Opinion ID: 1404080
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: illegal drug stamp charge

Text: The first issue we will deal with is the denial of the motion to dismiss the tax stamp charge on the basis that the statute is unconstitutional. The Illegal Drug Stamp Tax Act was enacted in 1989, and was later amended in 1990. This Act requires those unlawfully in possession of controlled substances to purchase and affix drug tax stamps to the substances or face civil and criminal penalties. The defendant was charged under the 1989 version, and asserts that this version was unconstitutional because it violated his right against self-incrimination. [1] At oral argument the State acknowledged that, as to its criminal provisions, the Act was unconstitutional as it was violative of the Fifth Amendment because it failed to provide the functional equivalent of a guarantee against self-incrimination. We agree. Under the 1989 version, although a purchaser of drug stamps was not required to give identifying information when paying the tax, there was no penalty for disclosure of information by tax commission employees or agents, and there was no express prohibition against using the information obtained through the purchase of the stamps in criminal proceedings or investigations. The most significant change in the Illegal Drug Stamp Tax Act made in the 1990 version was the addition of I.C. § 63-4206 which provides for confidentiality for stamp purchasers. Idaho Code § 63-4206 provides penalties for those who would divulge this information, and prohibits using it in criminal investigations or proceedings. This addition cures the deficiencies challenged by the defendant. Other states have held similarly. [2] The defendant's conviction for failure to purchase and affix a drug stamp under the 1989 version of the Illegal Drug Stamp Tax Act is vacated.