O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 16-16-2 (2019)

Civil forfeiture of property used to commit property related offenses

✓ 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 the commission of a burglary, home invasion, or armed robbery and any 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 the procedures set forth in Chapter 16 of Title 9.

History

Code 1981, § 16-16-2, enacted by Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-27/HB 233.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2015, p. 693, § 2-27/HB 233, repealed former Code Section 16-16-2, pertaining to forfeiture, and enacted the present Code section. The former Code section was based on Code 1981, § 16-16-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1995, p. 1051, § 4; Ga. L. 2012, p. 1285, § 1/SB 350; Ga. L. 2014, p. 426, § 8/HB 770. 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).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s note. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, annotations decided under former O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Forfeiture order. - Forfeiture of a pickup truck and a trailer used to commit a burglary was upheld as the state’s burden of proof was “by a preponderance of the evidence” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt” as alleged by the property owner; furthermore, the state

was not required to prove a burglary conviction under O.C.G.A. § 16-7-1, or that charges were even filed, and whether a burglary took place without the owner’s knowledge or consent was a fact question to be resolved by the court, which as the trier of fact, was not obligated to believe a witness even if the testimony was uncontradicted. Walker v. State of Ga., 281 Ga. App. 526, 636 S.E.2d 705, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 1156 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 16-6-2).

CHAPTER 17 PAYDAY LENDING Sec.

Payday lending; legislative findings; prohibited activity; no impairment of agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. Prohibition on loans of less than $3,000.00; exceptions; penalty for violations. Collection of indebtedness barred; civil action permitted by borrowers. Liability for civil penalty to state; distribution of proceeds.

Law reviews. For article on 2004 enactment of this

Sec.

Tax on loans. Evidence and investigation in pursuit of prosecutions. Prohibition against issuance of certificate of authority from Secretary of State. Site of payday lending is public nuisance. Special provisions for borrowers who are members of the military or their respective spouses. Severability.

chapter, see 21 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 59 (2004).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 53A Am. Jur. 2d, Moneylenders and Pawnbrokers, § 1 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1996–2006 · leading case: Walker v. State, 636 S.E.2d 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Walker v. State, 636 S.E.2d 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “The court found that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the truck and trailer were used in the commission of a burglary and therefore were subject to forfeiture under OCGA § 16-16-2. The court further found that Walker had failed to establish that he as…”
Strickland v. Vaughn, 472 S.E.2d 159 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 16-16-2, enacted in 1995, allowing (but not requiring) the forfeiture of motor vehicles used to facilitate burglary or armed robbery.”
Moore v. State, 554 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “Keith Barry Moore appeals from a default judgment in a forfeiture action under OCGA § 16-16-2. The forfeiture petition was filed in the Douglas County Superior Court on April 5, 2001, and Moore was personally served the next day.”
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.