Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1968, p. 425, § 5; Ga. L. 1970, p. 435, § 4; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1281, § 9; Ga. L. 2003, p. 450, § 5; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1057, § 5/HB 978.)
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, added subsection (c).
- Although there is evidence that some sites on the city limits of the municipality should have had signs but did not, since there is also evidence that other locations contained signs comporting with the statute, incomplete compliance with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6 does not require exclusion of evidence gathered by use of a speed detection device. Ferguson v. State, 163 Ga. App. 171, 292 S.E.2d 87 (1982).
Evidence of speeding was admissible even though the city was not in total literal compliance with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6 that signs be erected on every highway at the point on the highway which intersects the corporate limits of the city. Royston v. State, 166 Ga. App. 386, 304 S.E.2d 732 (1983).
When a defendant convicted of speeding claimed there was no evidence that the public was put on notice that speed detection devices were in use near the location where the defendant was stopped, under O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6(a), incomplete compliance with this provision, requiring the posting of warnings that speed detection devices were in use, did not require the exclusion of evidence obtained by the use of speed detection devices. Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga. App. 40, 587 S.E.2d 195 (2003).
Despite the defendant's claim that the state failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6, the officer's testimony that the defendant had been speeding was admissible because the officer testified that the officer verified the existence and extent of a 35 mph speed limit zone at the county line by riding on both sides of that line and physically verifying the posted speed limits in the area. Frasard v. State, 322 Ga. App. 468, 745 S.E.2d 716 (2013).
- O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6 requires that a speed detection device itself be more than 500 feet from the county or municipal boundary, but does not forbid the penetration of a radar beam into the 500-foot zone. State v. Vickery, 184 Ga. App. 468, 361 S.E.2d 678, cert. denied, 184 Ga. App. 910, 361 S.E.2d 678 (1987).
- O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6 is not applicable to state law enforcement officers and therefore although the radar was not operated within 500 feet of a radar speed device warning sign, such failure would not invalidate the radar evidence. Walker v. State, 204 Ga. App. 559, 420 S.E.2d 17, cert. denied, 204 Ga. App. 922, 420 S.E.2d 17 (1992).
Because a trooper was employed by the state, and not a county, municipality, college, or university, the limitations under O.C.G.A. § 40-14-6 did not apply. Wilshin v. State, 289 Ga. App. 683, 658 S.E.2d 224 (2008).
- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 271.
- 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 28 et seq., 68 et seq. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1641 et seq.
No results found for Georgia Code 40-14-6.