Rutter v. Rutter
294 Ga. 1
Ga.2013Background
- Stacy Rutter installed hidden video surveillance devices in the marital home; husband Charles Rutter moved to exclude recordings under OCGA § 16-11-62(2).
- HB 1576 (approved Apr. 20, 2000; effective same day) amended OCGA § 16-11-62(2) to add subparagraph (2)(C), a "curtilage" exception permitting recording within the user’s home curtilage for security/crime purposes.
- SB 316 (approved Apr. 27, 2000; effective July 1, 2000) replaced OCGA § 16-11-62 with a new text that did not include subparagraph (2)(C).
- Trial court denied the exclusion motion relying on the curtilage exception; Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (2)(C) survived SB 316.
- Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether (2)(C) survived SB 316 and, if so, its meaning; the Court held (2)(C) did not survive and reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Rutter's Argument | State/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subparagraph (2)(C) of OCGA § 16-11-62 survived enactment of SB 316 | (Implied) HB 1576's curtilage exception remains law; two acts should be harmonized | SB 316’s later enactment (and its complete replacement of the Code section) eliminated (2)(C) | (2)(C) did not survive; SB 316 superseded it because the two acts are irreconcilably inconsistent |
| Whether the two statutes can be construed in pari materia to preserve (2)(C) | Acts passed same session; courts should give effect to both to avoid repeal by implication | SB 316’s replacement text shows a conflicting prohibition making the curtilage exception inconsistent | Court found the statutory texts irreconcilable and refused to harmonize them |
| Whether repeal by implication applies | HB: repeal by implication is disfavored; legislative intent supports survival | State: later enactment that replaces the section implies repeal of earlier exception | Court applied presumption against implied repeal but held conflict clear enough to find implied repeal |
| Whether to interpret meaning of (2)(C) if it survived | N/A — Court of Appeals interpreted (2)(C) to allow such recordings | N/A — Court in majority did not reach interpretation because it found (2)(C) did not survive | Not reached by majority; dissent would have preserved and upheld (2)(C) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. State, 243 Ga. 799 (repeals by implication are disfavored)
- Inter-City Coach Lines v. Harrison, 172 Ga. 390 (acts passed same legislature construed together)
- Sutton v. Garmon, 245 Ga. 685 (statutes irreconcilably contradictory cannot stand together)
- Reid Rental v. City of Waycross, 197 Ga. App. 676 (same-subject acts must be reconciled where possible)
- Keener v. MacDougall, 232 Ga. 273 (later conflicting act supersedes earlier inconsistent act)
- Gunn v. Balkcom, 228 Ga. 802 (conflict between statutes resolves in favor of later act)
- Ransom v. Ransom, 253 Ga. 656 (OCGA § 16-11-62 protects privacy; evidence from violations inadmissible)
- Branch Bank of Alabama v. Kirkpatrick, 5 Ga. 34 (principle on repeal by implication)
- Montgomery v. Board of Education of Richmond County, 74 Ga. 41 (repeals by implication examined and disfavored)
- Chatham County v. Hussey, 267 Ga. 895 (avoid implied repeal unless later act clearly conflicts)