My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-11-30 CC Packet
Centerville
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1996-2022
>
2005
>
2005-11-30 CC Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2006 2:37:51 PM
Creation date
11/23/2005 1:50:40 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />forfeiture program when under constitutional challenge on a Substantive <br />Due Process, Equal Protection, or Excessive Fines basis. <br /> <br />B. Timelines for the Prosecution <br />1. Review of Vehicle Seizure and Service of Notices <br />Most vehicles subject to forfeiture are impounded incident to <br />the arrest of its driver. A vehicle mistakenly released may be re- <br />seized without process if there is reason to believe that the <br />delay occasioned by applying for a warrant would result in the <br />removal or destruction of the vehicle. If it is re-seized on this <br />basis, S 1 69A.63, subd. 2(3) requires the prosecutor to institute a <br />forfeiture action as soon as reasonably possible by serving a <br />Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit on the owner at the <br />address listed on the vehicle's registration documents. <br /> <br />Notice of the forfeiture is usually served on the driver at the time <br />of arrest. Notices to the registered owner and any other person <br />known to have a possessory, ownership or security interest in the <br />vehicle under S 169A.63, subd. 8 are to be served within a <br />reasonable time after the seizure of the vehicle by certified mail <br />to the address on record. If it is not on the title, personal service <br />in the manner of a summons in a civil action is required. Note <br />in Hurst v. 7994 Ford Probe, 2000 WL 16336 (Minn.App. Jan. 1l, <br />2000) the court refused to dismiss a forfeiture for lack of service <br />of the Notice for two months where it appeared the owner was <br />deliberately attempting to avoid service. <br />After service is made, the agency may request the Department <br />of Public Safety to flag the title of the vehicle so that it may not <br />be transferred or encumbered while this action is pending. <br /> <br />2. The 30-day countdown <br />The best practice is to maintain a separate forfeiture file on <br />each seized vehicle with a tickler date 30 days from the <br />effective date of service of the last Notice. This file should be <br />cross-referenced with the criminal file for the designated <br />offense so that the prosecutor handling that case will be <br />apprised of the implications of a plea negotiation and the <br />forfeiture attorney apprised of when the criminal conviction is <br />obtained. <br /> <br />3. Administrative Forfeiture Certificate <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.