Was the Trump-Raffensperger Call Recording Legal Under Georgia Law?
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 5, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
On January 2, 2021, President Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and asked him to "find" enough votes to overturn Trump's Georgia loss. The call was recorded and made public the next day. Under Georgia's one-party consent law, the recording was legal if a participant made it.
Information last verified on August 4, 2026. We update this page as the related Fulton County court record develops.
Scope: This article covers whether Georgia law made it legal to record the January 2, 2021 call, and the current status of the related Fulton County criminal case. It does not address the separate federal investigation into 2020 election matters or any state's law other than Georgia's. This is general legal information, not legal advice.
What Happened on the Call
On January 2, 2021, President Trump, who was contesting his loss in Georgia, spoke by phone for about an hour with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. Trump told Raffensperger he wanted to "find 11,780 votes," a number the prosecutor who later closed the criminal case described in a court filing as enough to "change the outcome of the vote and move Georgia's 16 Electoral Votes to Trump's column." Trump also made a series of election-fraud claims that Georgia and federal election officials had not substantiated.
White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and several attorneys, including Cleta Mitchell and Kurt Hilbert, joined the call on Trump's side. Raffensperger was joined by the secretary of state's office general counsel, Ryan Germany, and Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs. The Washington Post published a transcript and audio of the call on January 3, 2021, reporting that it had obtained the recording.
Trump referenced the call in a social media post the following morning, and Raffensperger responded publicly, writing: "Respectfully, President Trump: What you're saying is not true. The truth will come out." Both exchanges were reported alongside the call's release; a full list of the disputed claims and why officials rejected them is covered in our rundown of 2020 election voter-fraud claims.
Was the Call Recording Legal Under Georgia Law
Recording the call was legal under Georgia law if it was made by a participant, or by a third party with a participant's consent. Georgia is a one-party consent state for both phone calls and in-person conversations under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62 and 16-11-66(a).
Georgia's One-Party Consent Rule
Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a), a person who is a party to a phone call, or who has the consent of at least one party, may record it without telling or getting permission from anyone else on the line. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press summarizes the Georgia rule the same way: a person who is either a participant in a telephone or other electronic communication, or who has consent from one of the participants, is allowed to record or intercept that communication.
That makes the recording of the Trump-Raffensperger call legal if it was made by Trump, by Raffensperger, by anyone else who was on the call, or by a third party acting with permission from one of them.
Trump reportedly took the call from the White House in Washington, D.C., while Raffensperger's office was in Georgia. Both are one-party consent jurisdictions (D.C. Code § 23-542 and O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a)), so the fact that the call crossed state lines does not change the analysis.
When the Recording Would Have Been Illegal
The recording would have violated Georgia law only if someone who was not a party to the call, and who did not have consent from at least one participant, secretly intercepted it under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62. If that had happened, O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 would generally have kept the recording out of evidence in a Georgia court. The Supreme Court of Georgia quoted the provision in full in Nuckles v. State:
"No evidence obtained in a manner which violates any of the provisions of this part shall be admissible in any court of this state except to prove violations of this part." Nuckles v. State, 310 Ga. 624 (2020), quoting O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67
The closing phrase is the narrow exception: an unlawfully obtained recording can still be used to prosecute the interception itself.
No public reporting has identified a non-consenting third party as the source of this recording. Its origin is consistent with either side of the call, rather than an outside wiretap.
Who Published the Recording
The Washington Post reported on January 3, 2021 that it had obtained audio and a transcript of the call without identifying who supplied it. Raffensperger and his office did not dispute that the call took place and publicly stood behind the account reflected in the recording.
The Call's Role in the Fulton County Election-Interference Case
The January 2 call was charged in Fulton County's August 2023 racketeering indictment of Trump and 18 others under two separate counts, and it appeared twice among the racketeering count's alleged overt acts. The solicitation count built on the call was quashed in March 2024; the false-statements count remained pending. District Attorney Fani Willis was later disqualified from the case, and on November 26, 2025 the prosecutor who took over dropped the remaining charges, ending the case without a trial.
