Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 40-5-29 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 40 MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

Section 5. Drivers' Licenses, 40-5-1 through 40-5-179.

ARTICLE 2 ISSUANCE, EXPIRATION, AND RENEWAL OF LICENSES

40-5-29. License to be carried and exhibited on demand.

  1. Every licensee shall have his or her driver's license in his or her immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle.Any person who has a receipt issued by the department reflecting issuance, renewal, replacement, or reinstatement of his or her driver's license in his or her immediate possession shall be considered to have such license in his or her immediate possession if such is confirmed to be valid by the department or through the Georgia Crime Information Center.The department may establish by rule and regulation the term of such receipt.Notwithstanding the foregoing, no receipt issued by the department shall be accepted as proof of such person's identity for any other purpose, including but not limited to proof of voter identification or proof of age for purposes of purchasing alcoholic beverages.
  2. Every licensee shall display his or her license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. A refusal to comply with such demand not only shall constitute a violation of this subsection but shall also give rise to a presumption of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section and of Code Section 40-5-20.
  3. A person convicted of a violation of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be fined no more than $10.00 if he or she produces in court a license theretofore issued to him or her and valid at the time of his or her arrest.

(Ga. L. 1937, p. 322, art. 4, § 7; Ga. L. 1951, p. 598, § 4; Code 1933, § 68B-210, enacted by Ga. L. 1975, p. 1008, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 4; Ga. L. 2014, p. 710, § 2-2/SB 298.)

Cross references.

- Requirement of compliance with lawful order or direction of officer authorized to direct, control, or regulate traffic, § 40-6-2.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Legislative intent in reducing the punishment for failure of a licensee to have a driver's license in the licenser's possession when operating a vehicle to a fine of ten dollars precluded imposition of a sentence to a consecutive 12 months' probation. Crain v. State, 197 Ga. App. 729, 399 S.E.2d 289 (1990).

Presumption upon failure to have license in possession.

- There existed no reversible error when the defendant was accused of (and subsequently convicted of) driving a vehicle without a valid license (see O.C.G.A. § 40-5-20), but the offense on which the jury was charged concerned the failure to have a valid license in one's possession at all times while operating a motor vehicle and the presumption thereby raised that the driver had no valid license. Roberts v. State, 173 Ga. App. 614, 327 S.E.2d 743 (1985).

Limiting O.C.G.A. § 40-5-20(a)'s safe harbor to the production at trial of a Georgia driver's license was a rational part of the enforcement scheme, allowing the presumption created by a violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-5-29(b) to be automatically rebutted only when the evidence that the driver in fact had a valid license when cited was most indisputable and readily evaluated by the factfinder. Castillo-Solis v. State, 292 Ga. 755, 740 S.E.2d 583 (2013).

Presumption upon failure to produce license upon request.

- Unexplained refusal of the defendant to produce a license upon request by the officer authorizes the presumption that the defendant does not possess a valid license. Smith v. State, 158 Ga. App. 663, 281 S.E.2d 631, overruled on other grounds, Tanner v. State, 160 Ga. App. 266, 287 S.E.2d 268 (1981).

Defeating presumption of no valid license.

- While a failure to show a license on request of a law enforcement officer may give rise to the presumption that the driver does not have a valid license, this presumption is defeated when the license is produced at the trial. McCook v. State, 145 Ga. App. 3, 243 S.E.2d 289 (1978).

Officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion for stop.

- With regard to the charge of driving without a license against the defendant, the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion to suppress because the officer lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion for making the stop since the officer completely failed to note the unlicensed owner's name and gender as listed in the license plate search report, which did not match the defendant's gender, and made no attempt to observe the driver's gender prior to the stop. State v. Martinez-Arvealo, 340 Ga. App. 271, 797 S.E.2d 181 (2017).

Driving without a license gives probable cause to arrest.

- Because an officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the scene of an accident for driving without the defendant's driver's license in the defendant's immediate possession, O.C.G.A. § 40-5-29, the officer's search of the defendant's person as the officer placed the defendant in handcuffs and in the squad car was a valid search incident to an arrest pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-5-1. State v. McCloud, 344 Ga. App. 595, 810 S.E.2d 668 (2018).

Charge to jury.

- Because the defendant was being tried for "driving without a valid license" under O.C.G.A. § 40-5-20, giving a clarifying charge to the jury on O.C.G.A. § 40-5-29 was not error. Duckworth v. State, 223 Ga. App. 250, 477 S.E.2d 336 (1996), aff'd, 268 Ga. 566, 492 S.E.2d 201 (1997).

Jury question.

- When there was conflicting testimony as to whether the arresting officer asked to see defendant's driver's license, although the production of a valid license at trial operated to defeat the statutory presumption under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 40-5-29, the charge of operating without a valid driver's license was proper and the conflicting evidence required submission to the jury. Johnson v. State, 165 Ga. App. 773, 302 S.E.2d 626 (1983).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction since: (1) after the defendant was stopped at a roadblock, an officer asked the defendant for defendant's license and proof of insurance and the defendant responded by asking what the defendant had done; (2) the defendant was told that the defendant had done nothing, but that the papers still needed to be checked; (3) the defendant then stated that the defendant had not committed a crime and asked for the officer's badge number; (4) the officer gave this information to the defendant and then told the defendant that the defendant needed to produce the defendant's papers and that the defendant would otherwise be arrested; (5) the defendant then asked for the code section which permitted the officer to ask for the defendant's license; and (6) after this went on for several minutes, another officer came over and arrested the defendant. Johnson v. State, 234 Ga. App. 218, 507 S.E.2d 13 (1998).

