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.
On the campus of an educational facility, a campus policeman employed by such educational facility who is certified in accordance with Code Section 20-8-3 and when authorized by the governing body or authority of such educational facility shall have the same law enforcement powers, including the power of arrest, as a law enforcement officer of the local government with police jurisdiction over such campus.
History
(Ga. L. 1977, p. 1160, § 2; Ga. L. 1979, p. 1323, § 1.)
Annotations
Cross references. - Campus police of the university system, § 20-3-72. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Complaint sufficiently stated claim. - Trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss was affirmed as to the plaintiff ’s claim against a college employing three police officers because when the complaint’s allegations were construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff; the college failed to establish that the plaintiff could not possibly present evidence that the campus police officers were acting under the direction of the college at the time of the officers’ allegedly tortious conduct. Agnes Scott College, Inc. v. Hartley, 330 Ga. App. 575, 768 S.E.2d 767 (2015), cert. denied, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 335 (Ga. 2015). Records of private university’s police force. - Records of a campus police force of a private university were not subject to disclosure under the Open Records Act, O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq., as the university was a private institution that did not receive any funding from the state, the campus police were employees of that entity pursuant to the authority of O.C.G.A. § 20-8-2, and the fact that the police performed a public function did not make their records into public records; the fact that the campus police were given authority to perform certain functions by the Campus Policemen Act, O.C.G.A.
§ 20-8-1 et seq., and the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Act, O.C.G.A. § 35-8-1 et seq., did not make them officers or employees of a public office or agency for purposes of the Open Records Act. The Corp. of Mercer Univ. v. Barrett & Farahany, L.L.P., 271 Ga. App. 501, 610 S.E.2d 138 (2005). Officer with college police had no right to appear before grand jury. - Trial court did not err in finding that the defendant, who was an officer with a college police department, was not entitled to be present and make a statement pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 17-7-52(a) and 45-11-4 when the officer’s case was presented to the grand jury because the indictment did not allege that the crimes occurred while the defendant was performing the defendant’s duties; the defendant was not on campus as defined by O.C.G.A. § 20-8-1(1), and the record did not show that the defendant’s official duties as a campus police officer included the commission of the acts at issue, while the defendant was off duty and engaged in leisure activities outside of the defendant’s jurisdiction. Worthy v. State, 307 Ga. App. 297, 704 S.E.2d 808 (2010). Cited in Tabor v. State, 203 Ga. App. 60, 416 S.E.2d 138 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Agnes Scott Coll., Inc. v. Hartley., 816 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 8× “A campus policeman's law enforcement powers are set forth in OCGA § 20-8-2, which provides: On the campus of an educational facility, a campus policeman employed by such educational facility who is certified in accordance with [ OCGA §] 20-8-3 and when authorized by the…”
Hartley v. Agnes Scott Coll., 759 S.E.2d 857 (Ga. 2014).
· cites it 4× “as a law enforcement officer of the local government with police jurisdiction over such campus,” so long as the officers are properly certified pursuant to the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Act (POST Act), OCGA § 35-8-1 et seq., and “the governing body or…”
Agnes Scott Coll. v. Hartley, 741 S.E.2d 199 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “” OCGA § 20-8-2. That Act defines a “campus policeman” not as an employee who owes a duty solely to the private institution that employs him, but rather as an officer “whose duties include the enforcement of the laws of this [Sjtate; the preservation of public order; the…”
Agnes Scott Coll. v. Amanda Hartley, 768 S.E.2d 767 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “It follows, therefore, that in fulfilling their “law enforcement powers” granted by OCGA § 20-8-2, they were “acting on behalf or in service of the [S]tate in [an] official capacity,” and thus, they are “state officer[s]” under OCGA § 50-21-22 (7).”
Worthy v. State, 704 S.E.2d 808 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” 28 OCGA § 20-8-2 provides: On the campus of an educational facility, a campus policeman employed by such educational facility who is certified in accordance with Code Section 20-8-3 and when authorized by the governing body or authority of such educational facility shall have…”
State v. Durr, 618 S.E.2d 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 20-8-2. The third Code section provides that as a condition precedent to exercising those powers, campus officers must be certified by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (“POST”).”
Hill v. State, 387 S.E.2d 582 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 20-8-2; 20-8-4. The State concedes that, because the appellants’ residence was not located within 500 yards of university property, the campus police officers who obtained and executed the search warrant at issue in this case were not authorized as police officers to…”
Agnes Scott Coll. v. Amanda Hartley (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “” OCGA § 20-8-2. That Act defines a “campus policeman” not as an employee who owes a duty solely to the private institution that employs him, but rather as an officer “whose duties include the enforcement of the laws of this [S]tate; the preservation of public order; the…”
Tabor v. State, 416 S.E.2d 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 20-8-2. Decided February 25, 1992.”
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.