*1 arrest, of his Earl At time methamphetamine, small con- Dakota, Plaintiff of South STATE SDCL 34-20B-16. Appellant, proceed- a civil forfeiture State commenced ing to 34-20B- obtain vehicle. SDCL PICKUP, TOYOTA 1983 BLACK ONE hearing, grant- 70. After a trial court JT4RN48S6D0065995, Defendant VIN ed Earl's motion to dismiss State's com- Appellee. 34-20B-70(4) plaint, allow of a does not vehicle which No. merely transporting controlled sub- was Dakota. Court of South Supreme private possession for the and con- Argued Sept. sumption disagree. We owner. 18, 1987. Nov. Decided

ISSUE

Whether SDCL 34-20B-70 authorizes pos- for the owner of session and the defendant first occasion to rule This court’s time, (at that SDCL 39- forfeiture statute v. One 17-129) in the case of was Prix, Hard- 2-Door top, 455, 242 90 S.D. part: provided, in salient

SDCL 39-17-129 subject to forfei- following shall be right exist in property shall ture and which are vehicles for intended transporta- any manner facilitate tion, con- receipt, property described cealment 39-17-130 (2), except Pierre, Gen., Kern, Atty. for Janine Asst. and 39-17-131.... A. Tellin- appellant; Roger plaintiff and Grand 1972 Pontiac in the We held Pierre, Gen., Atty. on brief. ghuisen, permit did Prix case that this statute Yankton, for Ridgway, E. Michael mis- transporting of a vehicle the forfeiture appellee. fendant and marijuana but amounts demeanor which would transporting substances MILLER, Justice. Additionally, we held felony. constitute dismiss- appeal from an order This is an something more requires Act “that proceeding. We ing a vehicle sub- showing that controlled mere than a remand. reverse and at the in the vehicle contained stances were at 663. stopped.” time it was FACTS merely not be could stated marijua- (Earl), incidental owner of Earl David used to “facilitate” have na but must for driv- pickup, arrested Toyota black possession. of alcohol. under influence *2 was later transportation The forfeiture statute amended facilitate the of the con- trolled 34-20B-70(4), at and codified SDCL in read, 1977, part, in as follows: to All ve- In legislature again amended transport, pos- adding

hicles, phrase or additional to 34-20B-70(4). conceal, SDCL phrase provides This are or which or sess or that: transport, any intended for to This subdivision includes those instances transportation, facilitate manner conveyance which a transports, pos- or receipt, possession sesses marijuana or conceals or a con- one in excess ounce or of of trolled substance as described herein any -property other any quantity of necessity without the of that the (1) or except scribed subdivision conveyance specifically being used to 3j-20B- to §§ 31/.-20B-71 transport, possess or conceal or facilitate inclusive_ (new language under- transportation, possession or conceal- lined) ment of or a controlled sub- v. One 1972 Subsequently, Lin any stance in aid of other offense.... (S.D. coln N.W.2d The additional language of the 1985 1980), had occasion rule on the to above- directly amended statute parallels Justice too, There, amended forfeiture statute. interpretation in One 1972 Lin Wollman’s the owner of the vehicle was found to be in coln Continental. plain language of possession of of a small amount metham the amended statute dictates that there is phetamine. The court circuit dismissed longer requirement affirmed, holding State’s action and we conveyance used to “facilitate” the that the statute as amended did not encom possession of the substance. The pass based on a wording directly negates additional personal use consumption prior of controlled interpreting language court’s in Lincoln Continental specifi found in a that the substances vehicle. words “ conceal,’ ‘transport, possess or cally stated: reinforc[e] previous our holding that the automobile legislature If intended the had act to must be used facilitate in order be in person- include forfeiture based possession controlled substance.” consumption al of a con- duty carry of this court to out the conveyance, v. Byrd, legislature. intent of our specifically it would have stated such (S.D.1986); Petition 398 N.W.2d 747 Fa Rather, legislature intent. added Brands, Inc., mous (S.D. conceal,’ re- transport, possess ‘which 1984); Dwyer, In re S.D. inforcing previous holding our (1926). We can no find an must automobile be used facilitate convey to disallow to be order the con- ance are for the trolled substance. personal possession of the Id., (emphasis added). 295 N.W.2d at 345 owner of the defendant vehicle. However, Justice Wollman dissented and addition, disjunctive reading stated that: appli- terms of 34-20B-70 makes the cability phrase ‘which to instances addition trans- statute consumption readily use and