Cited in Thomason v. Harper, 162 Ga. App. 441, 289 S.E.2d 773 (1982); Coop v. State, 186 Ga. App. 518, 367 S.E.2d 836 (1988); Gibson v. State, 187 Ga. App. 769, 371 S.E.2d 413 (1988); Ward v. State, 188 Ga. App. 372, 373 S.E.2d 65 (1988); Rogers v. State, 206 Ga. App. 654, 426 S.E.2d 209 (1992); Rocha v. State, 250 Ga. App. 209, 551 S.E.2d 82 (2001); Gantt v. State, 263 Ga. App. 102, 587 S.E.2d 255 (2003).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 7A Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 105, 106.

C.J.S.

- 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, §§ 347, 348.

ALR.

- Validity and construction of statute making it a criminal offense for the operator of a motor vehicle not to carry or display his operator's license or the vehicle registration certificate, 6 A.L.R.3d 506.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 40-5-29

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Castillo-Solis v. State, 292 Ga. 755 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 25, 2013 | 740 S.E.2d 583, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 768

...[2] Any person who is a resident of this state for 30 days shall obtain a Georgia driver’s license before operating a motor vehicle in this state. [3] Any violation of this subsection shall be punished as provided in Code Section 40-5-121, except the violation of driving with an expired license, or a violation of Code Section 40-5-29 [failure to carry driver’s license when operating a motor vehicle] or if such person produces in court a valid driver’s license issued by this state to such person, he or she shall not be guilty of such offenses....
...punishment for subsequent violations) under OCGA § 40-5-121, but with three exceptions.6 First, a violation resulting from driving with a once-valid but now-expired license is not subject to the enhanced punishment. Second, conduct violating OCGA § 40-5-29 is not subject to the enhanced punishment. Subsection (a) of OCGA § 40-5-29 requires *759every “licensee” to keep his driver’s license “in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle,” and subsection (b) requires a licensee to “display his license upon the demand of a law enforcement officer.” Refusal to comply with an officer’s demand not only violates OCGA § 40-5-29 (b), but also shall “give rise to a presumption of a violation of [OCGA § 40-5-29 (a)] and of Code Section 40-5-20.” A violation of OCGA § 40-5-29 (a) is punished as a misdemeanor, see OCGA § 40-5-120 (4) (default penalty provision for traffic offenses), unless the cited person “produces in court a license theretofore issued to him and valid at the time of his arrest,” in which case the penalty is a fine of no more than $10, see OCGA § 40-5-29 (c). The final and interrelated exemption from the enhanced punishment for OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) violations is what the Court of Appeals called the “safe-harbor provision” at the end of the third sentence....
...ed, but to be found not guilty ofthe OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) violation, thereby receiving no punishment at all under that statute (although if he was driving without his license in his immediate possession, he may still be found guilty of violating OCGA § 40-5-29 (a) and punished accordingly).7 The safe harbor does not allow a person cited for driving without a valid Georgia driver’s license to escape guilt by obtaining such a license after the fact and presenting it at trial....
...Instead, the safe harbor simply allows a person who is validly licensed to drive by this state to bring that license to court as evidence to readily and conclusively demonstrate that he is not, in fact, guilty of violating OCGA § 40-5-20 (a), thereby rebutting the statutory presumption of such a violation created by OCGA § 40-5-29 (b) due to his failure to have the license in the vehicle when demanded by the officer.8 *760Appellant’s contention that a driver may avoid punishment for a violation of OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) by obtaining a Georgia driver’s license afte...
...and elsewhere, resulting from the careless, incompetent, and unlawful operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles along the roads and highways”). Requiring licensees to keep their licenses in their immediate possession when driving, see OCGA § 40-5-29 (a), and creating a presumption that drivers who refuse to present their licenses on demand of a law enforcement officer do not have a valid license, see OCGA § 40-5-29 (b), are rational means of enforcing the licensing requirement. Limiting OCGA § 40-5-20 (a)’s safe harbor to the production at trial of a Georgia driver’s license is also a rational part of the enforcement scheme, allowing the presumption created by a violation of OCGA § 40-5-29 (b) to be automatically rebutted only where the evidence that the driver in fact had a valid license when cited is most indisputable and readily evaluated by the factfinder....
...ther states and countries. In other words, the safe-harbor provision merely establishes a straightforward way for Georgia residents with valid Georgia drivers’ licenses not in their immediate possession when stopped by the police to rebut the OCGA § 40-5-29 (b) presumption and defeat OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) charges, while still allowing both Georgians and nonresidents to defend against such charges in any other way, which would include the production in court of a valid driver’s license by a nonresident, see footnote 8 above....
...addition thereto a fine of not less than $2,500.00 nor more than $5,000.00. By comparison, if a person drives without having a driver’s license of any sort, valid or invalid, he is not a “licensee” and does not come within the scope of OCGA § 40-5-29....
...A driver may also defend a citation for violating OCGA § 40-5-20 (a) by offering other evidence, tangible or testimonial, that he had a valid license, from Georgia or another jurisdiction, at the time he was stopped, to rebut the presumption created by OCGA § 40-5-29 (b) and prevent the State from proving the no-valid-license element of the violation....