O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-9-125.1 (2019)

Victim’s right to file report

✓ 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) A person who has learned or reasonably believes that he or she has been the victim of identity fraud may contact the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over his or her actual residence for the purpose of making an incident report. The law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the complainant’s residence shall make a report of the complaint and provide the complainant with a copy of the report. Where jurisdiction for the investigation and prosecution of the complaint lies with another agency, the law enforcement agency making the report shall forward a copy to the agency having such jurisdiction and shall advise the complainant that the report has been so forwarded.

(b) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed so as to interfere with the discretion of a law enforcement agency to allocate resources for the investigation of crimes. A report created pursuant to this Code section is not required to be counted as an open case file.

History

(Code 1981, § 16-9-125.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2007, p. 450, § 5/SB 236.)

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 2007, p. 450, § 1/SB 236, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: ‘‘This Act shall be

known and may be cited as the ‘Georgia Personal Identity Protection Act.’ ’’

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case (1 in the last 5 years), 2024–2024 · leading case: Reaves v. Nat'l Law Enf't (S.D. Ga. 2024).
Reaves v. Nat'l Law Enf't (S.D. Ga. 2024). · cites it 4× “” Ga. Code Ann. § 16-9-125.1 (a) (2022). The statute does not require reporting to occur in person.”
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.