¶1concurring specially.
¶2I concur fully in what is said but believe it necessary to draw attention to what we did not reach.
¶3Appellant perfunctorily claims that his state constitutional right, under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. XII, as well as his federal constitutional right against unlawful searches and seizures, was violated. He merely cites it. He did the same thing below and does not show how it is violated.
¶4If he were to mean that failure to meet federal constitutional guidelines ipso facto constitutes a violation of a correlative state constitutional provision as well, I could not agree because of our dual federalism. The Supreme Court of Georgia is the final construer of our state constitution whereas the United States Supreme Court is the final interpreter only of the federal constitution. See Lee v. State, 177 Ga. App. 698 (340 SE2d 658) (1986); Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U. S. 727 (104 SC 2085, 80 LE2d 721) (1984).
¶5But appellant has not made this argument or any other in connection with the state constitution’s provision, and thus, properly, we do not rule on it. Mitchell v. State, 173 Ga. App. 560 (1) (327 SE2d 537) (1985). See Andrews v. State, 175 Ga. App. 22, 24 (332 SE2d 299) (1985).