Marshall's Law

Forfeiture Failures: Court disallows three vehicle seizures

By Marshall H. Tanick, Attorney at Law

"[F]orfeit to a confined doom." -- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 107

Forfeiture is one of the harshest civil remedies available under the law, especially for vehicle owners.

Under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 3, government authorities can seize and keep vehicles that are used in connection with criminal offense violations, usually Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offenses.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently addressed a trio of cases involving the forfeiture statute. The threesome shared some similarities: the government entities that seized the vehicles failed to act properly, the forfeitures were overturned and the vehicles returned to their owners.

Reservation Restriction

The vehicle forfeiture law was not applicable to a Native American-owned vehicle for conduct occurring on reservation where the car owner lived in Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagon, 754 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. App. Aug. 12, 2008). The vehicle owner, an enrolled member of the Chippewa tribe, was accused of DWI while on the reservation, allowing forfeiture of his vehicle, a 2000 Volkswagen. The Mahnomen County District Court denied a motion by the owner to dismiss the case on grounds of lack of judicial authority because the incident occurred on a reservation and the owner resided there.

But the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the state lacks jurisdiction to enforce the law against Indian members while driving on Indian reservations. The critical issue was whether the forfeiture statute is civil regulatory, in which case it cannot be enforced in state court, or criminal-prohibitory, which would permit state court jurisdiction. Although DWI creates "heightened public policy concerns...the narrow focus of the vehicle-forfeiture statute is not on driving conduct but rather the ownership of the involved vehicle." Because vehicle ownership is "generally permitted conduct, subject to regulation...the vehicle-forfeiture statute is a civil regulatory statute," which the state lacks "authority...to enforce against Indian-owned vehicles for conduct occurring on the owner's reservation."

The "same conclusion" can be reached that the statute is civil-regulatory via another analysis that "conduct violates the state's public policy." A four-part test exists to determine whether this approach is viable. Applying the criteria, the vehicle-forfeiture statute remains "properly classified as civil-regulatory," which bars state jurisdiction over an Indian-owned vehicle for conduct arising on an Indian reservation.

The "exceptional circumstances doctrine," which allows Minnesota courts to exercise jurisdiction for reservation-related activities, is inapplicable in this case. Since the state has not asserted the existence of "exceptional circumstances," the doctrine cannot be applied to invoke state court jurisdiction. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying the motion by the vehicle owner, the forfeiture is invalid, and the car should be returned to the owner.

Joint Joust

A joust for vehicle forfeiture brought by a joint owner of a vehicle, whose other owner pled guilty to DWI, was resolved against forfeiture in Laase v. 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, 755 N.W.2d 23, (Minn. App. Aug. 26, 2008). A 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe was seized because its driver was convicted of a DWI. The driver's husband, the joint owner of the car, sought to avoid forfeiture. The Isanti County District Court ruled in his favor, ordering that the vehicle be returned to him as the "innocent" joint owner.

The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the vehicle forfeiture statute does not apply when one of the joint owners of the vehicle establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, lack of knowledge that the vehicle would be driven and that a DWI would occur. Because there is no statute regarding the right of the innocent owner in these circumstances, the case was one of "first impression."

The legislature evidently had a "reluctance to impose forfeiture of a vehicle whose owner was not aware of its misuse." A number of vehicle-related statutes are intended "to prevent owners from losing their vehicles "through forfeiture." This requires that the forfeiture statute be "liberally construed to prevent . . . an innocent owner losing his vehicle through forfeiture."

The argument by the County, which seized the forfeited vehicle that the statutory purpose is to protect the public from intoxicated drivers overlooks the explicit provisions of the law that "vehicles used to commit crimes are not subject to forfeiture if their owners did not know of the criminal use."

A dissenting opinion by Judge Kevin Ross would have allowed forfeiture under the "literal reading" of the statute, which he viewed as requiring that "all owners" prove by clear and convincing evidence that each of them did not know the vehicle was going to be driven unlawfully.

Prescription Punctured

The statutory presumption that a vehicle owner knows of the drivers unlawful use did not sustain forfeiture of a truck driven by the uncle of the owner in Kubis v. 2002 Chevrolet Pickup, 2008 WL 4552800 (Minn. App. Oct. 14, 2008) (unpublished). The St. Louis County District Court held that the nephew was an "innocent" owner because he had not given permission to the uncle, who was charged with a DWI, to drive the truck at the time of the transgression.

The Appellate Court affirmed, rejecting the County's claim that the station proscription under validated the forfeiture under § 169A.3, subd. 7(d). Forfeiture laws are "disfavored generally" and must be construed "strictly." The nephew who owned the truck rebutted the presumption by showing "clear and convincing evidence...to prove the innocent-owner defense."

The statutory presumption can be overcome either by showing lack of knowledge of unlawful use of a vehicle or the taking of "reasonable steps" to prevent misuse. In this case, the first prong of the presumption was punctured because the nephew did not give "express permission" for his uncle to drive the truck and "was not aware" that he was doing so. He also did not now that the uncle "had several prior DWI convictions."

Owners of vehicles that are used for illegal purposes, such as drunk driving offenses, confront a number of difficulties. But, as these cases show, government entities seeking to seize their vehicles may fail to overcome obstacles to obtain forfeiture of them.