O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-92 (2019)

Applicability

✓ 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

The provisions of Code Sections 16-5-90 and 16-5-91 shall not apply to persons engaged in activities protected by the Constitution of the United States or of this state or to persons or employees of such persons lawfully engaged in bona fide business activity or lawfully engaged in the practice of a profession.

History

Code 1981, § 16-5-92, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1534, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Jury charge properly denied. - Defendant charged with stalking could not have returned to a romantic partner’s house lawfully because a court had barred the defendant from doing so without a police escort; thus, it was proper to deny

the defendant’s request to charge under O.C.G.A. § 16-5-92. Hayles v. State, 287 Ga. App. 601, 651 S.E.2d 860 (2007). Cited in Bruno v. Light, 344 Ga. App. 799, 811 S.E.2d 500 (2018).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Chan v. Ellis, 770 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chan v. Ellis, 770 S.E.2d 851 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 16-5-92 (“The provisions of Code Sections 16-5-90 and 16-5-91 shall not apply to persons engaged in activities protected by the Constitution of the United States or of this state .”

Hayles v. State, 651 S.E.2d 860 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “(b) OCGA § 16-5-92 provides that “persons or employees of such persons lawfully engaged in bona fide business activity or lawfully engaged in the practice of a profession” cannot be convicted of aggravated stalking under OCGA § 16-5-90 or § 16-5-91.”

Pilcher v. Stribling, 630 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “Pilcher asserts that the trial court erred in granting the protective order because the stalking statute was not intended to cover a situation where a supervisor is verbally abusive and physically aggressive to employees on the job.”

Bruno v. Light., 811 S.E.2d 500 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 16-5-92 states: "The provisions of Code Sections 16-5-90 and 16-5-91 shall not apply to person engaged in activities protected by the Constitution of the United States or of this state or to persons or employees of such persons lawfully engaged in bona fide business…”

Marion D. Calhoun v. Carlotta Harrell (Ga. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “She additionally contends that “[her] activism in the form of Facebook posts advocating for change in local politics is speech protected by the United States Constitution and the Georgia Constitution” and that she cannot “be silenced through the use of a Stalking Three Year…”

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.