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.
It shall be the duty of all sheriffs, chiefs of police, and the heads of any other law enforcement agencies of this state to obtain, or cause to be obtained, the name, address, and age of each person arrested by law enforcement officers under the supervision of such sheriffs, chiefs of police, or heads of any other law enforcement agencies of this state, when any such person is charged with an offense against the laws of this state, any other state, or the United States. The information shall be placed on appropriate records which each law enforcement agency shall maintain. The records shall be open for public inspection unless otherwise provided by law.
History
Ga. L. 1967, p. 839, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Completion of standard form after invoking right to counsel. - When a suspect in custody invoked the right to counsel, and the officer proceeded to complete a standard form used by the department as an arrest record, which inquired as to names and addresses of family members, this inquiry was normally attendant to arrest and custody, and had absolutely
nothing to do with interrogation regarding the criminal offense under investigation. Thus, the defendant’s subsequent, self-initiated statement was not unlawfully obtained. Hibbert v. State, 195 Ga. App. 235, 393 S.E.2d 96 (1990). Cited in Cherokee County v. North Cobb Surgical Assocs., P.C., 221 Ga. App. 496, 471 S.E.2d 561 (1996).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 70 Am. Jur. 2d, Sheriffs, Police, and Constables, § 31 et seq. ALR. - Privilege of custodian, apart from statute or rule, from disclosure in civil action of official police records and reports, 36 A.L.R.2d 1318.
Burden of proof of defendant’s age in prosecution where attainment of particular age is statutory requisite of guilt, 49 A.L.R.3d 526.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1987–2012 · leading case:
Hibbert v. State, 393 S.E.2d 96 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
Hibbert v. State, 393 S.E.2d 96 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 8× “Arrest records are mandatory under OCGA § 17-4-27, and routinely inquiring about names and addresses of family members *237 serves two very reasonable purposes: (1) it identifies someone to contact in case of medical emergency; and (2) it provides a reference point in case the…”
Cherokee Cnty. v. North Cobb Surgical Assocs., P. C., 471 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “In this regard, under OCGA § 17-4-27, McFarland, had he not required immediate medical attention, should have been taken to the jail for booking and under OCGA § 17-4-62 should have been taken before a judicial officer.”
Nickerson v. State, 545 S.E.2d 587 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “After Nickerson began screaming, ‘You just want to beat me, you just want to beat me,” the detective testified that he *833 stopped asking Nickerson for his name, closed the car door, and went to obtain a search warrant.”
Lanham v. State, 362 S.E.2d 131 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “See also OCGA § 17-4-27, which provides that the police have a duty to obtain the vital statistics of those whom they arrest.”
Edwards v. State, 467 S.E.2d 379 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Recording such information is specifically required by OCGA § 17-4-27. Asking the names and addresses of family members is deemed reasonable and unconnected with the investigation of the crime for which the defendant was arrested.”
Perry v. State, 419 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
“County police, including the county sheriff, have general police power to investigate and make arrests (OCGA § 36-8-5; see OCGA § 15-16-10 (a) (8); § 17-4-27) as other law enforcement officials (OCGA § 17-4-20 (a)).”
Anjoure Teele v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Under these circumstances, we conclude that Officer Jaster interrogated Teele by using words and actions that he should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, and therefore, Teele’s statements were inadmissible at trial.”
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.