shows that Respondent did have a legitimate car detailing business that involved cash transactions. In addition, the bank records show that money in the accounts came from the car detailing business. As a result, the State failed to demonstrate how the money contained in the bank account came from illegal drug transactions. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals opinion holding that the State failed to establish probable cause that the money in the bank accounts contained proceeds traceable to illegal drug transactions. Further, we decline to use the rationale in Thomas because we believe the standard in Thomas would lessen the burden on the State and is in direct contravention to the word traceable in the language of the statute. See Ducworth, 319 S.C. at 162, 459 S.E.2d at 899 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion Accordingly, based on the above
recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning holding that the terms of a forfeiture statute must be strictly construed and as a result the words of a statute must be given their plain and ordinary meaning without resorting to subtle or forced construction to limit or expand the statutes operation holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning holding that statutory words must be given their ordinary contemporary meaning