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.
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-11-66.1, any person violating any of the provisions of this part shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both.
History
(Ga. L. 1967, p. 844, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-3010, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 299, § 2.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For note on 1993 amendment of this Code section, see 10 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 109 (1993).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in State v. Birge, 240 Ga. 501, 241 S.E.2d 213 (1978); Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2003). RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Validity, construction, and effect of state legislation making wiretapping a criminal offense, 74 A.L.R.2d 855. Propriety of governmental eavesdropping on communications between accused and his attorney, 44 A.L.R.4th 841. Construction and application of provi-
sion of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C.A. § 2520) authorizing civil cause of action by person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of Act, 164 A.L.R. Fed. 139.
Notes of Decisions
Prophitt v. the State, 784 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The crime of invasion of privacy constitutes a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and this Court has previously held that the conduct of a parent, guardian, or other adult in filming or observing a minor while the minor is in a state of undress in either her bedroom or bathroom…”
Rutter v. Rutter, 730 S.E.2d 626 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-11-69. As such, the rule of lenity is a proper aid, we think, in the resolution of any ambiguity appearing in subparagraph (2) (C).”
Ransom v. Ransom, 324 S.E.2d 437 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 2× “The statute provides, without exception, that no evidence shall be admissible in any court except to prove a criminal violation of an offense proscribed in OCGA § 16-11-60 through § 16-11-69. The "`language [of the statute] being plain, and not leading to absurd or wholly…”
Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2003).
“Code § 13A-11-31 (1994); O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 (1999); Fla.”
Price v. State, 738 S.E.2d 289 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “2 Because Price was convicted of a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and sentenced to five years of confinement, all of which was probated, Price’s condition of probation requiring him to complete a detention center program for forty-eight months was authorized by former OCGA §…”
Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys. v. S.F., 740 F. Supp. 2d 1335 (N.D. Ga. 2010).
· cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69. In addition, the recording of the conversations of another that originate in a private place also constitutes a felony.”
Charles Rutter v. Stacy Rutter (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-11-69. As such, the rule of lenity is a proper aid, we think, in the resolution of any ambiguity appearing in subparagraph (2) (C).”
Sean Timothy Price v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “shall complete satisfactorily, as a condition of that probation, a program of confinement in a probation detention center. Probationers so sentenced will be required to serve the period of confinement specified in the court order.”
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.