Ok this is going to piss a few people off. Thankfully I don't care. The sheriff is a control freak and uses his authority in some questionable ways.
That being said I do have to say he did a good job in this matter. To answer any doubts about the sheriff having the "lead" in a chase. Marked or unmarked does not matter. The Sheriff has the lead no matter what. If the Sheriff isn't involved the next commanding officer has the lead. Someone has to be accountable for any actions in a chase and you can't have a rookie of two or three weeks giving highspeed chase without another higher up officer in the lead.
Anytime the Sheriff is present he has the lead in any type of pursuit investigation or anything else. Sheriff Johnson is one of the best at "Taking Control" of the scene

PTC80's conclusion is based on a flawed premise. Poor lad or lass, perhaps one day, with a certain maturity, he or she will be able to think logically. Why does PTC80 think the sheriff must be driving a marked patrol car if he was in pursuit of a fleeing motorcycle? Using that reasoning and quoted code would mean that on the road the sheriff must be obliged to let all criminals pass by unless he is in a marked car. This was not routine enforcement. That part is really NOT interesting at all. What is interesting to me is why some guy is SNEAKING through the area where a person has just been gunshot and brazen enough to think he could outrun Randall. Say PTC80, who you gonna call when you need help and you need it now? The guy on the motorcycle? Lets pursue this bad element back to from whence it came.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a DISCUSSION forum. I posed a point of discussion to bring out more information about a topic in which I was interested. If you construed my post as a shot at the Sheriff then I apologize my misconstrued phraseology. If you've read my posts before, you know that I am pro-law enforcement (unlike many) and support our local police/deputies. I was not saying he's wrong, I just think that the wording of that code section is rather ambigious and poses an intersting opportunity for DISCUSSION of the context in which it applies. I'm not saying anybody was wrong or right - so try not get so bent out of shape about it.

PTC80 was just bringing up a point of curiosity. The same thing struck me as well actually. What's the point in insulting somebody like that for wondering. I didn't find anything about what he said to be derrogatory towards the sheriff. Everybody here has to be on their high horse all the time - constantly cocked and ready to fire off a rant or an insult about something. How about politely discussing the issue, you can see from his post that's all he asked.
- On a separate note, a quick google search on the topic reveals that the Georgia Association of Chief's of Police comments strongly on the topic of unmarked vehicles in pursuits. Most departments strictly forbid their inclusion in pursuits at all, with a small minority allowing their inclusion on a known serious felony. Interestingly, the composite that I found showed a broad scale ban against unmarked cars being the "lead car" in a pursuit. Any Sheriff's department employees care to comment on what their standard operating procedure has to say on this issue?

...Sheriff Johnson drives an unmarked Dodge Charger, as do a few others in the department. It does have lights and sirens, so could still have been the lead vehicle in a pursuit. Nowhere in the article does it say he was in a marked or unmarked car.

Yea, I know it doesn't say. That's why I asked. I assumed that since SB 64 enacted the current form of OCGA 40-8-91 that he would have to be in a marked vehicle to engage in traffic enforement. That's the way I read it anyway, please critique if I'm not understanding it correctly.
"(a) ...any motor vehicle which is used on official business by any person authorized to make arrests for traffic violations in this state, or any municipality or county thereof, shall be distinctly marked on each side and the back with the name of the agency responsible therefor, in letters not less than four inches in height. No unmarked vehicle shall be routinely employed in traffic law enforcement in this state."

By the way, I'm just curious, I'm not criticizing the Sheriff.

Yes, you are criticizing the Sheriff! Why else would you bring this up? Has anyone said he was "routinely employed in traffic law enforcement?" He was on the scene of another crime when this happened, and his was not the only car in this parade. The Sheriff can be on the scene of any crime or traffic violation. He doesn't need the permission of OCGA 40-8-91. I don't believe you understood it correctly.

No, I wasn't criticizing. The article is rather ambiguous about many of the essential facts. My intention was to inquire if anybody else knew the rest of the facts - since the facts as they SEEM don't really make sense. If there were other cars involved then tell us that. By the way, the article implied to me that the sheriff was engaging in a traffic stop. I'm just asking for some more facts.

...so much as suspicious behavior. That's the whole "sneaking" past law enforcement by cutting through a yard, thing. So it wasn't traffic enforcement, and the code/law/whatever you quoted doesn't apply. Also, the article does say that the sheriff was the "lead" car, not the only car, meaning other vehicles were involved in the pursuit.

Thanks for your constructive input, apparently I struck a nerve with a couple of other people by provoking conversation about the topic. People are so defensive...

If you believe everything you hear or read you will be disappointed. J. Edgar Hoover used to have the on scene agents call him to the scene when it was wrapped up: for pictures. Nothing like some good publicity. Our police in Fayette County, most of them, are pretty well organized and do a pretty good job, but all of the bragging is theatrical.

This is the first time I have ever heard of the Sheriff being accused of wanting or needing publicity. You must have him confused with someone else. I don't see any bragging here.

This guy trained as a deputy under Sheriff Stinchcomb, who was no slouch himself. I'm not sure what to think. I'm glad he is out of the office, and on the street to watch his landsharks.
His presence lends credibility, more than it detracts from it. Just my opinion.

Sheriff Randall quite talking about retirement until you find someone competent to replace yourself. In the county where I was raised we had a Sheriff that was as popular as he was tough. He worked until the day he died. Come on what else do you really have going on?

This goes for Chief Murray as well. What else do you have to do? Stop talking about retirement.

Snap out of it.....both of you!!!

correct you here. Randall went to work with the Fayette County Sheriff's Department around 1973 or 74, I believe, and that would have been under Sheriff James Jones, who was indeed one "bad ass" sheriff.

All of the constitutional officers in Fayette County are doing a great job. Too bad the "three amigos" couldn't emulate them, they may have been able to keep their seats if they had really cared about the county.

Are you saying there is no one competent within the Sheriff's Office or Peachtree City PD to follow Sheriff Johnson or Chief Murray?

We are at a pivotal time right now. We have an increase in crime. In my opinion it is the tough bada$$ reputation of these two men that has kept most of the criminals away.
Even other lawenforcement agencies have a high regard for how tough they are on crime.

For example I got pulled over a couple of months ago by Atlanta PD, for about 4 different reasons. The officer looked at my license and with a concerned look, asked if I drove like this in PTC? I said of course not I think you get the death penalty, I'm not sure what happens but I'm very careful there. His reply was you certainly wouldn't be getting a warning would you? I thanked this guy and went on my way.

Who do you think could replace them?

The Sheriff is much more than a political figure head as suggested above. I have been involved in numerous incident's where he has either intitiated the activity or solved it. Hmmmm..I believe he captured Charles Sangster right....along with Mike Jones help. The only unfortunate thing out if this whole situation is that Aarons car is torn up and the bad guy will have his day in court..oh well givem hell Fletcher!!