Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Property Seized from Raster

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 18, 1990No. 89-40Published

1DissentSnell, Justice

I respectfully dissent. Iowa Code section 809.1(2)(a)(b) is void as applied to this defendant because it is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; Iowa Const, art. I § 9.

In seeking a constitutional footing to uphold Iowa’s forfeiture statute the majority has molded the language to its own liking. Words have magically appeared that were not in the statute when passed by the legislature and are not there now. Nowhere does the statute refer to a “substantial connection” between the property forfeited…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Kolender v. LawsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API