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: 904-383-7448Evidence 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.
(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.)
- 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).
- 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).
- 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).
- 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 944 et seq.
- 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 1641 et seq., 1650 et seq.
- Presumption and burden of proof of accuracy of scientific and mechanical 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.
No results found for Georgia Code 40-14-9.