O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-8-26 (2019)

Qualifications of officer; compensation and expenses; conflicts of interest; bonds

✓ 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

(a)(1) In order for a person to be an officer, he or she shall be at least 21 years of age at the time of appointment and shall have completed a standard two-year college course. The qualifications provided in this Code section are the minimum qualifications, and DCS is authorized to prescribe such additional and higher educational qualifications from time to time as it deems desirable, but not to exceed a four-year standard college course. (2) After January 1, 2016, in order for a person to be an officer, he or she shall complete the basic course of training for supervision of probations and parolees certified by the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council; provided, however, that such requirement shall be waived if such person is a certified peace officer. (b) The compensation of officers shall be set pursuant to the rules of the State Personnel Board. Officers shall also be allowed travel and other expenses as are other state employees. (c)(1) No officer shall engage in any other employment, business, or activities which interfere or conflict with his or her duties and responsibilities as an officer. (2) No officer shall own, operate, have any financial interest in, be an instructor at, or be employed by any private entity which provides

drug or alcohol education services or offers a DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Program certified by the Department of Driver Services. (3) No officer shall specify, directly or indirectly, a particular DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Program which a probationer may or shall attend. This paragraph shall not prohibit such officer from furnishing any probationer, upon request, the names of certified DUI Alcohol or Drug Use Risk Reduction Programs. Any officer violating this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (d) Each officer shall give bond in such amount as may be fixed by DCS for the use of the person or persons damaged by his or her misfeasance or malfeasance and conditioned on the faithful performance of his or her duties. The cost of the bond shall be paid by DCS; provided, however, that the bond may be procured, either by DCS or by the Department of Administrative Services, under a master policy or on a group blanket coverage basis, where only the number of positions in each judicial circuit and the amount of coverage for each position are listed in a schedule attached to the bond; and in such case each individual shall be fully bonded and bound as principal, together with the surety, by virtue of his or her holding the position or performing the duties of officer in the circuit or circuits, and his or her individual signature shall not be necessary for such bond to be valid in accordance with all the laws of this state. The bond or bonds shall be made payable to DCS.

History

Ga. L. 1956, p. 27, § 6; Ga. L. 1958, p. 15, § 6; Ga. L. 1960, p. 1092, § 1; Ga. L. 1965, p. 413, § 2; Ga. L. 1967, p. 86, § 4; Ga. L. 1972, p. 604, § 5; Ga. L. 1991, p. 94, § 42; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3221, § 4; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1107, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 334, § 24-1/HB 501; Ga. L. 2009, p. 745, § 2/SB 97; Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 2-63/HB 642; Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 4-1/HB 310.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 3-1/HB 642, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “Personnel, equipment, and facilities that were assigned to the State Personnel Administration as of June 30, 2012, shall be transferred to the Department of Administrative Services on the

effective date of this Act.” This Act became effective July 1, 2012. Ga. L. 2012, p. 446, § 3-2/HB 642, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “Appropriations for functions which are transferred by this Act may be transferred as provided in Code Section 45-12-90.” Ga. L. 2015, p. 422, § 6-1/HB 310, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall become effective July 1, 2015, and shall apply to sentences entered on or after such date.” Law reviews. For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 231 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Circuit probation officers (now probation supervisors) are public officers and as a consequence hold office at

the pleasure of the appointing power. 1968 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 68-461. Compensation of probation person-

nel under the State Merit System. - No compensation can be paid to any probation supervisor or other probation personnel employed by the Department of Corrections and serving in the classified service of the State Merit System beyond that authorized in the compensation plan established by the State Personnel Board. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. 89-39.

Owning or instructing in driver improvement school. - If a state probation officer is an owner of or instructor in a driver improvement school approved pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 40-5-83, a conflict of interest arises. 1984 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U84-29.

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Employees, §§ 48 et seq., 127 et seq.

C.J.S. 67 C.J.S., Officers and Public Employees, §§ 7, 15-20, 318, 322-326.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2016 · leading case: Walker v. Owens, Comr., 783 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 2016).
Walker v. Owens, Comr., 783 S.E.2d 114 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 6× “In the petition, Walker alleged that Officer Dean was not bonded as required by OCGA § 42-8-26 (d) 2 but that the Georgia Department of Administrative Services maintained “a fidelity and indemnification insurance policy covering the State of Georgia for the failure of its…”
Leverette v. State, 546 S.E.2d 63 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “11 However, pretermitting this fact, we have no problem concluding that filing with the court a petition for revocation of probation and the reasons why such action should be taken come within the contemplated scope of a probation officer’s duty to “make recommendations to the…”
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.