Court Opinion

ID: 9741877
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:03:27.326235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.974853
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
Although I concur in the result of this decision, there is one statement in the majority opinion which I comment upon, that the former members of this Court, as it was then composed in State v. One 1972 Lincoln Continental, 295 N.W.2d 343 (S.D.1980), be favorably critiqued. The 1980 Court made a holding based upon a statute of this state which was then in effect. This 1987 Court is making a holding based upon a statute, pertaining to the same subject, which is different and far more powerful from the standpoint of forfeiture in favor of the State of South Dakota.
The author of this opinion states, inter alia: “However, we conclude that by the 1977 and 1985 amendments the legislative intent has now been clarified and thus- a different interpretation must be given.” Oh, that the 1980 composed Court had the wisdom to foresee what the Legislature would pass, by way of several significant alterations, in 1985.
And so time/history marches on. Vessels of the slave traders were seized and forfeited. Forfeit the bow, arrow, and quiver, which slew the stag, to the Crown. Confiscate the game. Possess marijuana weighing over one-half pound today, at *514least in this state, in a $10,000 vehicle, though you are a user and not a pusher, and the offender forfeits the vehicle to the state.* Our state Legislature has made it so ... in 1985. Apparently, the vehicle, like the vessel or bow/arrow/quiver, is the offending object.
One last thought: We should not concern ourselves with the federal statute nor federal decisions. In South Dakota, we have our own evolution of statutes, amendments to statutes, and decisions on this subject of forfeiture of “offending objects.” Specifically, we must zero in on SDCL 34-20B-70. Its origins are found in the Uniform Control Substances Act, approved by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1970. Thereafter, one must follow the history of the statute in this state to try to perceive, from time to time, the intent of the Legislature, as the statute, in its present form, evolved.

It is to be noted that the Legislature, in 1985, continued its prohibition against conveying any amount of the other illegal and controlled substances. One would glean that the Legislature attempted to mitigate the harshness of forfeiture for transporting, possessing, or conveying a relatively insignificant sum of marijuana.