Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): exchange or giving away of [controlled substances] ... ****** (b) Property subject to forfeiture under this act may be seized by any law enforcement officer upon process issued by any district court having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure by a law enforcement officer may be made without process if: ****** (3) there is probable cause to believe that the property was used in violation of this act K.S.A. 65-4135(a)(4) and (b)(3). Once property is seized pursuant to subsection (b)(3), proceedings pursuant to K.S.A. 65-4171 must be implemented promptly. K.S.A. 65-4135(c). The court notes that K.S.A. 65-4135 is virtually identical to the federal forfeiture statute, 21 U.S.C. § 881. See State ex rel. Love v. One 1967 Chevrolet El Camino, 247 Kan. 469, 473, 799 P.2d 1043 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Regarding the federal statute, courts have 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical (B) holding that trial judge is legally correct in dismissing declaratory action when two actions are substantially the same issues were identical and the identical action was still pending (C) holding that though mississippi law governs the amount of the fee award here because the factors considered under state and federal law are nearly identical both state and federal cases are instructive (D) holding these two statutes are not criminal offenses and only affect sentencing (E) holding that substantive aspects of claims under federal discrimination statutes and fcra are identical
Output (English): holding that substantive aspects of claims under federal discrimination statutes and fcra are identical