Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448No state, county, municipal, or campus law enforcement agency may use speed detection devices unless the agency possesses a license in compliance with Federal Communications Commission rules, and unless each device, before being placed in service and annually after being placed in service, is certified for compliance by a technician possessing a certification as required by the Department of Public Safety.
(Ga. L. 1978, p. 2254, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 771, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 308, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1.)
- When the defendant was convicted of speeding, the defendant was correct that the state failed to establish all of the foundational elements that are applicable to state troopers, such as the introduction of evidence as to the State Patrol's licensing and annual certification of its radar devices. Brown v. State, 204 Ga. App. 629, 420 S.E.2d 35 (1992), overruled on other grounds, Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993).
- Defendant did not show that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the results of a radar speed detection device as the defendant objected to admission of the results for lack of "foundation," but did not state what the foundation should be; accordingly, the defendant waived a claim of error. Keller v. State, 271 Ga. App. 79, 608 S.E.2d 697 (2004).
- State met the requirements of the statute by producing a copy of the certificate of accuracy dated within one year prior to the use of the radar in the case. Gamble v. State, 237 Ga. App. 414, 515 S.E.2d 422 (1999).
- When a radar detection device was operated by a county officer, the administrative permit issued by the Department of Public Safety presumptively complied with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-4 and an actual Federal Communications Commission license did not need to be produced to demonstrate compliance. Brooker v. State, 206 Ga. App. 563, 426 S.E.2d 39 (1992); Nairon v. State, 215 Ga. App. 76, 449 S.E.2d 634 (1994).
- When the manufacturer's certification of accuracy and correctness of operation failed to show that the compliance check was done by a technician possessing certification as required by the Department of Public Safety, the state failed to show compliance with the third foundational requirement contained in Wiggins, and the admission of the radar evidence of speed was error. Hardaway v. State, 207 Ga. App. 150, 427 S.E.2d 527 (1993).
Cited in Gray v. State, 156 Ga. App. 117, 274 S.E.2d 115 (1980); Wiggins v. State, 249 Ga. 302, 290 S.E.2d 427 (1982).
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-06-02
Citation: 485 S.E.2d 486, 268 Ga. 76, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1925, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 279
Snippet: at 304-305(2)(a), 290 S.E.2d 427. See OCGA § 40-14-4. We recognized that the "primary purpose [of a
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1984-09-06
Citation: 253 Ga. 257, 320 S.E.2d 530, 1984 Ga. LEXIS 882
Snippet: acts of the General Assembly. E.g., OCGA §§ 14-4-40, 14-4-80, 14-4-81, 14-4-100, 14-4-120. “[T]he new [1968]