1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 785 F.Supp.
  5. 785 F.Supp. 141 (1992)
 

U.S. v. 3520 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD

Civ. A. No. 91-B-2055.

785 F.Supp. 141 (1992)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. 3520 BRIGHTON BOULEVARD, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

March 4, 1992.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert D. Clark, Kathleen Tafoya, Asst. U.S. Attys., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.

Wade H. Eldridge, Denver, Colo., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BABCOCK, District Judge.

Defendants in this civil forfeiture action move to dismiss on the ground that 21 U.S.C. § 863 (formerly 21 U.S.C. § 857) is unconstitutionally vague on its face. Hearing was held on this motion on January 30, 1992. Because I conclude that the statute includes a mens rea or scienter requirement, it is not facially vague and, therefore, the motion to dismiss is denied.

I.

Section...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases