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.
No person owning, operating, or using a motor vehicle in this state shall knowingly affix or attach to any part of such motor vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing profane or lewd words describing sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body. Any person who violates any part of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $100.00.
History
Code 1981, § 40-1-4, enacted by Ga. L.
1988, p. 1561, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 1.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section unconstitutional. - O.C.G.A. § 40-1-4 unconstitutionally restricts freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and by the Georgia Constitution. Cunningham v. State, 260 Ga. 827, 400 S.E.2d 916, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 70 (1991).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case:
Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. 1991).
Cunningham v. State, 400 S.E.2d 916 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 28× “His motion for new trial was denied, and he appeals. We find the statute unconstitutional.”
Williams, Congresswoman v. Powell, 320 Ga. 221 (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 2× “In Cunningham, we held OCGA § 40-1-4, which prohibits bumper stickers containing profane or lewd words describing sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body, reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech and is unconstitutionally overbroad,…”
Williams, Congresswoman v. Powell (Ga. 2024).
· cites it 2× “In Cunningham, we held OCGA § 40-1-4, which prohibits bumper stickers containing profane or lewd words describing sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body, reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech and is unconstitutionally overbroad,…”
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.