2020 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 11 - Offenses Against Public Order and Safety
Article 3 - Invasions of Privacy

- For article, "Defense Against Outrage and the Perils of Parasitic Torts," see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 107 (2010). For notes on 1995 amendments and enactments of Code sections in this article, see 12 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 128 and 138 (1995). For note, "Just You and Me and Netflix Makes Three: Implications for Allowing 'Frictionless Sharing' of Personally Identifiable Information under the Video Privacy Protection Act," see 20 J. Intell. Prop. L. 413 (2013).

PART 1 WIRETAPPING, EAVESDROPPING, SURVEILLANCE, AND RELATED OFFENSES

Law reviews.

- For note, "The Online Zoom Lens: Why Internet Street-Level Mapping Technologies Demand Reconsideration of the Modern-Day Tort Notion of 'Public Privacy'," see 43 Ga. L. Rev. 575 (2009). For comment on Bodrey v. Cape, 120 Ga. App. 859, 172 S.E.2d 643 (1969), see 7 Ga. St. B.J. 256 (1970).

Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249 generally defines and proscribes invasions of privacy. Bilbo v. State, 142 Ga. App. 716, 236 S.E.2d 847 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 240 Ga. 601, 242 S.E.2d 21 (1978).

Various sections of Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249 must be construed together in order to determine legislative intent. Birge v. State, 142 Ga. App. 735, 236 S.E.2d 906 (1977), rev'd on other grounds, 240 Ga. 501, 241 S.E.2d 213, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 945, 98 S. Ct. 2847, 56 L. Ed. 2d 786 (1978).

- O.C.G.A. P. 1, Art. 3, Ch. 11, T. 16 provides greater protection to individual privacy rights than the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Street Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq., and, accordingly, was not preempted thereby. Bishop v. State, 241 Ga. App. 517, 526 S.E.2d 917 (1999).

- Georgia recognizes a cause of action for invasion of privacy through wiretapping irrespective of whether information obtained is published or disclosed. Awbrey v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 505 F. Supp. 604 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

Cited in Satterfield v. State, 127 Ga. App. 528, 194 S.E.2d 295 (1972); Ansley v. Stynchcombe, 480 F.2d 437 (5th Cir. 1973); Cross v. Georgia, 581 F.2d 102 (5th Cir. 1978).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Applicability to federal agencies.

- O.C.G.A. P. 1, Art. 3, Ch. 11, T. 16, governing use of telephone service observing equipment, is inapplicable to agencies of United States. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-36.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

ALR.

- Validity of statute or ordinance interfering with privacy in restaurants, 5 A.L.R. 965.

Bank's duty to customer or depositor not to disclose information as to his financial condition, 92 A.L.R.2d 900.

Investigations and surveillance, shadowing and trailing, as violation of right of privacy, 13 A.L.R.3d 1025.

Censorship and evidentiary use of unconvicted prisoners' mail, 52 A.L.R.3d 548.

Uninvited entry into another's living quarters as invasion of privacy, 56 A.L.R.3d 434.

Waiver or loss of right of privacy, 57 A.L.R.3d 16.

Taking unauthorized photographs as invasion of privacy, 86 A.L.R.3d 374.

Exchange among insurers of medical information concerning insured or applicant for insurance as invasion of privacy, 98 A.L.R.3d 561.

Permissible warrantless surveillance, under state communications interception statute, by state or local law enforcement officer or one acting in concert with officer, 27 A.L.R.4th 449.

Eavesdropping on extension telephone as invasion of privacy, 49 A.L.R.4th 430.

Intrusion by news-gathering entity as invasion of right of privacy, 69 A.L.R.4th 1059.

Bank's liability, under state law, for disclosing financial information concerning depositor or customer, 81 A.L.R.4th 377.