Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know, been here done that right? Well I thought those interested would like to read this.

http://www.chamberlainlaw.com/assets/at ... ts/108.pdf

Georgia law under the statutory provisions
of O.C.G.A. Section 40-6-10(a)(3) states:
On and after July 1, 2005, the requirement under this Code section that proof or evidence of minimum liability insurance be maintained in a motor vehicle at all times during the operation of the vehicle shall not apply to the owner or operator of any vehicle for which the records or data base of the Department of Revenue indicates that required minimum insurance coverage is currently effective.
Georgia Court of Appeals in a
recent 2007 opinion in Lopez, v. State, 286
Ga. App. 873 (2007), dealing with a
handful of criminal charges, stated in
reference to the above Section 40-6-
10(a)(3) that this statute no longer requires
the owner or operator of the motor vehicle
to maintain proof of insurance. The Court
of Appeals opinion reads, in part:
Moreover, contrary to the testimony of
[the arresting police officer], at the
time of the traffic stop OCGA §40-6-10
did not require the owner or operator
of a motor vehicle to maintain proof or
evidence of minimum liability
insurance in the motor vehicle.
Id. at 875 (footnote 3 reference to
Section 40-6-10(a)(3)).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,559 Posts
This is still a government run database so it is inheriently going to be less than correct. I still carry a paper copy of coverage, however, the authorities are still going to disbelieve it and rely on the almighty database.... :(
 

·
Yukon Cornelius
Joined
·
11,767 Posts
MyFred said:
This is still a government run database so it is inheriently going to be less than correct. I still carry a paper copy of coverage, however, the authorities are still going to disbelieve it and rely on the almighty database.... :(
yep my brother has been pulled over his tag ran and it came back no insurance...the cop made him get out and walk no ticket....
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,883 Posts
The ins. company I'm with is almost exclusively web-based. I had to cut my insurance card out of the policy I printed. So much for any anti-counterfeiting measures inherent in a company printed card. :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,901 Posts
But the ticket will still be written, you will still take the day off work to fight it and the judge will dismiss it.

Who loses here, the citizen or the government?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
A week or so ago my neighbors business was broken into in the middle of the night. Well, her husband was out of town so she asked me to ride up there with her to check it out. Roswell PD was on the scene filling out reports. After we looked at the damage, he said we needed to secure her business. I offered to hop in her car and run to my house to get some tools and wood to patch up her destroyed door frame. I asked her for her insurance card in front of the cop and he said, no you don't need that, we have it all in the state data base system.

Thought it was interesting. He also never said a thing about my glock strapped on me either. Thought that was nice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,521 Posts
MyFred said:
This is still a government run database so it is inheriently going to be less than correct. I still carry a paper copy of coverage, however, the authorities are still going to disbelieve it and rely on the almighty database.... :(
The insurance status can be canceled or suspended for lack of payment during the time frame in which the insurance card would say that the coverage is valid. So instead of relying entirely on the database, if the owner of the vehicle claims that they DO have current insurance on the vehicle, I will always call the insurance company on my cell phone and verify it with the source.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
If this was a firearm related problem there would be more posts and replies! :shattered:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
Ok - I will bit, but only if I get to include a movie reference:

I was always a fan of insurance and registration information being on the LEO's computer system (S.C.M.O.D.S - State County Municiple Offender Data System?), but then again I went to re-register my car one day and the DDS said that they had no record of my insurance and I sat around waiting for a couple of hours while they exchanged faxes with my insurance company. That was a bit disconcerning since I hadn't changed insurance companies and hadn't had coverage stopped or suspended at any time. I'm sure that if I had been pulled over by a LEO, I would have had an issue....
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
I'm not getting the controversy or confusion.

40-6-10(3) says you don't have to have "proof of insurance" with you in the car, if you're in the database.

(3) The requirement ... that proof or evidence of minimum liability insurance be maintained in a motor vehicle ... shall not apply to the owner or operator of any vehicle for which the records or data base of the Department of Revenue indicates that required minimum insurance coverage is currently effective.
40-6-10(5) says every LEO has to check, every stop every time.

(5) Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle ... has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the driver's license of the operator of the vehicle.
40-6-10(6) says the LEO has no discretion about citations regarding proof.

(6) If a law enforcement officer of this state determines that the owner or operator of a motor vehicle ... does not have proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage, the arresting officer shall issue a uniform traffic citation.... (emphasis mine)
40-6-10(8)B says that the insurer has to issue a card, that the card must be kept in the vehicle during operation, and that the card is not proof of insurance.

