O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-15-5 (2019)

Civil forfeiture

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the terms “proceeds” and “property” shall have the same meanings as set forth in Code Section 9-16-2. (b) Any property which is, directly or indirectly, used or intended for use in any manner to facilitate a violation of this chapter and proceeds

are declared to be contraband and no person shall have a property right in them. (c) Any property subject to forfeiture pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section shall be forfeited in accordance with Chapter 16 of Title 9.

History

Code 1981, § 16-15-5, enacted by Ga. L. 1992, p. 3236, § 1; Ga. L. 1993, p. 91, § 16; Ga. L. 1998, p. 270, § 8; Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-26/HB 233.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 4-1/HB 233, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: “This Act shall become effective on July 1, 2015, and shall apply

to seizures of property for forfeiture that occur on or after that date. Any such seizure that occurs before July 1, 2015, shall be governed by the statute in effect at the time of such seizure.” Law reviews. For article on the 2015 amendment of this Code section, see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 1 (2015).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2006 · leading case: In the Interest of R. F., 632 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In the Interest of R. F., 632 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “He was acquitted of two counts of theft by receiving, OCGA § 16-15-5. R. F. appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging that a fatal variance existed between the amended delinquency petition and the state’s proof at trial.”

In Re Rf, 632 S.E.2d 452 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “He was acquitted of two counts of theft by receiving, OCGA § 16-15-5. R.F. appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and alleging that a fatal variance existed between the amended delinquency petition and the state's proof at trial.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.