (1989); Quintrell v. State, 231 Ga. App. 268, 499 S.E.2d 117 (1998); Bishop v. State, 241 Ga. App. 517, 526 S.E.2d 917 (1999); North v. State, 250 Ga. App. 622, 552 S.E.2d 554 (2001); Moss v. State, 298 Ga. 613, 783 S.E.2d 652 (2016).
- Admissibility of telephone conversations in evidence, 71 A.L.R. 5; 105 A.L.R. 326.
Admissibility of evidence obtained by government or other public officer by intercepting letter or telegraph or telephone message, 134 A.L.R. 614.
What constitutes an "interception" of a telephone or similar communication forbidden by the Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 605) or similar state statutes, 9 A.L.R.3d 423.
Censorship and evidentiary use of unconvicted prisoners' mail, 52 A.L.R.3d 548.
Admissibility, in criminal prosecution, of evidence obtained by electronic surveillance of prisoner, 57 A.L.R.3d 172.
Permissible surveillance, under state communications interception statute, by person other than state or local law enforcement officer or one acting in concert with officer, 24 A.L.R.4th 1208.
State constitutional requirements as to exclusion of evidence unlawfully seized - post-Leon cases, 19 A.L.R.5th 470.
Total Results: 19
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-04-05
Snippet: seek exclusion of Wesley’s testimony. OCGA § 16-11-67 provides that “[n]o evidence obtained in a manner
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2021-02-15
Snippet: had with Appellant. Appellant relies on OCGA § 16-11-67, which says: “No evidence obtained in a manner
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-06-20
Citation: 299 Ga. 232, 787 S.E.2d 745, 2016 WL 3390448, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 422
Snippet: for an extraterritorial arrest. Compare OCGA § 16-11-67 (“No evidence obtained in a manner which violates
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2016-03-07
Citation: 298 Ga. 613, 783 S.E.2d 652, 2016 Ga. LEXIS 203
Snippet: for persons with proper standing. See OCGA §§ 16-11-67, 17-5-30; Hampton, 295 Ga. at 669
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-02-02
Snippet: challenge the admission of such records under OCGA § 16-11-67. See Hampton v. State, 295 Ga. 665 (2) (763 SE2d
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-02-02
Citation: 296 Ga. 636, 769 S.E.2d 43, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 87
Snippet: of such records under OCGA § *640 16-11-67. See Hampton v. State, 295 Ga. 665
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-09-22
Citation: 295 Ga. 665, 763 S.E.2d 467, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 717
Snippet: the facts. Id. Citing OCGA §§ 16-11-66.1 (a),2 16-11-67,3 and 18 USCA§ 2703 (a),4 Hampton argues that
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-10-07
Citation: 294 Ga. 1, 749 S.E.2d 657, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3051, 2013 WL 5508512, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 779
Snippet: inadmissible in any court of this State. OCGA § 16-11-67. This subparagraph states that, OCGA § 16-11-62
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-01-07
Citation: 292 Ga. 423, 736 S.E.2d 397, 2013 WL 57017
Snippet: suppress should have been granted. See OCGA § 16-11-67 (evidence obtained in violation of wiretap statute
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-11-05
Citation: 292 Ga. 154, 734 S.E.2d 19, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3454, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 862
Snippet: lG-ll-ee.Uor 18USC § 2702 (c) (4).1 2However, OCGA § 16-11-67 provides: “No evidence obtained in a manner which
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-11-07
Citation: 717 S.E.2d 629, 290 Ga. 18, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 3428, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 861
Snippet: surveillance found in OCGA §§ 16-11-62 through 16-11-67] for recording the activities of another incarcerated
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-03-25
Citation: 709 S.E.2d 239, 289 Ga. 70, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 934, 2011 Ga. LEXIS 267
Snippet: and 16-11-66 and, thus, admissible under OCGA § 16-11-67. Because it appears that Ledford never objected
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-09-23
Citation: 475 S.E.2d 629, 267 Ga. 116, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3396, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 711
Snippet: states that "obtained" in the context of OCGA § 16-11-67 includes not only the gathering of evidence but
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-09-09
Citation: 475 S.E.2d 580, 267 Ga. 102, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 3236, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 532
Snippet: the privacy of another, OCGA §§ 16-11-62 through 16-11-67. The argument to suppress on these grounds fails
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-04-29
Citation: 469 S.E.2d 163, 266 Ga. 613, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 1616, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 185
Snippet: tape was inadmissible under OCGA §§ 16-11-62 and 16-11-67. Those statutes apply only to intentional interception
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-05-30
Citation: 457 S.E.2d 665, 265 Ga. 471
Snippet: suppress that evidence on the provision in OCGA § 16-11-67 making inadmissible any evidence obtained in violation
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1992-03-06
Citation: 415 S.E.2d 168, 262 Ga. 161, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 213
Snippet: conversation. The evidence shows neither. OCGA § 16-11-67 provides that evidence obtained in a manner which
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1985-01-07
Citation: 324 S.E.2d 437, 253 Ga. 656, 1985 Ga. LEXIS 519
Snippet: limine, on the basis of OCGA §§ 16-11-62 (1) and 16-11-67, to prevent the admission of these tapes or their
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1984-03-15
Citation: 314 S.E.2d 421, 252 Ga. 312, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 692
Snippet: warrants should be suppressed. 18 USCA § 2515; OCGA § 16-11-67 (Code Ann. § 26-3007). To start, we must emphasize