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.
Evidence of speed based on a speed detection device using the speed timing principle of laser which is of a model that has been approved by the Department of Public Safety shall be considered scientifically acceptable and reliable as a speed detection device and shall be admissible for all purposes in any court, judicial, or administrative proceedings in this state. A certified copy of the Department of Public Safety list of approved models of such laser devices shall be self-authenticating and shall be admissible for all purposes in any court, judicial, or administrative proceedings in this state.
History
(Code 1981, § 40-14-17, enacted by Ga. L. 1999, p. 5, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey article discussing developments in the law
of evidence, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 279 (1999).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Admissibility of evidence. - When the state introduced, without objection, a certified Department of Public Safety order listing the approved models of laser detection devices, and that list included the device used to measure the defendant’s speed, the evidence of speed based on that device was considered to be scientifically acceptable and reliable. Van Nort v. State, 250 Ga. App. 7, 550 S.E.2d 111 (2001). Although the state failed to provide a proper foundation for the introduction of laser detection evidence, other evidence at trial was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction for speeding because the
police officer who observed the defendant’s vehicle testified that the vehicle was traveling at an ‘‘obvious high rate of speed’’ and faster than the speed limit. In the Interest of J.D.S., 273 Ga. App. 576, 615 S.E.2d 627 (2005). Trial court did not commit plain error in admitting the laser-speed-detection-device evidence because the state complied with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-17 by the arresting officer testifying as to certification to use the devices, that the police department had approved the devices for use, as well as having provided lengthy testimony regarding familiarity with calibrating the device and
that the device used was calibrated at the start of the officer’s shift. Lafavor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 125, 778 S.E.2d 377 (2015). Laser-speed-detection-device evidence was not necessary because the officer’s
estimate that the defendant was exceeding the speed limit was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Lafavor v. State, 334 Ga. App. 125, 778 S.E.2d 377 (2015).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
Lafavor v. the State, 778 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
Lafavor v. the State, 778 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 22× “Lafavor next contends that the trial court erred in admitting the laser-speed- detection-device evidence, arguing that the State failed to comply with the requirements for admission of such evidence under OCGA § 40-14-17. This claim lacks merit. Initially, we note that Lafavor…”
Van Nort v. State, 550 S.E.2d 111 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 8× “But shortly after Izer was decided in February 1999, the state legislature passed OCGA § 40-14-17, effective March 25, 1999.”
Odum v. State, 564 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “In further claims of error, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his reckless driving conviction and contends that his convictions should be reversed in that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial.”
Frasard v. State, 745 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “*472 (c) OCGA § 40-14-17 provides: Evidence of speed based on a speed detection device using the speed timing principle of laser which is of a model that has been approved by the Department of Public Safety shall be considered scientifically acceptable and reliable as a speed…”
State v. Williamson, 166 P.3d 387 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See Ga.Code Ann. § 40-14-17 (evidence of speed based on a laser detection device is considered scientifically reliable and admissible); Va.”
Bravo v. State, 696 S.E.2d 79 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “7, 7-8 (1) ( 550 SE2d 111 ) (2001) (speed-detecting device admissible under OCGA § 40-14-17); Gentry v. State, 213 Ga.”
Grinstead v. State, 605 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “7 ( 550 SE2d 111 ) (2001) (speed-detecting device admissible under OCGA § 40-14-17). Furthermore, we have other concerns about the trial court’s reliance on Cheatwood for the proposition that the test employed in this case is a procedure that has been established with verifiable…”
In the Interest of J. D. S., 615 S.E.2d 627 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “argues that this evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, specifically asserting that the state failed to provide a *577 foundation for the laser detection evidence. The only foundation required for the entry of such evidence is the introduction of a certified copy…”
In the Interest of B. D. S., 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “6 Instead, the admissibility of evidence of speed obtained by a laser detection device is governed by OCGA § 40-14-17. The only foundation required for the entry of such evidence is the introduction into evidence of a certified copy of the DPS’s list of approved laser speed…”
In Re Bds, 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “[6] Instead, the admissibility of evidence of speed obtained by a laser detection device is governed by OCGA § 40-14-17. The only foundation required for the entry of such evidence is the introduction into evidence of a certified copy of the DPS's list of approved laser speed…”
Michael C. Frasard v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “8 (c) OCGA § 40-14-17 provides: Evidence of speed based on a speed detection device using the speed timing principle of laser which is of a model that has been approved by the Department of Public Safety shall be considered scientifically acceptable and reliable as a speed…”
Sapp v. the State, 791 S.E.2d 201 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Further, OCGA § 40-14-17 provides: “Evidence of speed based on a speed detection device .”
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.