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: 904-383-7448Except 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.
(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.)
The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, substituted "Except as provided for in Code Section 40-14-18, no" for "No" at the beginning of this Code section.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 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.
- 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1641 et seq.
No results found for Georgia Code 40-14-7.