port, possess or conceal’ can in- apparent. To-wit: terpreted as a extension of the following forfeiture doctrine to include those in- property right and no exists in which the trans- ports irrespective a controlled substance any showing conveyances including ... ve- possess

specifically being transport used to hicles ... granting defendant’s mo- in excess one- court’s decision (marijuana conceal or) pound any tion to dismiss the forfeiture reversed half -property described in subsection other proceedings. further and remanded for (1) or *3 traces here C.J., WUEST, and and MORGAN (which “any quantity methamphetamine SABERS, JJ., concur. property” described the any other statute.) J., HENDERSON, concurs in result. the intent of claims that defendant HENDERSON, (concurring Justice in re- law en- statute is foster effective the sult). trafficking drugs against those forcement where apply Although situations I concur in result of this should the possession of decision, there is no there statement in the is one ma- anything “was for controlled substance jority opinion upon, I comment Citing use.” State v. other than Court, it the former members this Prix, supra, and One 1972 composed in was then State v. One 1972 1971 Lincoln State v. One Continental, 295 N.W.2d 343 Lincoln by However, we the supra.* conclude (S.D.1980), favorably critiqued. be legislative 1977 and 1985 amendments the upon a 1980 Court made based and thus a intent has now clarified this was then in statute of state which given. 1A interpretation must be different making effect. This 1987 Court hold- Sutherland, Statutory Construction, statute, pertaining to the based 1985). Sands, 22.30, (C. 4th ed. at 265 subject, and far same different 252 generally Heisinger, v. See standpoint the powerful from of for- more Furthermore, (S.D.1977). the 1985 2d 899 in favor the State of South Dako- feiture is no provides itself that there language ta. any need to show the states, opinion inter The author the used “facilitate” “However, by conclude that alia: There is no need to illegal substance. legislative 1977 and 1985 amendments conveyance has show that the owner of the clarified and thus- a has now been peddle or traffic used the given.” interpretation must be different drug trade or to aid the commission Oh, composed Court had the that the 1980 neces “any other offense.” Legislature to foresee what wisdom sary conveyance trans significant by way of pass, would several a forbidden ported, possessed or concealed alterations, in 1985. prohibited aof on. time/history marches Ves- so And Toyota Pickup 1983 Earl used his traders were seized and sels of the slave possess and conceal metham- arrow, bow, Forfeit forfeited. Possession, transportation or phetamine. stag, to the Crown. quiver, which slew amount of metham- game. Possess Confiscate subjects phetamine the vehicle to forfeiture pound today, at weighing over one-half 34-20B-70 and thus trial under SDCL * Nisku, Clipper Ketch v. Bow purpose United States One the sole Uni- Defendant claims Act, (1st Cir.1977). after which our As SDCL 34-20B- form Controlled Substances F.2d drug penalize push- patterned, is to patterned statute is amendments were after and its However, Statute statute, ers. the Federal Forfeiture similarly construed. it should federal broadly by interpreted the circuits. has been Finally, other states have allowed Porsche, v. 670 F.2d 810 United States One 1976 possession, transportation or concealment of (9th Cir.1979) (where conveyance forfeited for within transporting trunk). grams of in its .226 (1984); Connelly, A.2d 194 Conn. "Al- The One 1976 Porsche court stated: Four-Door One 1979 Lincoln Commonwealth v. history Congress suggests though the (1985); Sedan, Pa.Super. A.2d 397 drug trafficking, this with does concerned Bronco, 100 N.M. 1982 Ford re Forfeiture of conduct was not intended not mean that other to P.2d 1310 citing within statute.” Id. at fall state, $10,000 vehicle, origins in a

least Its are found in the Uniform Con- Act, though pusher, approved by a user and trol Substances you are not a the Na- tional Conference of Commissioners forfeits the to the and the offender Thereafter, Uniform State Laws made state.* Our state has it one must history follow the of the statute vehicle, Apparently, so ... try perceive, this state to from time to bow/arrow/quiver, is the like the vessel or time, the intent of the as the object. offending form, in its evolved. thought: not concern last We should the federal statute nor with fed- ourselves *4 Dakota, In South we have

eral decisions. statutes, our own evolution amendments statutes, and decisions on this objects.” “offending Specifi- forfeiture of cally, zero in on SDCL 34-20B-70. we must transporting, possessing, conveying

*It is to be noted that the a rel- against conveying prohibition atively continued its insignificant marijuana. sum of amount of the other and controlled sub- glean stances. One would mitigate attempted to the harshness of forfeiture