On August 14, 2023, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump and 18 co-defendants on one count of violating Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4, which alleged 161 overt acts in furtherance of a scheme to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results, along with 40 additional counts (Fulton County Criminal Indictment, Case No. 23SC188947). The January 2 call appears in that indictment more than once. Count 28 charged Trump and Meadows with soliciting Raffensperger to violate his oath of office during the call. Count 29 charged Trump with false statements and writings, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-20, for a series of claims he made to Raffensperger, Deputy Secretary of State Jordan Fuchs, and the office's general counsel, Ryan Germany, on the same call. The racketeering count also listed the call twice among its alleged overt acts, as Acts 112 and 113.
Count 28 never reached a jury, and it did not survive pretrial motions either. Judge Scott McAfee quashed Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 by order dated March 13, 2024, and quashed Counts 14, 15, and 27 by a further order dated September 12, 2024. Both rulings are recorded in a footnote to the memorandum the incoming prosecutor filed when he later moved to close the case. The solicitation charge tied to the call was therefore off the table from March 2024 onward. The call itself stayed in the case: Count 29 and the racketeering count, including its call-related overt acts, were not quashed, and both remained pending until the case was dismissed in November 2025.
Four of the original 19 defendants resolved their cases by guilty plea before trial. Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with election duties, and Scott Hall pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor conspiracy counts; both received probation, gave statements to prosecutors, and agreed to testify in later proceedings. Attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis also pleaded guilty in October 2023, each to a single felony count, and each was sentenced to probation. Those pleas were not disturbed by the case's later dismissal, which reached only the defendants and counts still pending.
The case against Trump and the remaining defendants never reached trial. On December 19, 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis and her office from the prosecution, citing "a significant appearance of impropriety" arising from her romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. Willis petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court on January 8, 2025, and that court declined to review the disqualification on September 16, 2025, leaving the Court of Appeals ruling in place.
The case returned to Fulton County Superior Court on October 1, 2025. Because Willis and her office could no longer prosecute it, O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5 required the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council of Georgia to supply a conflict prosecutor, and on October 3, 2025 Judge McAfee ordered the council to appoint one within 14 days or see the case dismissed for want of prosecution. The council's executive director, Peter Skandalakis, took the case himself as district attorney pro tempore, and on November 26, 2025 he filed a motion for entry of nolle prosequi dropping the charges against all remaining defendants. Judge McAfee granted the motion the same day, dismissing the case in its entirety.
In the memorandum filed with that motion, Skandalakis wrote that there was "no realistic prospect that a sitting President will be compelled to appear in Georgia to stand trial on the allegations in this indictment," and that in his professional judgment "the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years." The dismissal ended the state prosecution without a trial and without a court ruling on whether the underlying racketeering allegations were proven. It does not change the recording-law analysis above, which concerns only whether making the recording itself was lawful.
Analysis: Two Separate Legal Questions
The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team.
Whether the recording was legal and what happened to the criminal case are separate questions, and it is easy to conflate them. Georgia's one-party consent rule is narrow and settled: it asks who made the recording, not what was said on it or what legal consequences followed from it. That question was answerable from the beginning. The recording was almost certainly lawful under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a) regardless of which side of the call produced it, because both Trump and Raffensperger were parties to their own conversation.
The case's end is a later, separate development driven by pretrial rulings, a disqualification dispute, and a prosecutor's discretion, not by any finding about the call itself. A nolle prosequi closes a prosecution without resolving the truth of the underlying allegations, so the November 2025 dismissal should not be read as a ruling on what happened during the call or on whether it amounted to solicitation of election fraud. The sequence matters here as well: the solicitation count arising from the January 2 call was quashed in March 2024, more than a year and a half before the case closed, while the false-statements count arising from the same call, and the racketeering count that listed the call among its overt acts, remained pending until the November 2025 dismissal ended them. Readers following this story should keep the settled recording-law question separate from the closed, but merits-unresolved, Fulton County case.
This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers Georgia's recording-consent law as applied to a specific, widely reported 2021 phone call, and the status of the related Fulton County criminal case as verified on August 4, 2026. Court records can change quickly. Consult a lawyer licensed in Georgia for advice about a specific situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was it legal to record the Trump-Raffensperger call?
Yes, most likely. Georgia is a one-party consent state under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62 and 16-11-66(a), so the recording was legal if it was made by Trump, by Raffensperger, by someone else on the call, or by a third party with permission from one of them. No public reporting has identified a non-consenting third-party interception of this call.