(B) ...[T]he insurer shall issue a policy information card ... ; the owner or operator of the motor vehicle shall keep such policy information card in the vehicle at all times during operation of the vehicle for purposes of Code Section 40-6-273.1, but any such policy information card shall not be sufficient proof of insurance for any purposes of this Code section except as otherwise provided in this Code section.(emphasis mine)
It certainly seems clear to me. You don't have to keep proof. You do have to keep a card. A card is not proof (except for fleet vehicles, which are referenced in other sub-sections).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Rugerer said:
It certainly seems clear to me. You don't have to keep proof. You do have to keep a card. A card is not proof (except for fleet vehicles, which are referenced in other sub-sections).
:righton: Its all about the "Language".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,809 Posts
Rugerer said:
It certainly seems clear to me. You don't have to keep proof. You do have to keep a card. A card is not proof (except for fleet vehicles, which are referenced in other sub-sections).
But what if you're driving through the 1000 ft safety zone of a public gathering where they are cooking chili?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Rugerer said:
I'm not getting the controversy or confusion.

40-6-10(3) says you don't have to have "proof of insurance" with you in the car, if you're in the database.

(3) The requirement ... that proof or evidence of minimum liability insurance be maintained in a motor vehicle ... shall not apply to the owner or operator of any vehicle for which the records or data base of the Department of Revenue indicates that required minimum insurance coverage is currently effective.
40-6-10(5) says every LEO has to check, every stop every time.

[quote:2v9gn0rh] (5) Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle ... has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the driver's license of the operator of the vehicle.
40-6-10(6) says the LEO has no discretion about citations regarding proof.

(6) If a law enforcement officer of this state determines that the owner or operator of a motor vehicle ... does not have proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage, the arresting officer shall issue a uniform traffic citation.... (emphasis mine)
40-6-10(8)B says that the insurer has to issue a card, that the card must be kept in the vehicle during operation, and that the card is not proof of insurance.

(B) ...[T]he insurer shall issue a policy information card ... ; the owner or operator of the motor vehicle shall keep such policy information card in the vehicle at all times during operation of the vehicle for purposes of Code Section 40-6-273.1, but any such policy information card shall not be sufficient proof of insurance for any purposes of this Code section except as otherwise provided in this Code section.(emphasis mine)
It certainly seems clear to me. You don't have to keep proof. You do have to keep a card. A card is not proof (except for fleet vehicles, which are referenced in other sub-sections).[/quote:2v9gn0rh]

Even in the link I provided the Attorney seems to contradict or seems to contradict. First he keeps referring to the Insurance Information Card and proof when in fact it is not.

You can not keep in your vehicle proof you have insurance, it is impossible. The card, papers, etc only proves at one time between the dates indicated that you had/have insurance but does not mean you still do. I am sure this is why the gov wanted to have a better way to make sure a motorist was covered by insurance while driving. The only way to prove a person has the insurance is to call the company or when the company contacts DMV and informs of a cancellation!
(5) Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle ... has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the driver's license of the operator of the vehicle.
Nowhere in the above quote does it say the officer is to be handed the card. It would appear that it is the officer's responsibility to call in the tag or registration or something to get that "proof".

I am not arguing, simply trying to understand the language.

See then there is this one:
(6) If a law enforcement officer of this state determines that the owner or operator of a motor vehicle ... does not have proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage, the arresting officer shall issue a uniform traffic citation.... (emphasis mine)
Again, I can not prove I have insurance unless he talks to my agent!!

To me the insurance information card is only evidence that I might have current insurance.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
RedDawnTheMusical said:
Rugerer said:
It certainly seems clear to me. You don't have to keep proof. You do have to keep a card. A card is not proof (except for fleet vehicles, which are referenced in other sub-sections).
But what if you're driving through the 1000 ft safety zone of a public gathering where they are cooking chili?
You simply stop and eat some :righton:
 

·
GeePeeDoHolic
Joined
·
6,412 Posts
Savvy Jack said:
Nowhere in the above quote does it say the officer is to be handed the card. It would appear that it is the officer's responsibility to call in the tag or registration or something to get that "proof".
I agree. I don't see it spelling out how the proof is to be obtained. It just says the officer "shall determine" and rules out the insurance policy card as one method of determination.

