Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 20-2-1182 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 20-2-1182 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 20-2-1182

TITLE 20 EDUCATION

Section 2. Elementary and Secondary Education, 20-2-1 through 20-2-2180.

ARTICLE 27 LOITERING AT OR DISRUPTING SCHOOLS

20-2-1182. Persons other than students who insult or abuse school teachers in presence of pupils may be ordered to leave school premises.

Any parent, guardian, or person other than a student at the public school in question who has been advised that minor children are present and who continues to upbraid, insult, or abuse any public school teacher, public school administrator, or public school bus driver in the presence and hearing of a pupil while on the premises of any public school or public school bus may be ordered by any of the above-designated school personnel to leave the school premises or school bus, and upon failure to do so such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00.

(Code 1981, §20-2-1182, enacted by Ga. L. 1989, p. 1394, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 20.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Statute unconstitutionally overbroad.

- O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1182, which criminalized upbraiding, insulting, or abusing a public school teacher or administrator in the presence of a pupil while on the premises of a public school or school bus, was unconstitutionally overbroad because words which merely offended, angered, or frustrated could not be prohibited in violation of freedom of speech. Further, the statute did not tie the statute's prohibited expression to the disruption of school activities or specific times. West v. State, 300 Ga. 39, 793 S.E.2d 57 (2016).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Fingerprinting for violators.

- Although the offense established by O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1182 does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is made mandatory by the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 35-3-33(1), this offense shall be designated as an offense for which those charged with a violation must be fingerprinted to the extent the individual charged has attained the age of majority; to the extent the individual charged is a juvenile, this offense is not so designated at this time. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. 89-52.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1182

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

West v. State, 300 Ga. 39 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 31, 2016 | 793 S.E.2d 57

HUNSTEIN, Justice. This interlocutory appeal presents a facial constitutional challenge to OCGA § 20-2-1182, which criminalizes upbraiding, insulting, or abusing a public school teacher, administrator, or bus driver in the presence of a pupil while on the premises of a public school or school bus. Appellant Michael Antonio West was arrested and charged under OCGA § 20-2-1182, and he thereafter filed a general demurrer, contending, among other things, that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the right to free speech guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution...
...s demurrer but granted him a certificate of immediate review; West subsequently filed an application for interlocutory appeal, and we granted the application to review the substance of West’s constitutional challenge. We agree with West that OCGA § 20-2-1182 is unconstitutionally overbroad and reverse the judgment of the trial court. *40Generally speaking, “[t]he First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ashcroft v....
...t.” Scott, 299 Ga. at 571. See also OCGA § 1-3-1 (a), (b). However, where the statutory text is “clear and unambiguous,” we attribute to the statute its plain meaning, and our search for statutory meaning ends. See Deal, 294 Ga. at 173. OCGA § 20-2-1182, which is part of a collection of laws designed to address “loitering at or disrupting schools,” provides as follows: Any parent, guardian, or person other than a student at the public school in question who has been advised that mi...
...ntempt,” id. at 1173; and, abuse is defined as “to attack or injure with words: reproach coarsely; disparage” or “language that condemns or vilifies, usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrily,” id. at 8. Thus, the plain language of OCGA § 20-2-1182 makes it a misdemeanor for any person not a student — after being advised that pupils are present and continuing to speak critically, reproachfully, indignantly, or disparagingly toward any public school teacher, administrator, or bus...
...ormal school activities nor limits the prohibitions to specific, fixed times, such as when school is in session. McCall, 354 S2d at 872. Also concerning, the statute does not proscribe all speech that might be boisterous or disruptive; instead, OCGA § 20-2-1182 prohibits only that speech directed at public school officials which may be perceived as negative or unfavorable....
...“It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 828 (II) (115 SCt 2510, 132LE2d700) (1995). The practical effect of the plain language of OCGA § 20-2-1182 is that any person — may it be a parent, school *44system employee, or concerned citizen while on school premises or a school bus — who dares to speak critically to school officials at any time in the presence of minors must leave th...