Who actually recorded the call?
It was never officially confirmed. The Washington Post reported on January 3, 2021 that it had obtained audio and a transcript of the call, without naming its source.
Is the Fulton County criminal case against Trump still active?
No. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed the case in its entirety on November 26, 2025, after Peter Skandalakis, the prosecutor who had taken over the case, moved to drop the charges against all remaining defendants.
Why was Fani Willis removed from the case?
The Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis and her office on December 19, 2024, citing a significant appearance of impropriety created by her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The Georgia Supreme Court declined to review that ruling on September 16, 2025.
Did anyone go to prison over the Georgia election case?
No defendant was sentenced to prison in this case. Four of the nineteen defendants pleaded guilty before trial: Sidney Powell and Scott Hall to misdemeanor conspiracy counts, and Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis each to one felony count. All four were sentenced to probation. The case against Trump and the other remaining defendants was dismissed in November 2025 before it reached trial.
Was the Raffensperger call itself part of the criminal charges?
Yes, under more than one count. Count 28 of the August 2023 Fulton County indictment charged Trump and then-Chief of Staff Mark Meadows with soliciting a violation of oath by a public officer in connection with the January 2, 2021 call, and Count 29 charged Trump with false statements and writings for statements he made on the same call. Judge Scott McAfee quashed Count 28, along with Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, and 38, by order dated March 13, 2024, but Count 29 remained pending until the case was dismissed in November 2025.
Does the case's dismissal mean the recording or the call's contents were found to be false?
No. A nolle prosequi dismissal ends a prosecution without a trial or a ruling on the truth of the underlying allegations. It resolves the criminal case procedurally; it does not adjudicate what was said on the call or why.
Updates
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the case history: Count 28, the solicitation charge arising from the January 2, 2021 call, was quashed by Judge Scott McAfee in March 2024, while Count 29, a false-statements charge based on the same call, remained pending until the case's dismissal in November 2025. Replaced three statute citations with primary sources, including the Supreme Court of Georgia decision that quotes O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 in full.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected and expanded the case history and replaced several citations. Added that Count 28, the solicitation count charging Trump and Meadows in connection with the January 2, 2021 call, was quashed by Judge Scott McAfee by order dated March 13, 2024, along with Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, and 38, and that Count 29, a false-statements count arising from the same call, was not quashed and remained pending until the case's dismissal on November 26, 2025; the racketeering count also alleged the call as overt Acts 112 and 113. Verified those points against the indictment itself and the prosecutor's memorandum filed with the motion to nolle prosequi. Replaced three third-party statute links with primary and press-freedom sources: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press guide for Georgia's one-party consent rule, and the Supreme Court of Georgia's decision in Nuckles v. State, 310 Ga. 624 (2020), which quotes O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 in full. Confirmed all four pretrial guilty pleas (Sidney Powell, Scott Hall, Kenneth Chesebro, Jenna Ellis) against the prosecutor's memorandum and contemporaneous reporting. Removed a stray sentence about a federal appellate record that did not apply to this Georgia state case, and added the statutory basis for the conflict-prosecutor appointment (O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5).
Rewrote this page for accuracy and completeness. Fixed two broken markdown links inherited from the 2020 WordPress migration and replaced fragile Twitter/X citations with Washington Post citations of the same reporting, since automated verification of the original twitter.com/t.co links was inconclusive (X now returns HTTP 402 to non-browser requests). Added Key Takeaways and an FAQ section, and removed editorializing language from the original 2020 draft. Added a new section on the Fulton County, Georgia criminal case: the January 2 call's role as Count 28 of the August 2023 indictment, Fani Willis's December 2024 disqualification and the Georgia Supreme Court's September 2025 refusal to review it, and the case's dismissal on November 26, 2025. Cited Georgia's recording-consent and admissibility statutes by section number (O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66, 16-11-67) rather than describing them only in general terms.
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 23: Criminal Procedure. - Chapter 5: Warrants and Arrests. - Subchapter III: Wire Interception and Interception of Oral Communications.
