Nebraska Statutes
§ 28-431 — Seized without warrant; subject to forfeitures; disposition; manner; when; accepted as evidence; court costs and expenses; report to Auditor of Public Accounts; contents
Nebraska § 28-431
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 28Crimes and Punishments
This text of Nebraska § 28-431 (Seized without warrant; subject to forfeitures; disposition; manner; when; accepted as evidence; court costs and expenses; report to Auditor of Public Accounts; contents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-431 (2026).
Text
(1)The following shall be seized with or without a warrant by an officer of the Division of Drug Control or by any peace officer and the same shall be subject to forfeiture:
(a)All controlled substances which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, acquired, or possessed in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act;
(b)all raw materials, products, and equipment of any kind which are used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, administering, delivering, importing, or exporting any controlled substance in violation of the act;
(c)all lookalike substances;
(d)all property which is used, or is intended for use, as a container for property described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this subsection;
(e)all drug paraphernalia defined in section 28-4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Franco
594 N.W.2d 633 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Portsche
606 N.W.2d 794 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Thomas
629 N.W.2d 503 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2001)
State v. Bishop
639 N.W.2d 409 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
Casbah, Inc. v. Thone
651 F.2d 551 (Eighth Circuit, 1981)
State v. Spotts
595 N.W.2d 259 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. 1987 Jeep Wagoneer VIN 1JCMT7543HT161853
488 N.W.2d 546 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1992)
Obad v. State
766 N.W.2d 89 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2009)
State v. One 1985 Mercedes 190D Automobile
526 N.W.2d 657 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1995)
State v. One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Seven Dollars in U.S. Currency
583 N.W.2d 611 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Dandridge
585 N.W.2d 433 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. $15,518 in U.S. Currency
474 N.W.2d 659 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Billups
641 N.W.2d 71 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
Randall v. Department of Motor Vehicles
632 N.W.2d 799 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2001)
State v. $18,000
311 Neb. 621 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2022)
State v. Dolinar
995 N.W.2d 18 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Enriquez-Beltran
616 N.W.2d 14 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2000)
State v. Three Thousand Sixty Seven Dollars & Sixty-five Cents ($3,067.65) in U.S. Currency
545 N.W.2d 129 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1996)
State v. Zimmer
311 Neb. 294 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2022)
Legislative History
Source: Laws 1977, LB 38, § 91; Laws 1980, LB 991, § 7; Laws 1985, LB 247, § 1; Laws 1997, LB 307, § 11; Laws 2016, LB1009, § 5; Laws 2016, LB1106, § 6; Laws 2024, LB247, § 1.
Annotations: 1. Double jeopardy 2. Burden of proof 3. Miscellaneous 1. Double jeopardy Forfeiture under this section, as amended by Laws 2016, LB1106, is civil in nature for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis. State v. Dolinar, 315 Neb. 257, 995 N.W.2d 18 (2023). Forfeiture actions pursuant to this section are criminal in character and double jeopardy principles apply. State v. Spotts, 257 Neb. 44, 595 N.W.2d 259 (1999). Forfeiture proceedings brought pursuant to this section are not in rem proceedings, but are criminal proceedings entitled to double jeopardy protection. State v. Franco, 257 Neb. 15, 594 N.W.2d 633 (1999). This section is criminal in character; therefore, double jeopardy principles apply. State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup, 233 Neb. 670, 447 N.W.2d 243 (1989). 2. Burden of proof The State's burden of proof under this section is to show by clear and convincing evidence that such property was used in violation of the act. State v. $18,000, 311 Neb. 621, 974 N.W.2d 290 (2022). Subsection (4) of this section requires the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that seized property was used in violation of Chapter 28, article 4. State v. 1987 Jeep Wagoneer, 241 Neb. 397, 488 N.W.2d 546 (1992). 3. Miscellaneous Subsection (4) of this section sets forth two avenues by which a purported owner or claimant may prevent forfeiture and recover his or her property. First, the forfeiture statute allows the owner of record of such property, at any time after seizure and prior to court disposition, to petition the district court of the county in which seizure was made to release such property. Second, subsection (4) provides that any person having an interest in the property proceeded against or any person against whom civil or criminal liability would exist if such property is in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act may, within 30 days after seizure, appear and file an answer or demurrer to the petition. Obad v. State, 277 Neb. 866, 766 N.W.2d 89 (2009). The alleged owner of cash cannot be an owner of record under subsection (4) of this section. Obad v. State, 277 Neb. 866, 766 N.W.2d 89 (2009). Pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, the time limitations of this section are directory rather than mandatory, and the State's failure to strictly conform to them is not fatal to a forfeiture action. State v. $1,947 in U.S. Currency, 255 Neb. 290, 583 N.W.2d 611 (1998). Appellate review concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to forfeit a motor vehicle to the State under this section should not be treated differently than review of the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case. State v. One 1985 Mercedes 190D Automobile, 247 Neb. 335, 526 N.W.2d 657 (1995). Failure to claim some legal or equitable interest in the money seized pursuant to a search warrant is fatal to some real interest in the subject matter in controversy. State v. $15,518 in U.S. Currency, 239 Neb. 100, 474 N.W.2d 659 (1991). Forfeitures of property under this section are considered punitive and criminal in nature because property forfeited under this section is not contraband per se, but rather ordinary, legal items used to facilitate illegal drug transactions. Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a forfeiture of a motor vehicle under this section is to be treated the same as the review of the sufficiency of the evidence in the appeal of a criminal case. State v. $3,067.65 in U.S. Currency, 4 Neb. App. 443, 545 N.W.2d 129 (1996). The State's ability to appeal a forfeiture action which is criminal and punitive is limited to the terms of sections 29-2315.01 to 29-2316. State v. One 1986 Toyota 4-Runner, 1 Neb. App. 1138, 510 N.W.2d 556 (1993). Provision for civil forfeiture of drug paraphernalia is constitutional. Provision authorizing civil forfeiture of drug paraphernalia with strict time limit for filing of complaint for condemnation by law enforcement personnel when "conveyances" are seized allows forfeiture provision to satisfy procedural due process, and procedural due process is not violated by provisions for seizure of drug paraphernalia without opportunity for prior hearing. Casbah, Inc. v. Thone, 651 F.2d 551 (8th Cir. 1981).
Nearby Sections
15
§ 28-1001
Repealed. Laws 1990, LB 50, § 13§ 28-1002
Repealed. Laws 1990, LB 50, § 13§ 28-1003
Transferred to section28-1010§ 28-1004
Terms, defined§ 28-1007
Sections, how
construed§ 28-1008
Terms, defined§ 28-1009.02
Repealed. Laws 2010, LB 865, § 17§ 28-1009.03
Repealed. Laws 2010, LB 865, § 17§ 28-101
Code, how cited§ 28-1010
Indecency with
an animal; penaltyCite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 28-431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/28-431.