O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 40-14-9 (2019)

Certain evidence inadmissible; use of device on hill

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
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.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Evidence obtained by county or municipal law enforcement officers in using speed detection devices within 300 feet of a reduction of a speed limit inside an incorporated municipality or within 600 feet of a reduction of a speed limit outside an incorporated municipality or consolidated city-county government shall be inadmissible in the prosecution of a violation of any municipal ordinance, county ordinance, or state law regulating speed; nor shall such evidence be admissible in the prosecution of a violation as aforesaid when such violation has occurred within 30 days following a reduction of the speed limit in the area where the violation took place, except that this 30 day limitation shall not apply to a speeding violation within a highway work zone, as defined in Code Section 40-6-188, or in an area with variable speed limits, as defined in Code Section 40-6-182. No speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, or campus law enforcement officers on any portion of any highway which has a grade in excess of 7 percent.

History

(Ga. L. 1968, p. 425, § 6; Ga. L. 1970, p. 435, § 5; Ga. L. 1978, p. 2256, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 771, § 2; Ga. L. 1989, p. 586, § 1; Ga. L. 2003, p. 450, § 6; Ga. L. 2010, p. 442, § 6/HB 1174.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Proof device not used on hill required. - Given the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 40-14-9, proof that a speed detection device was not employed on a portion of a highway having a grade in excess of seven percent is a condition imposed by the law for the results of the radar test to be admissible. Carver v. State, 208 Ga. App. 405, 430 S.E.2d 790 (1993). Claim that grade exceeded seven percent not proven. - When a defendant was convicted of speeding after the defendant was stopped by an officer using a speed detection device and claimed that the angle of the street in the area where the defendant was arrested showed greater than a seven percent grade, the defendant did not show that this method

of measuring the street’s grade was an acceptable method, the officer’s unrebutted testimony was that the area where the device was used was level, and the results of the speed detection device were cumulative of the officer’s unassisted observation of the defendant’s speed, which alone was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s conviction. Ferguson v. State, 263 Ga. App. 40, 587 S.E.2d 195 (2003). 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).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 944 et seq. C.J.S. - 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 1641 et seq., 1650 et seq. ALR. - Presumption and burden of proof of accuracy of scientific and mechan-

ical instruments for measuring speed, temperature, time, and the like, 21 A.L.R.2d 1200. Proof, by radar or other mechanical or electronic devices, of violation of speed regulations, 47 A.L.R.3d 822.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: Carver v. State, 430 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carver v. State, 430 S.E.2d 790 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 36× “Defendant also argues the radar evidence was improperly admitted because the evidence did not show it was obtained in compliance with OCGA § 40-14-9, which states: "No speed detection device shall be employed by county, municipal, or campus law enforcement officers on any…”
Thomas v. State, 560 S.E.2d 745 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Thomas’s main contention was that the radar unit had been used within 300 feet of a reduction of speed limit within a municipality, in violation of OCGA § 40-14-9, and that any evidence obtained as a result was inadmissible.”
Ferguson v. State, 587 S.E.2d 195 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “The officer testified that the road was level at the point where the radar was used to measure Ferguson’s speed. 1. In his first enumeration of error, Ferguson claims the court erred when it found the grade of the road at issue to be below seven percent.”
Finlon v. State, 491 S.E.2d 458 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “We reject Finlon’s contention that the speeding charge must be reversed because the State failed to establish that (1) he received notice of his right to have the radar device’s accuracy tested; (2) signs warning of the use of speed detection devices were posted, OCGA § 40-14-6;…”
In the Interest of B. D. S., 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “argues that the officer unlawfully operated the laser speed detection device within 600 feet of a reduction in speed limit sign, in violation of OCGA § 40-14-9. 4 Sergeant Pendergast testified that he was at least 600 feet from the speed limit sign.”
Charles Brown v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “However, the officer testified that the posted speed limit does not change from 65 4 miles per hour on this portion of Interstate 285, and OCGA § 40-14-93 refers only to “a reduction of a speed limit.”
In Re Bds, 603 S.E.2d 488 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “argues that the officer unlawfully operated the laser speed detective device within 600 feet of a reduction in speed limit sign, in violation of OCGA § 40-14-9. [4] Sergeant Pendergast testified that he was at least 600 feet from the speed limit sign.”
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…”
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.