O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 42-9-49 (2019)

Reimbursement of counties for incarceration of persons arrested in accordance with Code Section 42-9-48

✓ 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

After proper documentation is received from the county, the board shall reimburse the county, pursuant to rules and regulations adopted by the board and in the amount appropriated for this purpose by the General Assembly, for the cost of incarceration of any person who is arrested pursuant to any warrant issued in accordance with Code Section 42-9-48. To the extent that funds are appropriated by the General Assembly for the purpose of reimbursement of medical expenses, the board may reimburse counties for the cost of medical services provided to persons so arrested. The liability of the board for such costs of incarceration shall begin when the person is incarcerated and shall end upon revocation of parole or conditional release of the person. This Code section shall apply only to cases in which the board’s warrant is the sole basis for incarceration.

History

Ga. L. 1979, p. 798, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 428, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Standing. - Because a county could sue the state agencies by challenging the constitutionality of O.C.G.A. §§ 42-551(c) and 42-9-49 (regarding reimbursement of the detention costs of certain state inmates), and because the county did not

dispute that the agencies complied with the sections, the trial court should have granted the agencies’ motion for summary judgment. Ga. Dep’t of Corr. v. Chatham County, 274 Ga. App. 865, 619 S.E.2d 373, 2005 Ga. App. LEXIS 850 (2005).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2005–2006 · leading case: Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Chatham Cnty., 619 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Chatham Cnty., 619 S.E.2d 373 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 12× “The superior court dismissed all claims against the DOC and BPP except for the county’s request for a judgment declaring unconstitutional OCGA §§ 42-9-49 and 42-5-51 (c); these are the Code sections pursuant to which the DOC and BPP reimburse a county for the post-trial…”

Georgia Dep't of Corr. v. Chatham Cnty., 635 S.E.2d 718 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “The County sued the Department of Corrections and the Board of Pardons and Paroles (hereinafter collectively “DOC”), alleging various claims and seeking a declaration that OCGA §§ 42-9-49 and 42-5-51 (c), the statutory provisions controlling reimbursement, are unconstitutional.”

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.