State v. West

I respectfully dissent. Although I agree with the majority that the trial court's interpretation of OCGA § 16-13-49(d)(6) is contrary to our case law, I see no implicit finding in the trial court's order that the vehicle was, as a factual matter, located in "close proximity" to the marijuana seized from the apartment. I would therefore vacate the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings.

In addition I question the soundness of our case law construing the residual clause of OCGA § 16-13-49(d)(6). I am strongly inclined to hold that we have erred in applying that clause to things…