testimony given at the forfeiture hearing. “[T]he burden is upon the party challenging the legality of a decision to prove error by the record. [Cit.] The presumption is in favor of the regularity and legality of all proceedings in the court below. [Cit.] In the absence of anything to the contrary appearing we presume that the trial judge had before him proof demonstrating [such finding].” Newton v. Newton, 222 Ga. 175, 176 (2) (149 SE2d 128) (1966); see also Jones v. State, 226 Ga. App. 608 (487 SE2d 89) (1997); Waddy v. Scottish Rite Children’s Med. Center, 221 Ga. App. 760, 762 (472 SE2d 702) (1996); Mike’s Garage Door Co. v. Dews, 220 Ga. App. 648, 649 (469 SE2d 855) (1996); Dept. of Human Resources v. Cowan, 220 Ga. App. 230 (469 SE2d 384) (1996). 2 See also Lanier, supra at 52 (<HOLDING>). 3 We note that Naomi Bettis may have been
holding that officers observations of the speed of the truck coupled with the sound of the engine racing and the bouncing of the truck as it passed through the intersection gave officer probable cause to believe that truck was exceeding a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs holding that totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion that defendant was transporting drugs and therefore officer was justified in seizing truck holding that it was reasonable to conclude that a defendant intended to use a truck to facilitate the transportation of drugs when the defendant arrived at the site of drug activity in the truck and had no alternative means of leaving the site after obtaining the drugs holding that because the government was unable to prove that a truck in which illegal drugs were discovered was stolen the driver and passenger had standing to challenge the search