Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 40-14-4 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 40 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

Section 14. Use of Speed Detection Devices and Red Light Cameras, 40-14-1 through 40-14-26.

ARTICLE 2 SPEED DETECTION DEVICES

40-14-4. Compliance with rules of Federal Communications Commission; certification of devices.

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.

(Ga. L. 1978, p. 2254, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 771, § 1; Ga. L. 1988, p. 308, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1.)

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).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 40-14-4

Total Results: 2  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Brown v. State, 485 S.E.2d 486 (Ga. 1997).

Cited 44 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 2, 1997 | 268 Ga. 76, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 1925

...In Wiggins this Court addressed a hearsay challenge to the admission of certification of a radar speed detection device, proof of which is required in order to render admissible evidence of speed gained by use of the speed detection device. Id. at 304-305(2)(a), 290 S.E.2d 427. See OCGA § 40-14-4....
...[2] Although Brown *489 argues the "thoroughly" and "good" language in the OCGA § 40-6-392(f) certificate distinguishes it from the radar device certificate in Wiggins, because the latter indicates solely that it has been "certified for compliance," OCGA § 40-14-4, and thus does not affirmatively state the radar device is "in good working order," the absence of such language is irrelevant given the inference that follows from the fact that a radar device that has been certified and is thus authorize...
Copy

Long v. Atlanta & West Point R.R., 253 Ga. 257 (Ga. 1984).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 6, 1984 | 320 S.E.2d 530