Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448For the purposes of this subsection, a plea of nolo contendere shall constitute a conviction; and a conviction of any offense under the laws of any other state or territory of the United States which, if committed in this state, would be a violation of Code Section 40-6-391 shall be deemed a conviction of violating such Code section.
(Code 1981, §42-8-111, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 568, § 1; Ga. L. 1999, p. 391, § 12; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1457, § 6; Ga. L. 2001, p. 208, § 1-8; Ga. L. 2002, p. 415, § 42; Ga. L. 2003, p. 140, § 42; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 24-4/HB 501; Ga. L. 2011, p. 355, § 19/HB 269; Ga. L. 2012, p. 72, § 6/SB 236; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 42/HB 942; Ga. L. 2013, p. 878, § 3/HB 407; Ga. L. 2016, p. 323, § 1-7/HB 205; Ga. L. 2016, p. 443, § 8-7/SB 367; Ga. L. 2018, p. 1112, § 42/SB 365.)
The 2012 amendments. The first 2012 amendment, effective January 1, 2013, rewrote subsections (a) through (c), which read: "(a) In addition to any other provision of probation, upon a second or subsequent conviction of a resident of this state for violating Code Section 40-6-391 within five years, as measured from the dates of previous arrests for which convictions were obtained to the date of the current arrest for which a conviction is obtained, for which such person is granted probation, the court shall order as conditions of probation that:
"(1) Such person shall have installed and shall maintain in each motor vehicle registered in such person's name throughout the applicable six-month period prescribed by subsection (b) of Code Section 42-8-112 a functioning, certified ignition interlock device, unless the court exempts the person from the requirements of this paragraph based upon the court's determination that such requirements would subject the person to undue financial hardship; and
"(2) Such person shall have installed and shall maintain in any other motor vehicle to be driven by such person during the applicable six-month period prescribed by subsection (b) of Code Section 42-8-112 a functioning, certified ignition interlock device, and such person shall not during such six-month period drive any motor vehicle whatsoever that is not so equipped.
"For the purposes of this subsection, a plea of nolo contendere shall constitute a conviction; and a conviction of any offense under the law of another state or territory substantially conforming to any offense under Code Section 40-6-391 shall be deemed a conviction of violating said Code section.
"(b) Any resident of this state who is ordered to use an ignition interlock device, as a condition of probation, shall complete the DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Program and submit to the court or probation department a certificate of completion of the DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Program and certification of installation of a certified ignition interlock device to the extent required by subsection (a) of this Code section.
"(c) In the case of any person subject to the provisions of subsection (a) of this Code section, the court shall include in the record of conviction or violation submitted to the Department of Driver Services notice of the requirement for, and the period of the requirement for, the use of a certified ignition interlock device. Such notice shall specify any exemption from the installation requirements of paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this Code section and any vehicles subject to the installation requirements of paragraph (2) of said subsection. The records of the Department of Driver Services shall contain a record reflecting mandatory use of such device and the person's driver's license or limited driving permit shall contain a notation that the person may only operate a motor vehicle equipped with a functioning, certified ignition interlock device." The second 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, revised punctuation in subsection (f).
The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, substituted "one year" for "eight months" in paragraph (a)(1) and twice in paragraph (a)(2); substituted "two months" for "six months" in the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2); and added the third sentence in subsection (b). See editor's note for applicability.
The 2016 amendments. The first 2016 amendment, effective July 1, 2017, in subsection (a), substituted "provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 40-5-64.1" for "provided in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Code Section 40-6-64" in the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2); substituted "Code Section 40-5-1, a drug court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-15, a mental health court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-16, or a veterans court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-17" for "Code Section 40-5-1 or a drug court program" in paragraph (a)(3); and substituted the present provisions of the ending paragraph of subsection (a) for the former provisions, which read: "For the purposes of this subsection, a plea of nolo contendere shall constitute a conviction; and a conviction of any offense under the law of another state or territory substantially conforming to any offense under Code Section 40-6-391 shall be deemed a conviction of violating said Code section."; substituted "Code Sections 42-8-110.1 and 42-8-112" for "Code Section 42-8-112" in subsection (d); and substituted "prescribed in Code Section 40-5-64.1" for "prescribed for a limited driving permit in Code Section 40-5-64" in subsection (e). The second 2016 amendment, effective July 1, 2016, substituted ", a drug court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-15, a mental health court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-16, a veterans court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-17, or an operating under the influence court division in compliance with Code Section 15-1-19" for "or a drug court program in compliance with Code Section 15-1-15".
The 2018 amendment, effective May 8, 2018, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "in paragraph (2) of subsection (d)" for "in subsection (d)" in the last sentence of paragraph (a)(2).
- Periods of suspension; conditions to return of license, § 40-5-63.
Limited driving permits for certain offenders, § 40-5-64.
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2016, the "or" preceding "a veterans court division" in the middle of paragraph (a)(3) as enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 323, § 1-7/HB 205, effective July 1, 2017, was not given effect.
- Ga. L. 1999, p. 391, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "it is fitting to honor the memory of all victims of drunken driving and Heidi Marie Flye, Cathryn Nicole Flye, and Audrey Marie Flye in particular by strengthening the laws requiring the installation and use of ignition interlock devices."
Ga. L. 1999, p. 391, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as 'Heidi's Law.'"
Ga. L. 2013, p. 878, § 5/HB 407, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2013, and shall apply to offenses committed on or after such date."
- For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 139 (2016). For note on 1999 amendment to this Code section, see 16 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 200 (1999).
- O.C.G.A. § 42-8-111 is plain and susceptible of only one natural and reasonable construction, and that is that "shall" means that there is no discretion in the trial court to consider whether to impose an ignition interlock device as a condition of probation for a second time DUI offender, absent a showing of financial hardship; accordingly, a trial court erred in not imposing that condition of probation on the defendant, who had previously been convicted of a DUI offense and who entered a negotiated plea to driving under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the defendant was a less safe driver in violation of O.C.G.A. § 40-6-391(a)(1). State v. Villella, 266 Ga. App. 499, 597 S.E.2d 563 (2004).
- Since defendant's sentence imposed upon a conviction for driving under the influence was more lenient than permitted under O.C.G.A. § 42-8-111, in that the trial court failed to order the defendant to install an ignition interlock device, the defendant could not complain on appeal that the trial court erred in failing to order the installation of such a device. Winstead v. State, 280 Ga. 605, 632 S.E.2d 86 (2006).
Cited in Hannah v. State, 280 Ga. App. 230, 633 S.E.2d 800 (2006).
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-06-12
Citation: 280 Ga. 605, 632 S.E.2d 86, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 1862, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 407
Snippet: vehicles pursuant to the provisions of OCGA §§ 42-8-111 and 42-8-112. Winstead subsequently filed a motion