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

O.C.G.A. § 4-3-4 (2019)

Impoundment of livestock running at large or straying

✓ 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) It shall be the duty of the sheriff, his deputies, or any other county law enforcement officer to impound livestock found to be running at large or straying. Owners or operators of farms may also impound such livestock, provided that the livestock is kept in a suitable place and cared for properly; such owners or operators shall receive the feed and care fee allowed in Code Section 4-3-10.

(b) If an owner or operator of a farm impounds livestock, it shall be his duty to notify the owner of such livestock immediately. If the owner of the livestock is unknown and is not determined within three days, the person who impounds the livestock shall notify the sheriff of such impoundment; and the sheriff shall transport the livestock as soon as possible to a county pound as provided for in Code Section 4-3-11. The sheriff shall then follow the procedure set out in this chapter as if he had originally impounded such livestock.

History

(Ga. L. 1953, Jan.-Feb. Sess., p. 380, § 4; Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dec. Sess., p. 395, § 5.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey on local government law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 255 (2009). For survey article on local government law, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 147 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Official immunity for death of animal during impoundment attempt. - Trial court did not err in finding that a sheriff's deputy was entitled to official immunity after killing an owner's bull while attempting to impound the bull because the deputy's actions were discretionary. To control a potentially dangerous animal pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 4-3-4(a), the deputy was required to make decisions concerning the safety of the deputy and others as circumstances - including the behavior of the animal - changed; under such changing circumstances, the deputy was required to exercise considerable deliberation and judgment, which rendered the deputy's actions discretionary. Todd v. Brooks, 292 Ga. App. 329, 665 S.E.2d 11 (2008), cert. denied, No. S08C1859, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 924 (Ga. 2008).

Cited in Jackson v. State, 120 Ga. App. 417, 170 S.E.2d 751 (1969).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d. - 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Animals, § 37 et seq.

C.J.S. - 3B C.J.S., Animals, §§ 244 et seq., 309 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2016 · leading case: Todd v. Brooks, 665 S.E.2d 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Todd v. Brooks, 665 S.E.2d 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “5 OCGA § 4-3-4 (a) pertinently provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of the sheriff, his deputies, or any other county law enforcement officer to impound livestock found to be running at large or straying.”
Williams v. Pauley Et Al., 768 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “Moreover, the statutory mandate in OCGA § 4-3-4 (a), which provides that “[i]t shall be the duty of the sheriff, his deputies, or any other county law enforcement officer to impound livestock found to be running at large or straying,” does not require a contrary conclusion.”
Cotton v. Ben Hill Cnty., 208 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (M.D. Ga. 2016). · cites it 4× “” Neither O.C.G.A §§ 4-3-4, 16-12-4, nor Ben Hill County Ordinance 10-150 requires agents of the County to obtain a warrant before impounding cattle.”
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.