GA Code § 16-11-64 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 11 - Offenses Against Public Order and Safety|Article 3 - Invasions of Privacy|Part 1 - Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Related Offenses|§ 16-11-64. Interception of Wire or Oral Transmissions by Law Enforcement Officers

  Application of part to law enforcement officers. Except only as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, nothing in this part shall apply to a duly constituted law enforcement officer in the performance of his official duties in ferreting out offenders or suspected offenders of the law or in secretly watching a person suspected of violating the laws of the United States or of this state, or any subdivision thereof, for the purpose of apprehending such suspected violator.   When in the course of his or her official duties, a law enforcement officer desiring to make use of any device, but only as such term is defined in Code Section 16-11-60, and such use would otherwise constitute a violation of Code Section 16-11-62, the law enforcement official shall act in compliance with the provisions provided for in this part.   Upon written application, under oath, of the district attorney having jurisdiction over prosecution of the crime under investigation or the Attorney General made before a judge of superior court having jurisdiction over the crime under investigation, such court may issue an investigation warrant permitting the use of a device for the surveillance of a person or place to the extent the same is consistent with and subject to the terms, conditions, and procedures provided for by 18 U.S.C. Chapter 119. Such warrant shall have state-wide application and interception of communications shall be permitted in any location in this state.   Evidence obtained in conformity with this part shall be admissible only in the courts of this state having felony and misdemeanor jurisdiction.   Defenses. A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this part or under any other law.    (Ga. L. 1967, p. 844, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-3004, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 615, § 1; Ga. L. 1972, p. 952, § 1; Ga. L. 1979, p. 824, § 1; Ga. L. 1980, p. 326, § 1; Ga. L. 1982, p. 1385, § 7; Ga. L. 1982, p. 2319, § 1; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 13; Ga. L. 1984, p. 22, § 16; Ga. L. 1985, p. 149, § 16; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 16; Ga. L. 2000, p. 491, § 2; Ga. L. 2002, p. 1432, § 3; Ga. L. 2013, p. 4, § 1/HB 55.)   Cross references.   - Searches and seizures generally, T. 17, C. 5.   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2002, p. 1432, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as 'Georgia's Support of the War on Terrorism Act of 2002'."   Law reviews.   - For survey of 1986 Eleventh Circuit cases on constitutional criminal procedure, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 1141 (1987). For article on the 2013 amendment of this Code section, see 30 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 109 (2013). For note discussing organized crime in Georgia with respect to the application of state gambling laws, and suggesting proposals for combatting organized crime, see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 124 (1970). For comment advocating certain revisions to former eavesdropping statute, in light of constitutional requirements as articulated in Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 87 S. Ct. 1873, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1040 (1967), see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 595 (1968).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Constitutionality   Relationship Between State and Federal Law   Application    OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Use of two-way communication system, known to prisoners.   - Use of two-way communication system for monitoring all activity in jail, operation of such system being known to each prisoner, would not necessarily deprive a prisoner of constitutional rights, provided there is no interception of conversations between attorney and client. 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-84.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 620. 68 Am. Jur. 2d, Search and Seizure, §§ 176 et seq., 338.   C.J.S.   - 79 C.J.S., Searches and Seizures, §§ 30, 31, 144 et seq. 86 C.J.S., Telecommunications, § 177.   ALR.    - Admissibility of evidence obtained by government or other public officer by intercepting letter or telegraph or telephone message, 66 A.L.R. 397; 134 A.L.R. 614.    Admissibility of telephone conversations in evidence, 71 A.L.R. 5; 105 A.L.R. 326.   Mode of establishing that information obtained by illegal wiretapping has or has not led to evidence introduced by prosecution, 28 A.L.R.2d 1055.   What constitutes an "interception" of a telephone or similar communication forbidden by the Federal Communications Act (47 U.S.C. § 605) or similar state statutes, 9 A.L.R.3d 423.   Right or duty to refuse telephone, telegraph, or other wire service in aid of illegal gambling operations, 30 A.L.R.3d 1143.   Uninvited entry into another's living quarters as invasion of privacy, 56 A.L.R.3d 434.   Omission or inaudibility of portions of sound recording as affecting its admissibility in evidence, 57 A.L.R.3d 746.   Sufficiency of identification of participants as prerequisite to admissibility of telephone conversation in evidence, 79 A.L.R.3d 79.   State or municipal liability for invasion of privacy, 87 A.L.R.3d 145.   Propriety of governmental eavesdropping on communications between accused and his attorney, 44 A.L.R.4th 841.