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.
(a) No driver of any motor vehicle shall operate the vehicle upon the public streets, highways, public or private driveways, airport runways, or parking lots in such a manner as to create a danger to persons or property by intentionally and unnecessarily causing the vehicle to move in a zigzag or circular course or to gyrate or spin around, except to avoid a collision or injury or damage. (b) The offenses described in this Code section shall be sufficiently identified on any traffic ticket, warrant, accusation, or indictment when referred to as ‘‘laying drags.’’ (c) This Code section shall not apply to drivers operating vehicles in or on any raceway, drag strip, or similar place customarily and lawfully used for such purposes. (d) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
History
(Ga. L. 1970, p. 549, §§ 1-4; Ga. L. 1990, p. 2048, § 5.)
Annotations
Cross references. - Suspension of driver’s license for conviction for racing on highways or streets, § 40-5-54. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Even though defendant’s behavior did not technically violate O.C.G.A. § 40-6-251, the fact that the defendant was driving in such a manner as to endanger others reasonably justified an investigative stop. State v. Armstrong, 223 Ga. App. 350, 477 S.E.2d 635 (1996). Evidence insufficient to support conviction. - Since no evidence showed that the defendant was ‘‘laying drags,’’ that is, that the defendant caused the
defendant’s vehicle to move in a zigzag or circular course, or to gyrate or spin around, the evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for ‘‘laying drags’’ and the trial court’s judgment against the defendant for that offense had to be reversed. Hale v. State, 262 Ga. App. 710, 586 S.E.2d 372 (2003). Cited in Phillips v. State, 324 Ga. App. 728, 751 S.E.2d 526 (2013).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, §§ 921 et seq.,
1069. 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, §§ 1, 5, 19, 26 et seq.
C.J.S. - 60A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 679. 61A C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 1642 et seq. ALR. - What conduct in driving an automobile amounts to wantonness, willfulness, or the like, precluding defense of contributory negligence, 119 A.L.R. 654. Motor vehicle operator’s criminal responsibility for homicide where he and
deceased were racing, though accused’s car was not otherwise involved in the collision or incident, 82 A.L.R.2d 463. Validity, construction, and application of criminal statutes specifically directed against racing of automobiles on public streets or highways (drag racing), 24 A.L.R.3d 1286.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2023 · leading case:
State v. Armstrong, 477 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Armstrong, 477 S.E.2d 635 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Armstrong was accused of driving under the influence of drugs to the extent that he was a less safe driver, OCGA § 40-6,-391 (a) (2), driving with unlawful drugs present in blood or urine, OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (6), possession of marijuana, OCGA § 16-13-30 (a), and “laying drag,”…”
State v. Sledge, 591 S.E.2d 479 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The State charged Eric Cleatus Sledge with speeding, “laying drags” in violation of OCGA § 40-6-251, and driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that it was less safe for him to drive.”
Polizzotto v. State, 547 S.E.2d 390 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Jeffrey Polizzotto was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”) to the extent that he was a less safe driver, OCGA § 40-6-391 (a) (1), and “laying drags” in violation of OCGA § 40-6-251. Prior to trial, Polizzotto filed a motion to suppress evidence of his…”
Phillips v. State, 751 S.E.2d 526 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 40-6-251 (a). See Davenport v. State, 289 Ga.”
Griffis v. State, 673 S.E.2d 348 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “14 Accordingly, we discern no basis for reversal of the reckless driving conviction.”
Polk v. State, 700 S.E.2d 839 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2 The State dismissed the offense of “laying drags” (OCGA § 40-6-251) prior to the bench trial.”
Smith v. State, 495 S.E.2d 624 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “, appeals his conviction after a bench trial of violating OCGA § 40-6-251, laying drags. Smith asserts 12 *152 enumerations of error.”
In the Interest of B. C. G., 508 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “at 350 (citing OCGA § 40-6-251). Nonetheless, the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant because “[t]he totality of circumstances .”
Hale v. State, 586 S.E.2d 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 8× “Following a bench trial, the trial judge found Traci Hale guilty of “laying drags,” defined in OCGA § 40-6-251 as causing a vehicle to *711 move in a zigzag or circular course or to gyrate or spin around.”
In Interest of Bcg, 508 S.E.2d 239 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “2d 635 (citing OCGA § 40-6-251). Nonetheless, the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop the defendant because "[t]he totality of circumstances .”
United States v. Jamal Nicholl (11th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Acting on standing orders to crack down on any reckless driving, Toombs pulled over the Challenger and arrested Nicholl for “laying drag,” in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-251. Toombs tes- tified that, in his understanding, laying drag meant “just burning your tires to the point…”
— 40-6-251(a) — 1 case
United States v. Jamal Nicholl (11th Cir. 2023).
“Acting on standing orders to crack down on any reckless driving, Toombs pulled over the Challenger and arrested Nicholl for “laying drag,” in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-251. Toombs tes- tified that, in his understanding, laying drag meant “just burning your tires to the point…”
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.