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.
Except as provided for in Code Section 40-14-18, no stationary speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, college, or university law enforcement officers where the vehicle from which the device is operated is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists or is otherwise not visible for a distance of at least 500 feet.
History
(Ga. L.
1968, p. 425, § 7; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1968, § 1; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2785, § 30; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1057, § 6/HB 978.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Legislative intent. - General Assembly, in enacting Ga. L. 1968, p. 425, § 7 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7), was concerned with eradicating the so-called ‘‘speed trap’’ wherein unwary motorists are lured into a speed trap designed not so much to control traffic but to generate fees from traffic fines. Darden v. Rapkin, 148 Ga. App. 127, 251 S.E.2d 94 (1978). Stationary police radar devices are the concern of Ga. L. 1968, p. 425, § 7 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7). Darden v. Rapkin, 148 Ga. App. 127, 251 S.E.2d 94 (1978). Proof of visibility. - State is required to present the necessary foundation, including proof of the visibility of the police vehicle as required by O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7, before evidence of speed gained through the use of a speed detection device is admissible. Johnson v. State, 189 Ga. App. 192, 375 S.E.2d 290 (1988), overruled on other grounds, Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993).
Objection to radar evidence required at trial level. - Defendant must invoke an evidentiary ruling on the admissibility of radar evidence in order to preserve the adverse ruling on the defendant’s objection for appeal. Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993). Speed detection device inadmissible. - Defendant’s argument that an officer violated O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7 by obstructing the officer’s vehicle from the view of approaching motorists was overruled because the trial court found the speed-detection device results inadmissible, and the defendant’s conviction was not based on the use of such a device. Stone v. State, 257 Ga. App. 492, 571 S.E.2d 488 (2002). Cited in Wiggins v. State, 249 Ga. 302, 290 S.E.2d 427 (1982); Hernandez-Lopez v. State, 319 Ga. App. 662, 738 S.E.2d 116 (2013).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Applicability. - Visibility restrictions of Ga. L. 1968, p. 425, § 7 (see now O.C.G.A. § 40-14-7) do not apply to the Department of Public Safety. 1975 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 75-10.
Ga. L. 1968, p. 425 (see now O.C.G.A. Ch. 14, T. 40) places no restrictions on the use of Vascar and radar by the Department of Public Safety. 1975 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 75-10.
RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1641 et seq.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1987–2013 · leading case:
Carver v. State, 430 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
Carver v. State, 430 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 12× “In regard to the conditions imposed by OCGA § 40-14-7, the State presented sufficient evidence from which the finder of fact could determine that the vehicle in which the radar was located was visible *407 to approaching motorists for a distance of at least 500 feet.”
Stone v. State, 571 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Stone claims that the officer violated OCGA § 40-14-7 by obstructing his vehicle from the view of approaching motorists.”
Walker v. State, 420 S.E.2d 17 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 4× “842 -843 ( 406 SE2d 236 ) (1991), this court reviewed OCGA § 40-14-7 regarding the visibility of radar equipped vehicles.”
Frasard v. State, 745 S.E.2d 716 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “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…”
Hernandez-Lopez v. State, 738 S.E.2d 116 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “150, 151 ( 427 SE2d 527 ) (1993); see also OCGA § 40-14-7 (superseding a fifth requirement); Carver v.”
Johnson v. State, 375 S.E.2d 290 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “*193 After the State closed its case appellant testified that the road was dark and he could not see the police vehicle in which the radar detection equipment was being operated from 500 feet away, as required by OCGA § 40-14-7, offering in proof maps and photographs of the…”
State v. Cobb, 432 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “The trial judge indicated that he was familiar with the particular stretch of 1-75 under discussion and concluded, presumably based on his own experience, that the officer would not have been visible to Cobb in violation of OCGA § 40-14-7, which requires that the vehicle from…”
Patel v. State, 522 S.E.2d 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “Sergeant Gregory Gilder conducted field sobriety tests on Patel, all of which supported the conclusion that Patel was a less safe driver. At a pre-trial hearing, the readings from the radar unit were suppressed because the police car was not visible to Patel for the 500 feet…”
Hardaway v. State, 427 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “842 ( 406 SE2d 236 ) (1991), the fifth requirement listed in Wiggins no longer applies to state law enforcement officers, pursuant to a 1989 amendment of OCGA § 40-14-7. The third requirement also was modified somewhat by the 1989 amendment of OCGA § 40-14-4, eliminating the…”
Taylor v. State, 421 S.E.2d 104 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “A review of the record shows no evidence was presented to establish that the vehicle in which the detection device was operated in the case at hand was visible to approaching motorists for a distance of at least 500 feet, as required by OCGA § 40-14-7. “Contrary to the State’s…”
State v. Vickery, 361 S.E.2d 678 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 40-14-9 prohibits the use of speed detection devices within certain distances of a reduction in speed limit, and OCGA § 40-14-7 provides an additional safeguard to the motoring public by requiring that the police vehicle using a speed detection device be visible to…”
Michael C. Frasard v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “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.