Court Opinion

ID: 9528499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:41:39.885389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:19.144295
License: Public Domain

LAVORATO, Justice
(dissenting).
In Kaster we held that property can be forfeited for the violation of a simple misdemeanor. In re Kaster, 454 N.W.2d 876, 878-79 (Iowa 1990). By that decision we put ourselves in a position appellate courts dread: sanctioning an unconscionable and absurd result.
Today we hold that a motor vehicle can be forfeited because its owner used it while in possession of a controlled substance. *849See Iowa Code §§ 204.401(3) (possession of a controlled substance), 809.1(2)(b) (defining forfeitable property as any property used or intended to be used to facilitate commission of a criminal offense). Possession of a controlled substance is a serious misdemeanor. Iowa Code § 204.401(3).
Tomorrow we may be asked to uphold the forfeiture of an expensive vehicle for violation of the open container law. See Iowa Code § 123.28. That statute prohibits a driver from having an open container of an alcoholic beverage in a vehicle while on a public street or highway. The violation of this statute is a simple misdemean- or. See id.
The legislature has excepted violations of chapters 321 and 321J from the forfeiture provisions of Iowa Code chapter 809. See Iowa Code § 809.1(4). Chapter 321 deals with rules of the road, and chapter 321J deals with drunk driving. Obviously, the legislature did not think violations of these chapters are serious enough to warrant forfeiture of the motor vehicle involved.
The open container law serves the same purpose as the .drunk driving law. Both are designed to keep drunk drivers off the road. Yet, whether by design or oversight, the legislature has not similarly excepted violations of the open container law from the forfeiture provisions.
I suggest forfeiting an expensive automobile for violation of the open container law would be an unconscionable and absurd result. But that is the result Raster would lead us to.
When we reach such a point, we do not hesitate to turn away from a literal interpretation of the statute. See, e.g., Richmond v. State, 464 N.W.2d 125, 126 (Iowa 1990). One court did just that to avoid forfeiture of an expensive motor vehicle. State v. One Porsche Two-Door, 526 P.2d 917, 919 (Utah 1974). The authorities attempted to forfeit the vehicle because the driver, while in the vehicle, had a small amount of marijuana in his possession. The court gave the following examples of harsh results that might occur from a literal interpretation of the forfeiture statute under attack:
Under the legislation Price would have to forfeit his $10,000 Porsche if he happened to be sitting in it in his driveway in silence and serenity, smoking a marijuana cigarette, and was approached by a gendarme, who took his car out from under him. Under this statute he could have his car taken from him if he were taking his six-year-old to school and happened to have a marijuana cigarette in his pocket, — or under such circumstances he was rushing his pregnant wife to the hospital, — or if he were driving the Porsche out of a burning garage, — or trying to escape from a highwayman or a flood or anything else.
Id. at 919. Under Kaster, and now this ease, our forfeiture law applies in these examples if the authorities choose to enforce it.
I think now is the time to draw the line. I would follow the lead of one court faced with the same dilemma: I would limit our forfeiture law to a violation that constitutes a felony. See State v. One 1972 Pontiac Grand Prix, 90 S.D. 455, 242 N.W.2d 660, 662-63 (1976).
I would also invite the legislature to limit the forfeiture law to certain crimes. The federal government and most states do so. In addition, the federal statute has standards which avoid the vagueness problems that plague our forfeiture statute. See In re Kaster, 454 N.W.2d at 881 (Snell, J., dissenting) (joined by Carter and Lavorato, JJ.). Such limitations — applying forfeiture laws to felonies only and to certain crimes — would tend to avoid unfair, indiscriminate, and unfettered application of the forfeiture statute.
I have an additional problem with the majority opinion. It goes too far with respect to cash found in close proximity to drugs or on persons found at the scene of a drug raid. Under the majority’s view the authorities can now take any amount of cash, regardless of its source, as long as an expert testifies a drug dealer needs cash to make change. I would require some showing that the cash was used in a drug transaction or was derived from it. See In re Rush, 448 N.W.2d 472, 479-80 (Iowa 1989) *850(Snell, J., dissenting) (joined by Lavorato, J.).
By this dissent I do not mean to imply that I concede Iowa Code section 809.1(2)(b) passes constitutional muster. Nor do I mean to imply that our communities should relax their fight against drugs. But I stand by the dissent in Kaster. See Kaster, 454 N.W.2d at 880 (Snell, J., dissenting) (joined by Carter and Lavorato, JJ.). I still believe the section violates federal and Iowa due process guarantees because it is unconstitutionally vague. And I suggest it may violate other constitutional provisions not yet addressed by this court. The legislature should take a close look at the forfeiture law and eliminate the law’s obvious infirmities.
For all these reasons I would reverse.
CARTER and SNELL, JJ., join this dissent.