2005-11-30 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. 'Qualifying Conviction' or 'Qualifying License Revocation' A criminal conviction for the violation of s 169A.20 under the circumstances described in the 15t,or 2nd degree will perfect the forfeiture. A criminal conviction for any degree of DUI along with proof that the operator's driver's license was under S 171 .04 cancellation or S 171 .09 restriction will result in forfeiture. Alternatively, where the designated offense includes a 3'd DUI in 10 years, the forfeiture can be based on a license revocation associated with the underlying offense is sustained or when no timely judicial review of the revocation pursuant to Minn.Stat. S 169A.53 is sought. Where the offender absconds by failing to appear for a scheduled court appearance in the prosecution of the designated offense and has failed for more than 48 hours thereafter to turn himself into the court the forfeiture can be based on certified court records relating to that failure to appear. D. Vehicle Ownership 1. Owner is the Driver Where the driver is the titled owner, registration documents prove this element. Where the title is not in the operator's name other evidence of legal entitlement to the vehicle can prove this element. 2. Co-ownership of Vehicle Irrespective of the other owner's claimed innocence or having taken reasonable steps to terminate known illegal use, the ownership interest of the person committing the designated offense goes to the whole of the vehicle and is not subject to apportionment. Minn.Stat. S 169A.63, subd. 1 (h). The entire vehicle is forfeited and the non-offending joint owner's cause of action is against the driver, not the forfeiting agency. 3. 'Innocence Lost' by Non-offending Owner Where the owner knew or should have known of the unlawful use, he must take reasonable steps to prevent or terminate that illegal use to maintain a claim of innocence. (s169A.63, subd. 7(d)). Any claimant can argue that the vehicle owner is innocent and that the vehicle is thus immune from forfeiture. Innocence can be lost by any actual or imputed knowledge of intended illegal use by the repeat DUI offender, such as driving without a valid license or without insurance, open bottle, underage drinking and driving or in violation of S 171.09 restrictions previously imposed. See, Fred's Tire Co., Inc. v. 2002 Chevrolet Silverado, 2004 WL 2711022 (Minn.App., Nov. 30, 2004) rev. denied Feb. 23, 2005: Neumayer v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 2001 WL 856288 (Minn.App., July 31, 2001). As an affirmative defense to a presumptively valid forfeiture the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of illegal use 5 ts