(Emphasis in original.) Hawkins v. State, 249 Ga. App. 26, 27-28 (1) ( 546 SE2d 280) (2001). See id.
See Clark v. State, supra at 504.Hawkins v. State, 249 Ga. App. 26 (1) ( 546 S.E.2d 280) (2001). 2.
Compare id. at 126-127; see Moreno v. State, 204 Ga. App. 463 (1) ( 419 S.E.2d 735) (1992). Here, the court was correct in finding that the equal access rule did not apply as (1) Kantorik was the owner of a vehicle in which drugs were found and a passenger, (2) the driver stated that the drugs did not belong to her, (3) the drugs were in plain view on the passenger side of the vehicle where Kantorik was sitting, and (4) Kantorik told the driver not to stop and fled the scene when approached by officers (see Hawkins v. State, 249 Ga. App. 26, 27-28(1) ( 546 S.E.2d 280) (2001) (finder of fact was authorized to consider evidence that defendant fled in evaluating his consciousness of guilt)). See Petty, supra, 221 Ga. App. at 126-127.
(Punctuation omitted.) Hawkins v. State, 249 Ga. App. 26, 27(1) ( 546 S.E.2d 280) (2001). See Morgan, supra at 59(1).