☢ test - Í

place. It stated the date, time, and location of the roadblock, and indicated that the decision to execute the roadblock was made by Lieutenant Ferguson and that its purpose was ‘OZT.’ Major Mathis testified that ‘OZT’ meant the ‘Zero Tolerance’ campaign, during which license and safety checks would be conducted at roadblocks.” “ The ‘Henry County Police Department Roadblock & Safety Checkpoint Record’ was properly admitted by the trial court as a business record, as a witness familiar with the method of keeping such records testified that it had been made in the regular course of business at the time the roadblock took place. See OCGA § 24-3-14(b); Tubbs v. State, 283 Ga.App. 578, 580 (642 S.E.2d 205) (2007). The document contained only ‘routine facts whose accuracy is not affected by bias, judgment, and memory. ’ (Punctuation omitted.) Brown v. State, 274 Ga. 31, 33(1) (549 S.E.2d 107) (2001) (finding narrative portion of police report not admissible as a business record because narrative may contain opinion and ‘reflect human attitudes and emotions which are subjective in nature and susceptible to many interpretations.’).” Tindol v. State, 284 Ga.App. 45, 643 S.E.2d 329 (March 7, 2007). “Contrary to Tindol’s argument, there is no requirement under the business records exception that in order to lay a proper foundation for the admission of the list of equipments and tools normally found on the truck, the person who actually put the equipment on the truck or who witnessed the act appear in court to testify that the equipment was on the truck. See State v. Haddock, 235 Ga.App. 726, 730(2)(b) (510 S.E.2d 561) (1998). What is required is that the ‘foundation must be laid through the testimony of a witness who is familiar with the method of keeping records and who can testify thereto and to facts which show that the entry was made in the regular course of business at the time of the event or within a reasonable time thereafter.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Crawford v. Dammann, 277 Ga.App. 442, 448(2) (626 S.E.2d 632) (2006). The evidence presented by the witness satisfies the foundational requirements of OCGA § 24-3-14(b), and the trial court did not err in admitting her testimony.” Tubbs v. State, 283 Ga.App. 578, 642 S.E.2d 205 (February 13, 2007). Fingerprint cards created by local law enforcement and routinely transmitted to GBI Crime Lab were admissible as business records upon identification by Crime Lab print examiner. “ The decisions of this court ‘allow the records of one business to be admitted as business records of another business where routine, factual documents made by one business are transmitted and delivered to a second business and there entered in the regular course of business of the receiving business. [Cits.]’ Jackson v. State, 209 Ga.App. 217, 219(1) (433 S.E.2d 655) (1993).” Witness’s lack of personal knowledge regarding the creation of the particular cards in question “affect the weight but not the admissibility of the record. Davis v. State, 194 Ga.App. 902, 904(2) (392 S.E.2d 327) (1990) (fingerprint record.)” “[T]he card itself showed that it was created and transmitted at the time of Tubbs’s arrest.” Distinguishing Moore v. State, 154 Ga.App. 535 (268 S.E.2d 706) (1980) (summary provided to DFACS by VA for pending litigation “was not a record kept in the regular course of business”). “Here, in contrast, the witness testified that she was familiar with the record keeping practices of both the submitting agency and the Georgia Crime Information Center, and dealt with them on a regular and routine basis in transmitting and receiving fingerprint records.” Massey v. State, 269 Ga.App. 152, 603 S.E.2d 431 (July 23, 2004). “For a writing to be admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, OCGA § 24-3-14(b) provides that a foundation must be laid through the testimony of a witness indicating that he or she is familiar with the method of keeping the records. The witness must be able to testify that the record was made (1) in the regular course of business, and (2) at the time of the event or within a reasonable time of the event. See id . The documents identified need not have been made by the witness, nor must the witness have had the documents under his or her control or supervision. The witness simply must be aware of the method of keeping the documents. Hertz Corp. v. McCray, 198 Ga.App. 484, 485(2) (402 S.E.2d 298) (1991). The witness’s lack of personal knowledge of how the documents were made will affect the weight given to such evidence, not its admissibility. Smith v. Bank of the South, 141 Ga.App. 114 (232 S.E.2d 629)(1977).” Accord, Santana v. State , 283 Ga.App. 696, 642 S.E.2d 390 (February 22, 2007) (witness’s “lack of personal knowledge regarding how [victim’s phone] records were actually printed out affected their weight, not their admissibility.”); Loyal v. State , 300 Ga.App. 65, 684 S.E.2d 124 (September 10, 2009). Walker v. State, 267 Ga.App. 155, 598 S.E.2d 875 (April 21, 2004). Defendant sought to admit, as a business record, a draft of a lawsuit against defendant prepared by victim’s attorney, to show inconsistencies between the allegations therein and the victim’s testimony at trial. Held, trial court properly excluded the document, absent testimony from the attorney who prepared it (or, presumably, someone at his firm). “OCGA § 24-3-14(b) allows admission of any writing or record made as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event if the trial judge shall find that it was made in the regular course of any business and that it was the regular course of such business to make the memorandum or record at the time of the act, transaction, occurrence, or event or within a reasonable time thereafter. … The transcript