State v. One 1983 Black Toyota Pickup

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kienast

    1996 S.D. 111 (S.D. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    In Kienast, the defendant, Mr. Kienast, was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance as a result of an undercover drug buy.

    See State v. One 1983 Black Toyota Pickup, 415 N.W.2d 511, 513 n. * (S.D. 1987). The United States Supreme Court has recently reviewed the federal civil forfeiture statutes in light of similar double jeopardy claims in United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996).

  2. State v. One '95 Silver Jeep Grand Cherokee

    712 N.W.2d 646 (S.D. 2006)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that “[c]riminal fines ... reflect judgments made by the legislature about the appropriate punishment for an offense”

    SDCL 34-20B-70. This Court has held that "[p]ossession, transportation or concealment of any amount of methamphetamine subjects the vehicle to forfeiture under SDCL 34-20B-70." State v. One 1983 Black Toyota Pickup, 415 N.W.2d 511, 513 (S.D. 1987). Moreover, forfeiture is not dependent upon a criminal conviction related to the substance.

  3. State v. One 1990 Chevrolet Pickup

    115 N.M. 644 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that "Section 30-31-34(D) permits forfeiture only when the controlled substances in question are possessed for the purpose of sale."

    See, e.g., State v. Crenshaw, 548 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1989) (statute provided that when felony contraband is possessed vehicle or other personal property where contraband is located is subject to forfeiture); State v. One 1983 Black Toyota Pickup, 415 N.W.2d 511 (S.D. 1987) (legislature amended statute to specifically allow forfeiture when drugs are possessed solely for personal use); Commonwealth v. One 1983 Toyota Corolla, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 325, 578 A.2d 90 (Ct. 1990) (statute requires forfeiture of vehicle when drugs are possessed).