§ 23-542Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications prohibited.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subchapter, any person who in the District of Columbia — (1) willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire or oral communication; (2) willfully discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication; or (3) willfully uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire or oral communication; shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in [§ 22-3571.01] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; except that paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection shall not apply to the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):District of Columbia courts have construed the one-party consent provision of D.C. Code 23-542(b)(2). United States v. Sell (1985) held the consent must be voluntary, the government meeting its burden by showing the party cooperated knowing what officers were doing. Thomas v. United States (2017) applied it to an interstate call.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Sell (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 1985, 487 A.2d 225)✓Police recorded a woman's calls with an officer she accused of coercing sex acts. Construing the one-party consent provision for the first time, the court held the government need only show she cooperated knowing what police were doing, and reversed the suppression order.
- David Thomas v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2017)“…s. & .lud. Proc. § 10- 402 [c)(.'£)(ii) (West 2015). Under D.C. Code § 23-542." the legislature has clearly defined w…”
- Thomas v. United States (District of Columbia Court of Appeals 2017, 171 A.3d 151)✓Police in the District recorded a call between a voyeurism victim and the defendant, who was in Maryland and did not consent. The court held this section governs admissibility in District courts and does not incorporate Maryland's two-party rule, so suppression was denied.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, District of Columbia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 15-18-5Appointment of substitute for absent or disqualified district attorney.In force
(a) When a district attorney's office isdisqualified from interest or relationship to engage in a prosecution, the district attorney shall notify the Attorney General of the disqualification.Upon receipt of such notification, the Attorney General shall: (1) Request the services of and thereafter…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Neuman v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2021, 311 Ga. 83)“…e, creating a disqualifying interest or relationship under OCGA § 15-18-5 (a).6 In response, the State argued th…”
- State v. Cook (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1984, 172 Ga. App. 433)“…he performance of his prosecutorial duties, compliance with OCGA § 15-18-5 regarding the *438 qualifications and…”
- In Re Floyd County Grand Jury Presentments (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1997, 225 Ga. App. 705)“…staff was acting as a “district attorney pro tempore” under OCGA § 15-18-5 (a) (3) in the handling of matters rela…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-10-20False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions.In force
A person who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 117 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jones v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2008, 290 Ga. App. 490)“…rge of making a false statementto a government agency under OCGA§ 16-10-20 does not apply to the judicial branch,…”
- Banta v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2007, 281 Ga. 615)“…o a government agency, challenging the constitutionality of OCGA § 16-10-20, the statute defining that crime.…”
- Maddox v. Southern Engineering Co. (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1998, 231 Ga. App. 802)“…ke Creek. Maddox argues that the defendants violated OCGA § 16-10-20 by knowingly and willfully submitting f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-62Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message.In forcecited in 25 of our articles
It shall be unlawful for: (1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place; (2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kelley v. State (1998) held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reached a guardian who photographed a nude 16-year-old in the family bathroom, with no exception for family members. Burgeson v. State (1996) held a conversation recorded in a patrol car was not covered, because no reasonable expectation of privacy existed there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burgeson v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1996, 267 Ga. 102)✓Police secretly recorded two arrestees talking in the back of a patrol car. The court held a police car is much like a jail cell, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so intercepting that conversation did not offend OCGA 16-11-62 and the tape was admissible.
- Kelley v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1998, 233 Ga. App. 244)✓A guardian photographed her 16-year-old niece nude and passed out in the family bathtub. The court held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reaches any person with no family exception, that the film need not be developed, and that a jury could find the bathroom a private place.
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)“…th the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. OCGA § 16-11-62 (1) provides that: It shall be unlawf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Data Privacy Laws: Breach Notification & Consumer Rights (2026), Georgia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Georgia Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 16-11-66Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication by party thereto; consent requirements for recording and divulging conversations to which child under 18 years is a party; parental exception.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (b) After obtaining the consent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at advance.lexis.com
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Cohen (2017) held OCGA 16-11-66(a) reaches only intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications, so one party's consent does not authorize secretly video recording others in a private place. Bishop v. State (1999) barred vicarious parental consent under the text in force before the 2000 amendment.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)✓An investigator recorded a child's call to the defendant using only her father's consent and no warrant; the Supreme Court held the state had neither an investigation warrant nor valid consent of a party to the call, so the recording and its fruits were inadmissible.
