Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1978, p. 2254, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 771, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1281, § 8; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1057, § 4/HB 978.)
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, inserted ", except for an automated traffic enforcement safety device as provided for under Code Section 40-14-18," in the first sentences of subsections (a) and (b); and added subsection (c).
Classification drawn by subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 40-14-5 between county and municipal officers, who must offer to prove to suspected speeders the accuracy of their radar speed detectors, and state officers, who need not make such an offer, is rationally related to the legitimate governmental objective of preventing local law enforcement officers from using radar to operate local revenue producing "speed traps." Wiggins v. State, 249 Ga. 302, 290 S.E.2d 427 (1982).
- Although O.C.G.A. § 40-14-5 requires a law enforcement officer using a radar device to notify each person against whom the officer intends to make a case that the person has a right to request the officer to test the radar device for accuracy, the right does not extend to a test of the tuning forks or any other instrument used to test the radar device; nor does the statute entitle the defendant to observe the accuracy test performed on the radar device. Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993).
- Defendant must invoke an evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of radar evidence in order to preserve the adverse ruling on defendant's objection for appeal. Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993).
- In view of the defendant's admission that the defendant was "doing 50 or 51" in a 35 m.p.h. zone, any error the trial judge may have committed in considering the results of a radar check were considered harmless, notwithstanding the defendant's assertion that the arresting officer failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-5(b). Carver v. State, 198 Ga. App. 254, 401 S.E.2d 300 (1990).
In a speeding and eluding prosecution, though an officer might not have advised the defendant of the defendant's right under O.C.G.A. § 40-14-5(b) to test a radar device for accuracy, any error in admitting the radar evidence was harmless as the defendant admitted speeding and the passenger said the car was traveling about 75 to 80 miles per hour (mph), which exceeded the 65 mph speed limit. Segel v. State, 293 Ga. App. 506, 667 S.E.2d 670 (2008).
- There was no support for the defendant's argument that failure to properly prove the foundation for admission of radar evidence should result in a motion to suppress since the only issue was the legitimacy of the initial stop, not whether the radar evidence was admissible without adequate foundation on the substantive charge of speeding. Hennings v. State, 236 Ga. App. 473, 512 S.E.2d 357 (1999).
Cited in Quinn v. State, 234 Ga. App. 360, 506 S.E.2d 890 (1998).
- Subsection (b) requires each county, municipal, or campus law enforcement officer making cases by use of radar to advise a citizen, prior to issuance of a citation, of the right to a test of the device for accuracy and that the officer must, upon request, perform such a test; however, the officer is not required by law to permit the citizen access to the patrol vehicle in order to witness the officer conducting the test. 1991 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U91-7.
No results found for Georgia Code 40-14-5.