Court Opinion

ID: 9659794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:47.443684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.567243
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I would agree with the majority that the statutes do not require notice and hearing, and thus deny due process of law. SDCL 39-17-134 provides that the disposition under SDCL 39-17-137 must be “instituted promptly.” It should have added “in accordance with SDCL 15-6” thus making it mandatory that the Rules of Civil Procedure apply. Rules of Civil Procedure would provide due process, but where those rules can be arbitrarily applied or rejected, due process is denied. Beveridge v. Baer, 1932, 59 S.D. 563, 241 N.W. 727.
I do not agree that the entire drug disposal statutes (SDCL 39-17-129(4) to 39-17-137) need to be declared unconstitutional. We are dealing here only with the post-seizure disposition of conveyance under SDCL 39-17-129(4), Why should we strike down the state’s right to dispose of controlled drugs and substances forfeited? I would modify the judgment of the trial court, declaring only SDCL 39-17-129(4) unconstitutional for lack of mandatory, constitutionally sufficient procedural rules.