21 U.S.C. § 885
Burden of proof; liabilities
In the absence of proof that a person is the duly authorized holder of an appropriate registration or order form issued under this subchapter, he shall be presumed not to be the holder of such registration or form, and the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect to such registration or form shall be upon him.
The burden of going forward with the evidence to establish that a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft used in connection with controlled substances in schedule I was used in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter shall be on the persons engaged in such use.
Except as provided in sections 2234 and 2235 of title 18, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States, who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances.
Schedule I, referred to in subsec. (c), is set out in section 812(c) of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 92
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: People v. Crouse, 388 P.3d 39 (Colo. 2017).
People v. Crouse, 388 P.3d 39 (Colo. 2017). “” 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d) (2012) (emphasis added).”
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 1678 (2013). “4469– 4470, and most courts at the time understood both §841(b)(1)(D) and §841(b)(4) to contain sentencing factors —————— 9 The Government also cites 21 U. S. C. §885 (a)(1), which provides that the Government need not “negative any exemption or exception set forth” in the CSA,…”
United States v. Edward Rosenthal, United States of Am. v. Edward Rosenthal, 454 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006). “, asserting an as-applied Commerce Clause challenge, a claim of immunity pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d), erroneous evi-dentiary rulings and instructions by the district court, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, and the improper denial of a hearing under Franks v.”
United States v. Santiago-Mendez, 691 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012). “Attorney offices), as to whether the officers in this case could be charged with possession with intent to distribute for their underlying acts 62 For this reason, I take no issue with the majority's point that officers lawfully engaged in drug distribution are shielded from…”
In Re: State Question No. 807, Initiative Petition No. 423, 2020 OK 57 (Okla. 2020). “§ 885 (d) (2018) provides: Except as provided in sections 2234 and 2235 of Title 18, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly…”
United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2011). “Wright argues that he is immune from prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d), for his attempt to buy narcotics because he was then a deputy sheriff with the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriffs Office (“EBRSO”) and was “lawfully engaged in the…”
United States v. William S. Polan, George H. Wehner, Sr., William S. Polan, 970 F.2d 1280 (3rd Cir. 1992). “This rule is codified in 21 U.S.C. § 885 (a)(1), which states that “in any complaint, information, or indictment” under subchapter I of Title 21 of the United States Code ( 21 U.”
United States v. David S. King, United States of Am. v. Stanley E. Deal, M. D., 587 F.2d 956 (9th Cir. 1978). “We held that the Government’s proof of the above facts fulfilled Black’s burden of going forward with evidence of entitlement to the medical exception, which is imposed upon the accused by 21 U.S.C. § 885 (a)(1) (1976). 5 Thus, the Government had to prove beyond a reasonable…”
Xiulu Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (2022). “(If it did, the introductory phrase would clearly be an element, and for reasons that I will explain, infra, at 5–6, 21 U. S. C. §885 unmistakably rules that out.”
United States v. Rosenthal, 445 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2006). “, asserting an as-applied Commerce Clause challenge, a claim of immunity pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 885 (d), erroneous evidentiary rulings and instructions by the district court, prosecutorial misconduct, juror misconduct, and the improper denial of a hearing under Franks v.”
White Mountain Health Ctr., Inc. v. Maricopa Cnty., 386 P.3d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “21 U.S.C. § 885 (d) (West 2016) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Baker, 508 F.3d 1321 (10th Cir. 2007). “While that result may seem absurd, the conclusion that Congress in fact intended this result is bolstered by the enactment of statutes like 21 U.S.C. § 885 , which confers an immunity to an individual like an undercover officer who handles controlled substances during the course…”
— 21 U.S.C. § 885(b) — 1 case
Torres v. United States, 505 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1974).
— 21 U.S.C. § 885(d) — 2 cases
In Re: State Question No. 807, Initiative Petition No. 423, 2020 OK 57 (Okla. 2020). “§ 885 (d) (2018) provides: Except as provided in sections 2234 and 2235 of Title 18, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly…”
United States v. Frank Fuller, 162 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1998).
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.