O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-5-21.1 (2019)

Issuance of search warrants by video conference

✓ 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 judge of any court in this state authorized to issue search warrants pursuant to Code Section 17-5-21 may, as an alternative to other laws relating to the issuance of search warrants, conduct such applications for the issuance of search warrants by video conference. The issuance of a search warrant by video conference shall be valid irrespective of the physical location of the judge at the time of the video conference, provided that the judge issuing the warrant is authorized by law to issue such warrant, and, at the time such warrant is issued, he or she is physically located within this state. (b) Search warrant applications heard by video conference shall be conducted in a manner to ensure that the judge conducting the hearing has visual and audible contact with all affiants and witnesses giving testimony. (c) The affiant participating in a search warrant application by video conference shall sign the affidavit for a search warrant and any related documents by any reasonable means which identifies the affiant, including, but not limited to, his or her typewritten name, signature affixed by electronic stylus, or any other reasonable means which identifies the person signing the affidavit and any related documents. The judge participating in a search warrant application by video conference shall sign the affidavit for a search warrant, the search warrant, and any related documents by any reasonable means which identifies the judge, including, but not limited to, his or her typewritten name, signature affixed by electronic stylus, or any other reasonable means which identifies the judicial officer signing the affidavit and warrant and any related documents. Such applications shall be deemed to be written within the meaning of Code Section 17-5-21. Such authorization shall be deemed to comply with the issuance requirements provided for in Code Section 17-5-22. (d) A judge hearing matters pursuant to this Code section shall administer an oath to any person testifying by means of a video conference. (e) A video recording of the application hearing and any documents submitted in conjunction with the application shall be maintained as part of the record.

History

Code 1981, § 17-5-21.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 300, § 1; Ga. L. 2013, p. 584, § 2/HB 146.

Annotations

Cross references. - Issuance of arrest warrants by video conference, § 17-4-47.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Violation of state procedural rule vs. violation of federal procedural rule. - Evidence seized from the defendant’s apartment pursuant to a search warrant would not be suppressed because a violation of state procedural law did not rise to the level of a Fourth Amendment violation, and there was no Fourth Amendment violation as police were in possession of a search warrant, signed by a judge and based on probable cause, at the time police seized evidence, and an affidavit provided ample probable cause

for the search; even if the defendant could show that violation of a state procedural rule was analogous to a violation of a federal procedural rule for Fourth Amendment purposes, there was no evidence that the search might not have occurred if the video recording of an application hearing were maintained as part of the record in accordance with state rule. United States v. Gordon, No. 1:14-cr-312-WSD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162150 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 2, 2015).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Constitutional and statutory validity of judicial videoconferencing, 115 A.L.R.5th 509.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2008–2019 · leading case: Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013). “41(c)(3) (2012); Ga.Code Ann. § 17-5-21.1 (2008); Haw. Rules Penal Proc.”

MacIas v. State, 664 S.E.2d 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “The trial court in this case specifically declined to consider any testimony outside the affidavit submitted to the magistrate, noting that it was disputed whether oral testimony was provided to the magistrate, and that the magistrate court had failed to keep a recording of the…”

Commonwealth v. Almonor, 120 N.E.3d 1183 (Mass. 2019). “Penal Code § 1526 (b) ; Ga. Code Ann. § 17-5-21.1 ; Idaho Code §§ 19-4404 , 19-4406 ; Ind.”

United States v. Nigel Marc Gordon, 686 F. App'x 702 (11th Cir. 2017). “Gordon contends thát the warrant violated the Fourth Amendment because Judge Roberts and Detective Derek Williams failed to comply with the requirement in O.C.G.A. § 17-5-21.1, the Georgia video warrant statute, that the issuing judge administer the oath on camera and that the…”

United States v. Jaimez, 15 F. Supp. 3d 1338 (N.D. Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “2d 696 (2013) (recognizing that states, like Georgia, allow for remote warrant authorizations) (citing, inter alia, O.C.G.A. § 17-5-21.1). . The grant of Jaimez's motion to suppress extends not only to the notebooks themselves, but also to the tangible and testimonial evidence…”

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.