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 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.
History
(Ga. L. 1978, p. 2254, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 771, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 308, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Failure to establish all of foundation elements. - 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 waived claim of error regarding proper foundation. - 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). Certificate of accuracy dated within one year prior to the use of radar. - 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). Administrative certificate sufficient for county police. - 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). Uncertified technician. - 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).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases, 1992–2019 · leading case:
Brown v. State, 485 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1997).
Brown v. State, 485 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 4× “at 306 (2) (c), and concluded that although it was “obvious” records containing radar device certificates were kept to be used in speeding cases in which radar speed, determinations were to be introduced in evidence, “we nonetheless hold that they are records ‘made in the…”
Nairon v. State, 449 S.E.2d 634 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Nairon argues the State failed to show that the county law en *78 forcement agency possessed a license to operate the device in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules as required by OCGA § 40-14-4. See Wiggins v. State, 249 Ga.”
Frasard v. State, 745 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “In four enumerations of error, Frasard argues that the State failed (a) to show compliance with OCGA § 40-14-7, which mandates that no stationary speed detection device shall be used if not visible to a driver “for a distance of at least 500 feet”; (b) to show compliance with…”
Odum v. State, 564 S.E.2d 490 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “The defendant appeals, contending that the city court erred in admitting evidence of his speed for noncompliance with OCGA § 40-14-4, i.e., the State neither proved that the Federal Communications Commission licensed the City of Atlanta Police Department to use the laser speed…”
Keller v. State, 608 S.E.2d 697 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, Keller claims that the State failed to lay a proper foundation for this evidence pursuant to OCGA § 40-14-4, which sets forth license and certification requirements for speed detection devices.”
Brooker v. State, 426 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 10× “” The DPS permits also provide that the Cobb County Board of Commissioners had shown “compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations.”
Hardaway v. State, 427 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “The third requirement also was modified somewhat by the 1989 amendment of OCGA § 40-14-4, eliminating the need to show the certifying technician’s Second Class Radiotelephone License from the Federal Communications Commission and instead requiring that the technician is…”
Brown v. State, 420 S.E.2d 35 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “See OCGA § 40-14-4. Contrary to the State’s contention, appellant’s failure to interpose a timely objection on this basis at trial does not preclude him from raising this issue on appeal, for this court has held that establishment of the necessary foundation for radar detection…”
In the Interest of B. D. S., 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “argues that the trial court erred by admitting the laser detection evidence because the device was not certified in accordance with OCGA § 40-14-4 and its accuracy was not determined by a “moving standard test.”
In Re Bds, 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “argues that the trial court erred by admitting the laser detection evidence because the device was not certified in accordance with OCGA § 40-14-4 and its accuracy was not determined by a "moving standard test.”
Charles Brown v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Brown first argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the laser speed detection device because the State did not present evidence satisfying the certification requirements of OCGA § 40-14-4. As we have previously explained, “[t]he certification requirements of…”
Michael C. Frasard v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “In four enumerations of error, Frasard argues that the State failed (a) to show compliance with OCGA § 40-14-7, which mandates that no stationary speed detection device shall be used if not visible to a driver “for a distance of at least 500 feet”; (b) to show compliance with…”
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.