GA Code § 16-7-29 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 7 - Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property|Article 2 - Criminal Trespass and Damage to Property|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-7-29. Interference With Electronic Monitoring Devices

  For purposes of this Code section, the term "electronic monitoring device" shall include any device that is utilized to track the location of a person.   It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and without authority remove, destroy, or circumvent the operation of an electronic monitoring device which is being used for the purpose of monitoring a person who is:   Complying with a home arrest program as set forth in Code Section 42-1-8;   Wearing an electronic monitoring device as a condition of bond or pretrial release;   Wearing an electronic monitoring device as a condition of probation;   Wearing an electronic monitoring device as a condition of parole; or   Wearing an electronic monitoring device as required in Code Section 42-1-14.     It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and without authority request or solicit any other person to remove, destroy, or circumvent the operation of an electronic monitoring device which is being used for the purposes described in subsection (b) of this Code section.   Any person who violates this Code section shall be guilty of the offense of tampering with the operation of an electronic monitoring device and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years.     (Code 1981, §16-7-29, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 761, § 2; Ga. L. 2005, p. 60, § 16/HB 95; Ga. L. 2006, p. 72, § 16/SB 465; Ga. L. 2010, p. 168, § 4/HB 571.)   Cross references.   - Terms and conditions of probation, § 42-8-35.   Editor's notes.   - This Code section formerly pertained to criminal trespass by motor vehicles. The former Code section was based on Ga. L. 1987, p. 837, § 1 and Ga. L. 1990, p. 881, § 1. For similar provisions, see Code Section 40-6-252.   Ga. L. 2004, p. 761, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "The General Assembly finds that the safety of the public is a paramount concern and that prison and jail overcrowding and the high cost of incarceration demand a cost effective and innovative approach to protecting communities from dangerous offenders while at the same time providing alternatives to, or bridges to and from incarceration. Under appropriate conditions and limitations, electronic monitoring devices provide the criminal justice system with a tool that should be considered under proper circumstances. Electronic monitoring devices offer effective means to track individuals and may reduce criminal recidivism as well as provide the state with monetary savings since the cost of an electronic monitoring device is far less than the cost of incarcerating an individual and an individual may be able to pay for the device. The criminal penalties provided by this Act are designed to encourage the use of electronic monitoring devices while at the same time discourage interference with these devices."   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Juvenile disposition to restrictive custody not an abuse of discretion.    - Juvenile court did not abuse the court's discretion in ordering a juvenile to serve 36 months in restrictive custody because the court's findings authorized the court to find that the juvenile's criminal history, repeated violations of probation, removal of the electronic tether, and frequent use of marijuana demonstrated that restrictive custody was in the juvenile's best interests, as well as the community's, and outweighed the absence of any physical harm to the victim of the theft by receiving incident. In the Interest of D.C., 324 Ga. App. 95, 748 S.E.2d 514 (2013).   Delinquency for tampering with ankle monitoring.    - Evidence that the defendant's broken ankle monitor was found in the defendant's former residence after the defendant moved with the defendant's mother to another county supported the finding of delinquency for tampering with the operation of an electronic monitoring device. In the Interest of E. B., 343 Ga. App. 823, 806 S.E.2d 272 (2017).    Cited in Park v. State, 305 Ga. 348, 825 S.E.2d 147 (2019).