Which of fifteen new misdemeanor offenses created by the Georgia General Assembly in 2000 should be added to the list for which arrestees must be fingerprinted by the Georgia Crime Information Center?

Plain-English summary

The Deputy Director of the Georgia Crime Information Center asked the AG to review fifteen new misdemeanors that had been created during the 2000 legislative session and decide which ones should be added to the official list of offenses for which arrestees must be fingerprinted. The list of fingerprintable offenses comes partly from statute and partly from the AG's designation power under O.C.G.A. § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii). The AG designated three: O.C.G.A. § 48-13-60 (innkeeper filing a false or fraudulent hotel-motel excise tax return), § 50-25-7.9(b) (using the Georgia Technology Authority to make personal purchases of state goods or services), and § 50-25-7.9(c) (selling goods to personal buyers through the GTA). The other twelve misdemeanors were not designated as fingerprintable.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context

This opinion is one in a long series of annual or semi-annual AG decisions cleaning up the Georgia Crime Information Center fingerprinting list each time the General Assembly creates new misdemeanors. The Georgia Crime Information Act, codified at O.C.G.A. § 35-3-1 et seq., gives the GCIC an obligation to keep records of arrests and dispositions for serious offenses, with fingerprints attached. For felonies the fingerprinting requirement is straightforward. For misdemeanors the question is which categories rise to a level worth carrying in the criminal-history database, and § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii) gives the AG the call.

The opinion runs through the fifteen new offenses one by one and explains for each whether the AG was designating it as fingerprintable. The reasoning is short for each entry. The three offenses the AG designated all involve intentional fraud against the state or use of state-controlled procurement channels for personal benefit:

• O.C.G.A. § 48-13-60: an innkeeper who makes a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade the hotel-motel excise tax. Intent-to-defraud crime; designated as fingerprintable.
• O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(b): an employee or official of the state (or any other person) who buys, directly or indirectly through the Georgia Technology Authority, any item for personal ownership. Misuse of state procurement; designated as fingerprintable.
• O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(c): a person who knowingly sells or delivers any item by or through the GTA to another person for that person's personal ownership. Knowing misuse of state procurement; designated as fingerprintable.

The other twelve offenses (organic-labeling violations, court officer or prosecutor fee misconduct, breach of vocational-rehabilitation records confidentiality, governmental-entity contract self-dealing, unlicensed acupuncture, false disability-compensation statements, innkeeper failure-to-collect or failure-to-file or recordkeeping violations not involving fraud, unidentified state vehicle operation, and Georgia Technology Authority insider-conflict violations under § 50-25-7.7) were not designated. The opinion does not give a detailed reason for each non-designation; the standard pattern in this series is that the AG declines to designate offenses that are essentially regulatory, not predicate to broader criminal conduct, or unlikely to produce a defendant whose record needs to follow them across jurisdictions.

For the Georgia Crime Information Center at the time

GCIC could update its fingerprintable-offense database to include § 48-13-60, § 50-25-7.9(b), and § 50-25-7.9(c) starting from this opinion. Arrestees on the other twelve offenses did not need to be fingerprinted by GCIC under the AG's exercise of designation authority, though local agency policy or other statutes might still require booking-level prints.

For local arresting agencies and county jails at the time

Booking practices needed to track which misdemeanors were on the GCIC list. The three newly designated offenses were intentional fraud or insider-self-dealing offenses; the practical context (a hotel filing a fake tax return; a state employee or vendor abusing the GTA procurement channel) was relatively narrow.

For criminal defense attorneys at the time

A misdemeanor charge under one of the three designated sections produced an arrest record carrying fingerprints in the GCIC database. That was a meaningful collateral consequence to flag for clients. Misdemeanor charges under the other twelve sections did not trigger GCIC-level fingerprinting.

Common questions

Q: What does it mean for an offense to be "fingerprintable" under the GCIC system?
A: It means GCIC has authority to maintain a fingerprinted criminal-history record of the arrest in its database, alongside its records for felonies and other designated offenses. The fingerprints connect the arrest to the person across jurisdictions and over time.

Q: Why would the AG decline to designate an offense as fingerprintable?
A: The opinion does not articulate detailed criteria, but the pattern across this series of opinions is that the AG declines for regulatory misdemeanors that don't reflect significant fraud, violence, or theft, where statewide tracking would not serve a clear law-enforcement purpose.

Q: Could the AG add other misdemeanors later?
A: Yes. § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii) gives the AG ongoing authority to designate any other offense as fingerprintable. The list grows over time as the General Assembly creates new misdemeanors and the AG reviews them.

Q: Does this affect the underlying criminal liability?
A: No. Fingerprintable status does not change whether an offense is a misdemeanor or felony, or what the penalties are. It changes only the records the GCIC keeps about the arrest.

Background and statutory framework

The Georgia Crime Information Act, O.C.G.A. § 35-3-1 et seq., establishes the GCIC and defines the records it maintains. The fingerprintable-offense list is a key piece of that system because it determines which misdemeanor arrests get tracked at the statewide criminal-history level. The statutory list is supplemented by the AG's designation authority under § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii), which lets the AG add specific offenses by official opinion.

