O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 (2019)

Utilization of alarm verification required

✓ 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) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) ‘‘Alarm monitoring company’’ means any person, company, corporation, partnership, business, or a representative or agency thereof authorized to provide alarm monitoring services for burglar alarm systems, fire alarm systems, or other similar electronic security systems whether such systems are maintained on commercial business property, public property, or individual residential property.

(2) ‘‘Alarm verification’’ means a reasonable attempt by an alarm monitoring company to contact the alarm site or alarm user, by telephone or other electronic means, to determine whether a burglar alarm signal is valid prior to requesting law enforcement to be dispatched to the location and, where the initial attempted contact cannot be made, a second reasonable attempt to make such contact utilizing a different telephone number or electronic address or number.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, an alarm monitoring company shall utilize a system providing for alarm verification of all alarm signals.

(c) Alarm verification shall not be required in the case of a fire alarm or a panic or robbery-in-progress alarm or in cases where a crime-in-progress has been verified to be true by video or audible means.

History

Code 1981, § 35-1-9, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 750, § 1/HB 59.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. - This Code section formerly pertained to the prohibition of inspecting or copying records of law en-

forcement agency for commercial solicitation and was based on Ga. L. 1999, p. 1868, § 1. The former Code section was repealed by Ga. L. 1999, p. 809, § 2, effective July 1, 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Speer v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1294 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Speer v. Miller, 864 F. Supp. 1294 (N.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 14× “O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 (hereinafter “the Georgia statute”) provides: § 35-1-9.”
Spottsville v. Barnes, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2001). · cites it 14× “In 1991, the Georgia General Assembly enacted O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 which made it unlawful to inspect or copy arrest, accident or incident reports for the purpose of obtaining victims’ or defendants’ names and addresses “for any commercial solicitation” of the individuals or their…”
The Georgia Elec. Life Saf. & Sys. Ass'n, Inc. v. The City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, 965 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9,1 an operator must first call the site or alarm user directly; if no contact can be made, the alarm company must then reach out to a secondary contact number to attempt to verify the alarm.”
Robert H. Speer, Jr. v. Zell Miller, as Governor of Georgia, & Michael Bowers, as Attorney Gen. of Georgia, 15 F.3d 1007 (11th Cir. 1994). “Speer claims that the enforcement of O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 causes him economic hardship and challenges its enforcement on first and fourteenth amendment grounds.”
— 35-1-9(a) — 1 case
Spottsville v. Barnes, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2001). “In 1991, the Georgia General Assembly enacted O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 which made it unlawful to inspect or copy arrest, accident or incident reports for the purpose of obtaining victims’ or defendants’ names and addresses “for any commercial solicitation” of the individuals or their…”
— 35-1-9(a)(2) — 1 case
The Georgia Elec. Life Saf. & Sys. Ass'n, Inc. v. The City of Sandy Springs, Georgia, 965 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2020). “Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9,1 an operator must first call the site or alarm user directly; if no contact can be made, the alarm company must then reach out to a secondary contact number to attempt to verify the alarm.”
— 35-1-9(c) — 1 case
Spottsville v. Barnes, 135 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2001). “In 1991, the Georgia General Assembly enacted O.C.G.A. § 35-1-9 which made it unlawful to inspect or copy arrest, accident or incident reports for the purpose of obtaining victims’ or defendants’ names and addresses “for any commercial solicitation” of the individuals or their…”
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.