Printable Format65-4135.
History: L. 1972, ch. 234, § 35; L. 1984, ch. 237, § 3; L. 1986, ch. 243, § 2; L. 1987, ch. 114, § 2; L. 1988, ch. 258, § 1; L. 1990, ch. 232, § 1; L. 1993, ch. 141, § 1; Repealed, L. 1994, ch. 339, § 28; July 1.
Revisor's Note:
Standard asset seizure and forfeiture act, see 60-4101 et seq.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Where security interest in vehicle acquired after knowledge of seizure hereunder, no bona fide security interest created. State v. One 1978 Chevrolet Corvette, 8 Kan. App. 2d 747, 751, 752, 667 P.2d 893 (1983).
2. Property forfeiture provisions examined; "facilitate" and "owner" defined. State ex rel. Love v. One 1967 Chevrolet, 247 Kan. 469, 799 P.2d 1043 (1990).
3. Forfeiture hereunder is an in rem action civil in nature; provisions of K.S.A. Chapter 60 are applicable. City of Lenexa v. A Maroon 1978 Chevrolet, 15 Kan. App. 2d 333, 334, 807 P.2d 694 (1991).
4. Trier of fact noted as determining whether forfeiture warranted where vehicle used solely for transporting principals to drug transactions. State v. One 1984 Chevrolet Corvette, 16 Kan. App. 2d 5, 7, 818 P.2d 800 (1991).
5. Constitutional homestead rights prevent forfeiture of homestead unless consent of both husband and wife. City of Garden City v. Lot Nine, Block Three, 16 Kan. App. 2d 174, 175, 178, 179, 819 P.2d 1250 (1991).
6. Forfeiture rights under Kansas Controlled Substances Act not violative of due process. Ulmer v. City of Overland Park, Kan., 784 F. Supp. 807, 811 (1992).
7. Forfeiture of homestead under K.S.A. 65-4135(a)(7)(A) of controlled substances act is forced sale not authorized by Kansas constitution and is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Braun v. A Tract of Land, 251 Kan. 685, 687, 840 P.2d 453 (1992).
8. Provisions of K.S.A. 65-4135(a)(7)(A) permit forfeiture not specifically authorized by Kansas Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional. State ex rel. Braun v. A Tract of Land, 16 Kan. App. 2d 757, 763, 829 P.2d 600 (1992).
9. State need not prove that money found in close proximity (subsection (a)(6)) was from sale or used for purchase. State v. 1978 Chevrolet Automobile, 17 Kan. App. 2d 144, 148, 835 P.2d 1376 (1992).
10. Whether real estate city acquired by forfeiture is exempt from ad valorem taxation prior to sale examined. In re Tax Exemption Application of City of Wichita, 255 Kan. 838, 839, 842, 877 P.2d 437 (1994).
11. Whether the warrantless seizure of defendant's vehicle under forfeiture statute constitutes unreasonable seizure examined. State v. Brickhouse, 20 Kan. App. 2d 495, 498, 506, 890 P.2d 353 (1995).