O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-1-20 (2019)

Ordinances for governing and policing of unincorporated areas of county

✓ 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) The governing authority of each county, for the purpose of protecting and preserving the public health, safety, and welfare, is authorized to adopt ordinances for the governing and policing of the unincorporated areas of the county, violations of which ordinances may be punished by fine or imprisonment or both. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such ordinances may provide for traffic regulation, including adoption of the uniform rules of the road under Chapter 6 of Title 40, may provide for the regulation and control of litter in the same manner as municipal ordinances under Code Section 16-7-48, and may provide for the implementation and enforcement of any power or duty vested in the county governing authority.

(b) Each such ordinance shall specify the maximum punishment which may be imposed for a violation of the ordinance; and in no case shall the maximum punishment for the violation of any such ordinance exceed a fine of $1,000.00 or imprisonment for 60 days or both; provided, however, that for violation of a pretreatment standard or requirement adopted pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act the ordinance may specify that the fine may be up to $1,000.00 per day for each violation by an industrial user.

(c) Jurisdiction over violations of such county ordinances shall be in the magistrate court of the county; and procedure for enforcement of such ordinances shall be as provided in Article 4 of Chapter 10 of Title 15; provided, however, jurisdiction over ordinances having to do with traffic offenses shall be in the court or courts having jurisdiction over state traffic offenses.

(d) This Code section shall not affect the jurisdiction of or procedure in any other court which has jurisdiction over violations of county ordinances.

History

Code 1981, § 36-1-20, enacted by Ga. L. 1984, p. 1086, § 1; Ga. L.

1990, p. 1345, § 2; Ga. L. 1991, p. 993, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Kariuki v. DeKalb County, 253 Ga. 713, 324 S.E.2d 450 (1985); Curves,

LLC v. Spalding County, Georgia, 569 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2007).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Jurisdiction over offense of open container of alcohol in vehicle. - In counties in which there is a state court, both the state court and the magistrate

court of the county possess concurrent jurisdiction over the prosecution of individuals charged with violating a county ordinance prohibiting the possession of

open containers of alcohol while operating a motor vehicle. 1992 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U92-3. Regulation of trucks on residential roads. - County sheriff ’s department may enforce ordinances prohibiting trucks over ten wheels from using residential roads within county except when making

temporary deliveries. 1996 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U96-17. Traffic control ordinances. - Counties may enact ordinances regarding enforcement of traffic control devices by the use of cameras. 2000 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U2000-12.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Morton v. State, 425 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Morton v. State, 425 S.E.2d 336 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 36-1-20 (b) provides, in pertinent part, “in no case shall the maximum punishment for a violation of any such ordinance exceed a *416 fine of $1,000.”

Kariuki v. DeKalb Cnty., 324 S.E.2d 450 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 36-1-20 enacted subsequent to the ordinance here in issue.”

Charlotte Landy v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “”49 And here, Landy argues that because the accusation charging her with reckless conduct alleged that she failed to confine her dogs under Fulton County Code § 34-205, she should have been sentenced in accordance with OCGA § 36-1-20(b), which addresses punishment for violations…”

Curves, LLC v. Spalding Cnty., Ga., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2007). · cites it 2× “Georgia has delegated some of its police power to counties: "The governing authority of each county, for the purpose of protecting and preserving the public health, safety, and welfare, is authorized to adopt ordinances for the governing and policing of the unincorporated areas…”

— 36-1-20(a) — 1 case

Curves, LLC v. Spalding Cnty., Ga., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1305 (N.D. Ga. 2007). “Georgia has delegated some of its police power to counties: "The governing authority of each county, for the purpose of protecting and preserving the public health, safety, and welfare, is authorized to adopt ordinances for the governing and policing of the unincorporated areas…”

— 36-1-20(b) — 1 case

Charlotte Landy v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “”49 And here, Landy argues that because the accusation charging her with reckless conduct alleged that she failed to confine her dogs under Fulton County Code § 34-205, she should have been sentenced in accordance with OCGA § 36-1-20(b), which addresses punishment for violations…”

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.