Same; tax and criminal penalties for violation of act

79-5208. Same; tax and criminal penalties for violation of act. Any dealer violating this act is subject to a penalty of 100% of the tax in addition to the tax imposed by K.S.A. 79-5202 and amendments thereto. In addition to the tax penalty imposed, a dealer distributing or possessing marijuana or controlled substances without affixing the appropriate stamps, labels or other indicia is guilty of a severity level 10 felony. History: L. 1987, ch. 366, § 8; L. 1994, ch. 291, § 83; July 1. CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Cited; search and seizure with warrant based on observations of state park custodian; private citizen not agent of state examined. State v. Smith, 243 Kan. 715, 717, 763 P.2d 632 (1988). 2. Constitutionality of act and uses of information obtained thereunder determined. State v. Durrant, 244 Kan. 522, 527, 769 P.2d 1174 (1989). 3. Possession of controlled substance without affixing stamps is distinct from mere possession (K.S.A. 65-4127b); neither is included offense of other. State v. Berberich, 248 Kan. 854, 862, 811 P.2d 1192 (1991). 4. Whether Kansas department of revenue is bound by state's plea bargain regarding drug stamp tax owed examined. Dickerson v. Kansas Dept. of Revenue, 253 Kan. 843, 852, 853, 863 P.2d 364 (1993). 5. Admissibility of bloodhound tracking evidence examined. State v. Wainwright, 18 Kan. App. 2d 449, 450, 856 P.2d 163 (1993). 6. Whether judge erred by using inappropriate standard in reviewing probable cause to hold defendant examined. State v. Bockert, 257 Kan. 488, 491, 893 P.2d 832 (1995). 7. Kansas drug tax act does not impose a criminal penalty for double jeopardy purposes. State v. Riley, 259 Kan. 774, 792, 915 P.2d 774 (1996). 8. Taxpayer must have possession of controlled substance for sufficient time to affix stamp to incur tax liability under KDTA (K.S.A. 79-5201 et seq.). In re Burrell, 22 Kan. App. 2d 109, 114, 116, 912 P.2d 187 (1996). 9. Court must instruct defendant was in possession of controlled substance sufficient time to affix tax stamps. State v. Edwards, 27 Kan. App. 2d 754, 9 P.3d 568 (2000). 10. Habeas corpus relief denied where state supreme court ruled charges did not constitute double jeopardy. Jensen v. Bouker, 96 F. Supp. 2d 1167, 1168 (2000). 11. Charged hereunder in case involving suppression of evidence when no Miranda warnings given. State v. Schultz, 289 Kan. 334, 212 P.3d 150 (2009). 12. Search of vehicle upheld; case law on vehicle searches discussed and applied. State v. Davison, 41 Kan. App. 2d 140, 202 P.3d 44 (2009). 13. Conviction hereunder upheld; traffic stop and smell of marijuana provided probable cause for search. State v. Preston, 41 Kan. App. 2d 981, 207 P.3d 1081 (2009). 14. Evidence of violation suppressed; trooper's suspicion of loose ladder dispelled, detention thereafter unlawful. State v. Diaz-Ruiz, 42 Kan. App. 2d 325, 211 P.3d 836 (2009). 15. Defendant's possession of both marijuana and methamphetamine without the appropriate drug tax stamps affixed, at the same time and location and without any proof that the drugs were acquired at different times, constitutes a single crime that should not have been charged in two counts. State v. Pribble, 304 Kan. 824, 831, 375 P.3d 966 (2016). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026