- State v. Cohen (Supreme Court of Georgia 2017, 302 Ga. 616)✓A housekeeper secretly videoed her employer naked at home; the Supreme Court held the one-party-consent rule of OCGA 16-11-66(a) covers only intercepted wire, oral or electronic communications and does not permit video recording without the consent of all observed.
- State v. Madison (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2011, 311 Ga. App. 31)✓A molestation complainant secretly videoed the defendant in his law office; the court read the 16-11-66(a) participant exception to reach section 16-11-62, but found no wire, oral or electronic communication captured, so it affirmed suppression. Cohen overruled that reading.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, Georgia AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Georgia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 16-11-67Admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of part.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
No evidence obtained in a manner which violates any of the provisions of this part shall be admissible in any court of this state except to prove violations of this part. (Ga. L. 1967, p. 844, § 1; Code 1933, § 26-3007, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 41 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ransom v. Ransom (Supreme Court of Georgia 1985, 253 Ga. 656)“…Ann. § 26-2001, quoted in the majority opinion. In enacting OCGA § 16-11-67 the legislature effected an additional…”
- Registe v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2012, 292 Ga. 154)“…er OCGA § lG-ll-ee.Uor 18USC § 2702 (c) (4). 1 2 However, OCGA § 16-11-67 provides: “No evidence obtained in a ma…”
- Suggs v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2021, 310 Ga. 762)“…nversation that he had with Appellant. Appellant relies on OCGA § 16-11-67, which says: “No evidence obtained in…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-14-4Prohibited activities.In force
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, through a pattern of racketeering activity or proceeds derived therefrom, to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise, real property, or personal property of any nature, including money. (b) It shall be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 202 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chancey v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1986, 256 Ga. 415)“…d activities” under the Georgia RICO statute are set out in OCGA § 16-14-4. Subsection (a) makes it “unlawful for…”
- Kimbrough v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2017, 300 Ga. 878)“…enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, see OCGA § 16-14-4 (b), 2 and it identifies the alleged e…”
- Dorsey v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 2005, 279 Ga. 534)“…e, the State was required to show that [defendant] violated OCGA § 16-14-4, which provides in relevant part: (a)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Transcript and audio: Trump call with Georgia Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger - The Washington Post (Jan. 3, 2021)(washingtonpost.com)
- Trump pressures Georgia's Raffensperger to overturn his defeat - The Washington Post (Jan. 3, 2021)(washingtonpost.com)
- Brad Raffensperger to Donald Trump: 'What you're saying is not true' - CNN (Jan. 3, 2021)(cnn.com)
- Georgia - Reporter's Recording Guide, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (one-party consent under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-62 and 16-11-66(a))(rcfp.org)
- D.C. Code § 23-542 - Interception, disclosure, and use of wire or oral communications(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Nuckles v. State, 310 Ga. 624 (2020) (Supreme Court of Georgia, quoting O.C.G.A. § 16-11-67 on admissibility of unlawfully obtained recordings)(gasupreme.us).gov
- Fulton County Criminal Indictment, State v. Trump et al., Case No. 23SC188947 (Aug. 14, 2023)(fultonclerk.org).gov
- Fani Willis disqualified from Trump election case by Georgia appellate court - The Washington Post (Dec. 19, 2024)(washingtonpost.com)
- Georgia Supreme Court declines to hear Fani Willis' appeal of her removal from Trump election case - PBS News (Sept. 16, 2025)(pbs.org)
- State's Motion to Nolle Prosequi and Exhibit A, Memorandum of Peter J. Skandalakis, District Attorney Pro Tempore, State v. Trump et al., No. 23SC188947 (Fulton Cty. Super. Ct., Nov. 26, 2025) (n.2: Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 quashed by order dated Mar. 13, 2024)(s3.documentcloud.org)
- Fulton County election interference case against Trump and his allies is dismissed - Georgia Recorder (Nov. 26, 2025)(georgiarecorder.com)
- Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 loss in Georgia - AP News (Oct. 20, 2023)(apnews.com)
- Ex-Trump attorney Jenna Ellis pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case - NPR (Oct. 24, 2023)(npr.org)