Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 17.30.112 (2026)
Proceedings resulting in forfeiture
✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 17.30.112. Proceedings resulting in forfeiture.
(a) Property listed in AS 17.30.110 may be forfeited to the state either upon conviction of the defendant of a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71, or upon judgment of a court in a separate civil proceeding in rem. The court may order a forfeiture in the in rem proceeding if it finds that an item specified in AS 17.30.110 was used during or in aid of a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71.
(b) It is not a defense in an in rem proceeding brought under this section that a criminal proceeding has resulted in a conviction or conviction of a lesser offense for a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71.
(c) When forfeiting property under (a) of this section, a court may award to a municipal law enforcement agency that participated in the arrest or conviction of the defendant, the seizure of property, or the identification of property for seizure, (1) the property if the property is worth $5,000 or less and is not money or some other thing that is divisible, or (2) up to 75 percent of the property or the value of the property if the property is worth more than $5,000 or is money or some other thing that is divisible. In determining the percentage a municipal law enforcement agency may receive under this subsection, the court shall consider the municipal law enforcement agency's total involvement in the case relative to the involvement of the state.
(a) Property listed in AS 17.30.110 may be forfeited to the state either upon conviction of the defendant of a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71, or upon judgment of a court in a separate civil proceeding in rem. The court may order a forfeiture in the in rem proceeding if it finds that an item specified in AS 17.30.110 was used during or in aid of a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71.
(b) It is not a defense in an in rem proceeding brought under this section that a criminal proceeding has resulted in a conviction or conviction of a lesser offense for a violation of this chapter or AS 11.71.
(c) When forfeiting property under (a) of this section, a court may award to a municipal law enforcement agency that participated in the arrest or conviction of the defendant, the seizure of property, or the identification of property for seizure, (1) the property if the property is worth $5,000 or less and is not money or some other thing that is divisible, or (2) up to 75 percent of the property or the value of the property if the property is worth more than $5,000 or is money or some other thing that is divisible. In determining the percentage a municipal law enforcement agency may receive under this subsection, the court shall consider the municipal law enforcement agency's total involvement in the case relative to the involvement of the state.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2
cases, 1985–1998 · leading case: Resek v. State, 706 P.2d 288 (Alaska 1985).
Resek v. State, 706 P.2d 288 (Alaska 1985). “[17] The tests traditionally applied to determine whether an Act of Congress is penal or regulatory in character are enumerated in the Supreme Court's opinion: "Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as…”
State v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 440 (Alaska 1998). “AS 17.30.112(a). On May 31 an attorney entered an appearance “on behalf of Demetrius Johnson” who claimed to be “the lawful owner of the $66,-020 in United States currency.”
Alaska Stat. § 17.30.112(a): 2 cases
Resek v. State, 706 P.2d 288 (Alaska 1985). “[17] The tests traditionally applied to determine whether an Act of Congress is penal or regulatory in character are enumerated in the Supreme Court's opinion: "Whether the sanction involves an affirmative disability or restraint, whether it has historically been regarded as…”
State v. Johnson, 958 P.2d 440 (Alaska 1998). “AS 17.30.112(a). On May 31 an attorney entered an appearance “on behalf of Demetrius Johnson” who claimed to be “the lawful owner of the $66,-020 in United States currency.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.