The three newly designated offenses share a common structural feature: each involves intentional or knowing misconduct in a financial or procurement setting. The hotel-motel excise tax fraud at § 48-13-60 is part of the broader hotel-motel tax compliance regime. The GTA procurement misuse offenses at § 50-25-7.9(b) and (c) sit alongside, but are distinct from, the GTA insider-conflict offense at § 50-25-7.7(a) (which the AG did not designate).

Citations and references

Statutes:
- O.C.G.A. § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii) (AG designation authority)
- O.C.G.A. §§ 48-13-59 through 48-13-63 (hotel-motel excise tax misdemeanors)
- O.C.G.A. §§ 50-25-7.7, 50-25-7.9 (Georgia Technology Authority offenses)
- Other 2000 misdemeanors discussed: O.C.G.A. §§ 2-21-8, 15-13-35, 34-15-17, 36-91-21(f), 43-34-71(a), 45-9-106(a), 50-19-2

Cases: None cited.

Source

• Landing page: https://law.georgia.gov/opinions/2000-11

Original opinion text

You have requested my opinion concerning whether any of the following fifteen misdemeanor offenses enacted during the 2000 Session of the General Assembly should be designated as offenses for which persons charged with violations are to be fingerprinted: O.C.G.A. § 2-21-8; O.C.G.A. § 15-13-35; O.C.G.A. § 34-15-17; O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(f); O.C.G.A. § 43-34-71(a); O.C.G.A. § 45-9-106(a); O.C.G.A. § 48-13-59; O.C.G.A. § 48-13-60; O.C.G.A. § 48-13-61; O.C.G.A. § 48-13-62; O.C.G.A. § 48-13-63; O.C.G.A. § 50-19-2; O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.7(a); O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(b); and O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(c). In addition to the list of fingerprintable offenses mandated by statute, O.C.G.A. § 35-3-33(1)(A)(ii) provides that the Attorney General may designate any other offense as one for which those charged with violations are to be fingerprinted. The first of the fifteen misdemeanor offenses is O.C.G.A. § 2-21-8. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor to violate the provisions of the "Georgia Organic Certification and Labeling Act." An offense resulting from the violation of this Code Section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The second misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 15-13-35. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any officer of court knowingly to demand fees, as costs from a defendant in a criminal case, to which such officer is not entitled and for any prosecuting attorney to demand or receive any fee or costs on any criminal case which has not been tried by a trial jury or otherwise finally disposed of. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The third misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 34-15-17. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any person to solicit, disclose, receive, or make use of or authorize, knowingly permit, participate in, or acquiesce in the use of any list of, or names of, or any information concerning persons applying for or receiving vocational rehabilitation. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The fourth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 36-91-21(f). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any member of a governmental entity who lets any public works construction contract to receive, take, or contract to receive or take, either directly or indirectly, any part of the pay or profit arising out of any such contract. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The fifth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 43-34-71(a). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor to practice acupuncture or auricular (ear) detoxification therapy without a license or to represent oneself to be an acupuncturist or auricular (ear) detoxification specialist. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The sixth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 45-9-106(a). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any person knowingly to give false information or false testimony causing the payment of temporary disability compensation which would not otherwise be justified. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The seventh misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 48-13-59. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any innkeeper to fail, neglect, or refuse to collect the excise tax on rooms, accommodations, and lodging. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The eighth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 48-13-60. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any innkeeper to make a false or fraudulent return with intent to evade the tax levied by this article. I hereby designate the violation of O.C.G.A. § 48-13-60 as an offense for which those charged are to be fingerprinted. The ninth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 48-13-61. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any innkeeper to fail or refuse to furnish any return required to be made by this article or to fail or refuse to furnish a supplemental return or other data required by the governing authority imposing a tax under this article. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The tenth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 48-13-62. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any innkeeper to fail to keep records or to fail to open the records to inspection as required by law. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The eleventh misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 48-13-63. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any innkeeper to violate any other provision of this article for which punishment is not otherwise provided. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The twelfth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 50-19-2. That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any person to operate any motor vehicle owned or leased by the state without proper identification affixed to the vehicle. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The thirteenth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.7(a). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for the executive director or any employee of the Georgia Technology Authority to be financially interested or have any personal beneficial interest in the purchase of or contract for any materials, equipment, or supplies, nor in any such firm, corporation, partnership, or association furnishing any such supplies, materials, or equipment to agencies or the authority. An offense resulting from the violation of this Code section does not appear to be an offense for which fingerprinting is required, and I am not, at this time, designating this offense as one which requires fingerprinting. The fourteenth misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(b). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any employee or official of the state or any other person to purchase, directly or indirectly, through the Georgia Technology Authority any article, material, merchandise, ware, commodity, or other thing of value for the personal or individual ownership of himself or herself or other person or persons. I hereby designate the violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(b) as an offense for which those charged are to be fingerprinted. The fifteenth and final misdemeanor offense is O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(c). That Code section makes it a misdemeanor for any person knowingly to sell or deliver any article, material, merchandise, ware, commodity, or other thing of value to any person, directly or indirectly, by or through the Georgia Technology Authority for the individual and personal ownership of such person or other person or persons. I hereby designate the violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-25-7.9(c) as an offense for which those charged are to be fingerprinted. I trust that my revisions of the specific designations of those offenses for which persons charged with violations are to be fingerprinted will aid you in discharging your duties pursuant to the Georgia Crime Information Act. Prepared by: RICHARD A. BROWNLOW Assistant Attorney General