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

O.C.G.A. § 42-5-14 (2019)

Establishment of guard lines and signs at state or county correctional institutions

✓ 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

Guard lines shall be established by the warden, superintendent, or his designated representative in charge at the various state or county correctional institutions in the same manner that land lines are established, except that, at each corner of the lines, signs must be used on which shall be plainly stamped or written: “Guard line of .” Signs shall also be placed at all entrances and exits for vehicles and pedestrians at the institutions and at such intervals along the guard lines as will reasonably place all persons approaching the guard lines on notice of the location of the institutions.

History

Ga. L. 1903, p. 71, § 3; Penal Code 1910, § 1231; Code 1933, § 77-403; Ga. L. 1961, p. 45, § 1. Administrative rules and regulations. Departmental Operations, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Board of Corrections, Chapter 125-2.

Institutional and Center Operations, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Board of Corrections, Chapter 125-3. Institutional, Center, and Program Services, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Board of Corrections, Chapter 125-4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lowe, 328 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lowe, 328 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Although this parking lot was within a clearly delineated “guard line” surrounding the institute, see OCGA §§ 42-5-14, 42-5-15, it was unfenced, and access thereto by the public was not restricted.”
The State v. Fowle., 819 S.E.2d 719 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" OCGA § 42-5-14. 2 Although the record contains no testimony from the arresting officer, the trial court concluded that the officer failed to advise Fowle of his right to remain silent under Miranda v.”
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.