Court Opinion

ID: 9731921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:01:24.599845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:18.181718
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in State v. One 1972 Pontiac Grand Prix, 90 S.D. 455, 242 N.W.2d 660 (1976). Moreover, I believe that the amendment now codified as SDCL 34r-20B-70(4) eliminates much of the basis of the majority opinion in the Pontiac case.
[A]n amendment substituting a new term or phrase for one previously construed indicates that the judicial or executive construction of the former term or phrase did not correspond with the legislative intent and a different interpretation should be given the new term or phrase.
1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 22.30, at 178 (C. Sands, 4th ed. 1972).
The addition of the phrase “which transport, possess or conceal” can only be interpreted as a legislative extension of the forfeiture doctrine to include those instances in which the conveyance transports a controlled substance irrespective of any showing that the conveyance is specifically being used to transport or to facilitate the transportation of the controlled substance. Accordingly, I would reverse the order dismissing the action.