Drug Policy Opinion: Page 23

Home
Court Opinions
Topics & Themes
  Asset Forfeitures
  Conspiracy
  ›› Drug Policy Opinion
  Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects
  First Amendment
  Justiciability
  Medicinal Marijuana
  Policy Considerations
  Proportionality
  Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
  Searches and Seizures
     Airports
     Borders
     Consent
     Drug Testing
     Dwellings
     Exclusionary Rule
     Grounds for a Search
     Informants
     Mail
     Nuances of Detention
     Personal Items
     Private Action
     Roads and Vehicles
     Tools and Augmentation
     Warrants
  Sentencing and Penalties
Authors
Trivia

Drug Policy Opinion

Statements found in Court opinions regarding illicit substances. Public policy considerations, individual predilections of the Justice writing the opinion, the objective and subjective views on the the drugs, the drug use and the drug war... All of these can be found in this section.

Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14› ‹15› ‹16› ‹17› ‹18› ‹19› ‹20› ‹21› ‹22› ‹23› ‹24› ‹25› ‹26› ‹27› ‹28› ‹29› ‹30› ‹31› ‹32› ‹33› ‹34›

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (1993)
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

...[L]ike the majority, I am disturbed by the breadth of new civil forfeiture statutes such as 21 U. S. C. § 881(a)(7), which subjects to forfeiture all real property that is used, or intended to be used, in the commission, or even the facilitation, of a federal drug offense.

[...]

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (1993)
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

In my view, seizure of the property without more formalized notice and an opportunity to be heard is simply one of the many unpleasant collateral consequences that follows from conviction of a serious drug offense.

[...]

United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property (1993)
Trivia

Other courts have suggested that Government agents, and the statutes under which they operate, have gone too far in the civil forfeiture context. See, e.g., United States v. All Assets of Statewide Auto Parts, Inc., 971 F.2d 896, 905 (CA2 1992) ("We continue to be enormously troubled by the government's increasing and virtually unchecked use of the civil forfeiture statutes and the disregard for due process that is buried in those statutes"); United States v. One Parcel of Property, 964 F.2d 814, 818 (CA8 1992) ("We are troubled by the government's view that any property, whether it be a hobo's hovel or the Empire State Building, can be seized by the government because the owner, regardless of his or her past criminal record, engages in a single drug transaction"), rev'd sub nom. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 125 L. Ed. 2d 488, 113 S. Ct. 2801 (1993).

[...]

Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch (1994)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting:

The government may, of course, tax illegal activity. See, e. g., Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 44, 19 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 697 (1968). In fact, we have upheld, as within Congress' taxing authority, a $100 per ounce tax on marijuana. United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44, 95 L. Ed. 47, 71 S. Ct. 108 (1950). But the power to tax illegal activity carries with it the danger that the legislature will use the tax to punish the participants for engaging in that activity. This is particularly true of taxes assessed on the possession of illegal drugs: Because most drug offenses involve the manufacture, possession, transportation, or distribution of controlled substances, the State might use a tax on possession to punish a participant in a drug crime twice for the same conduct.

[...]

Dep't of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch (1994)
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, dissenting:

The State and Federal Governments spend vast sums on drug control activities. See, e. g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Fact Sheet: Drug Data Summary 5 (Apr. 1994) (approximately $ 27 billion in fiscal year 1991). The Kurths are directly responsible for some of these expenditures -- the costs of detecting, investigating, and raiding their operation, the price of prosecuting them and incarcerating those who received prison sentences, and part of the money spent on drug abuse education, deterrence, and treatment. The State of Montana has a legitimate nonpunitive interest in defraying the costs of such activities.

[...]