Savvy Jack said:
(6) If a law enforcement officer of this state determines that the owner or operator of a motor vehicle ... does not have proof or evidence of required minimum insurance coverage, the arresting officer shall issue a uniform traffic citation.... (emphasis mine)
Again, I can not prove I have insurance unless he talks to my agent!!
Here, I think "have proof" is just to cover all the other cases in this section, e.g. fleet vehicles (the card is proof), rental vehicles (the rental agreement is proof), recently bought vehicles (the declaration is proof), or recently bought insurance (the binder is proof).

But, it also says that if an officer doesn't recognize the card as a fleet insurer and has the car towed, the LEA is liable for the fees. That's sort of interesting.

At any rate, the officer would seem to have discretion for satisfying "shall determine", he checks DoR database or he calls the number on your card to see if the insurance company gives him proof.

(Now, hm, what if someone printed out an official looking card with a phone number that goes to his buddy? "What was that policy number again, officer? Oh, yes, my buddy, ... er ..., Mr. Smith has had that policy with us for 3 years.") :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Rugerer said:
(Now, hm, what if someone printed out an official looking card with a phone number that goes to his buddy? "What was that policy number again, officer? Oh, yes, my buddy, ... er ..., Mr. Smith has had that policy with us for 3 years.") :)
Yeap, fake cards must be out there today! I find it hard to believe that there are not! Seems to me yet more Laws that are misunderstood by LEOs and maybe Attorneys. Nevertheless we now have a case law that states
Moreover, contrary to the testimony of [the arresting police officer], at the time of the traffic stop OCGA §40-6-10 did not require the owner or operator of a motor vehicle to maintain proof or evidence of minimum liability insurance in the motor vehicle.
Of course I refer to me and not fleet vehicles etc etc etc etc.

Personally I certainly do not mind keeping insurance information in my vehicle, which I do. I just hate being ordered to present something that is not a binding by law....just like our fight for our firearms freedom....did I say that right?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
This is interesting though:

Georgia Code - Motor Vehicles & Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-6-10(a)(5)
Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of this Code section has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the drive?s license of the operator of the vehicle.
I assume that includes road blocks huh?
 

·
Senior Mumbler
Joined
·
6,516 Posts
Savvy Jack said:
This is interesting though:

Georgia Code - Motor Vehicles & Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-6-10(a)(5)
Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of this Code section has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the drive?s license of the operator of the vehicle.
I assume that includes road blocks huh?
It should. Road blocks are usually to catch those without insurance,without a DL or DUI. Catching wanted criminals is just an occasional benefit.

What gets me is when LEOs stop a car that has no insurance or the operator has no DL, they sometimes write a citation and let them drive off. If a car does not have current tags, current insurance or the driver has no license, then the vehicle shouldm't move until it's rectified or towed.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
phantoms said:
Savvy Jack said:
This is interesting though:

Georgia Code - Motor Vehicles & Traffic - Title 40, Section 40-6-10(a)(5)
Every law enforcement officer in this state shall determine if the operator of a motor vehicle subject to the provisions of this Code section has the required minimum insurance coverage every time the law enforcement officer stops the vehicle or requests the presentation of the drive?s license of the operator of the vehicle.
I assume that includes road blocks huh?
It should. Road blocks are usually to catch those without insurance,without a DL or DUI. Catching wanted criminals is just an occasional benefit.

What gets me is when LEOs stop a car that has no insurance or the operator has no DL, they sometimes write a citation and let them drive off. If a car does not have current tags, current insurance or the driver has no license, then the vehicle shouldm't move until it's rectified or towed.
But of course we are against roadblocks!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,358 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
psrumors said:
But the ticket will still be written, you will still take the day off work to fight it and the judge will dismiss it.

Who loses here, the citizen or the government?
Freedom is not free. Whenever we stop fighting, we loose.

I just purchased a car for my daughter. I reading on the info again. The card is not valid proof, however, an insurance binder is valid for 30 days......I assume until the info is entered into the system computer. I also assume after 30 days a copy of the policy and the card are not proof. Now, if the card is not proof and a copy of the policy is not proof, then why is the card needed at an accident? Is it for the party of the involved to exchange information? I know the LEO won't need it since he has the computer information. If the LEO asks for the card, are we required to show it, accident or not? If he asks for it it, his motive would be just because he wants to see if we have it in the vehicle, reqired by law, even though its no proof of coverage.

How @#$%^& Stupid!
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top