Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cade v. One 1987 Dodge Lancer Shelby 4-Door

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided July 30, 1993No. 19787Published

1DissentSilak, Acting Judge

Because I believe application of the defense of entrapment in civil forfeiture proceedings is inherent in the operation and construction of Idaho’s forfeiture statute, I respectfully dissent.

In order to have Allen’s vehicle forfeited under I.C. § 37-2744, the state must prove by a preponderance that the controlled substances transported in the vehicle were “manufactured, distributed, dispensed, acquired, possessed or held in violation of this act.”6 Thus, by the plain language of I.C. § 37-2744, forfeiture must be predicated on a violation of the Controlled Substances Act, I.C. §§ 37-2701 to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. MataIdaho Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. State v. KollerIdaho Supreme Court · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API