In this divorce case, Charles Rutter moved the court below to exclude any evidence that his wife, Stacy Rutter, might have derived from several video surveillance devices that she surreptitiously installed in their marital residence. Charles argued that her use of these devices amounts to a violation of OCGA § 16-11-62 2, which makes it generally unlawful for one to conduct video surveillance of another in a private place, out of public view, and without his consent.1 But at a hearing on the motion, the court below pointed to OCGA § 16-11-62 2 C, which sets out an exception to the general prohibition and expressly permits one to conduct video surveillance of persons “within the curtilage of her own residence” for certain purposes. Relying on the exception set out in subparagraph 2 C, the court below denied the motion to exclude, and Charles appeals from its denial.2 We affirm the judgment below.
1. Before we consider whether the court below properly understood the exception set out in OCGA § 16-11-62 2 C, we must address a threshold question, namely whether subparagraph 2 C is still good law. Subparagraph 2 C came into being on April 20, 2000, when the Governor approved legislation known as House Bill 1576 “HB 1576″, which amended OCGA § 16-11-62 and added, among other provisions, subparagraph 2 C. Ga. L. 2000, p. 491, § 1. HB 1576 was effective on the day it was approved by the Governor. Id. at § 5. One week later, on April 27, 2000, the Governor approved legislation known as Senate Bill 316 “SB 316″, which amended OCGA § 16-11-62 by “striking that Code section” and “inserting in its place a new Code section,” one that contains no subparagraph 2 C and otherwise contains no provision substantially like subparagraph 2 C. Ga. L. 2000, p. 875, § 2. The legislation known as SB 316 was effective as of July 1, 2000. Id. at § 3. We are presented, therefore, with a question about whether SB 316 effectively repealed subparagraph 2 C, such that subparagraph 2 C ceased to be good law as of July 1, 2000. This question has been briefed not only by the parties, but also by the Attorney General and the Office of Legislative Counsel as amici curiae.3
