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 />determination is lost. The Demand must be in the form of a civil <br />complaint filed with the court administrator in the county where <br />the vehicle was seized along with proof of service on the <br />prosecutor having jurisdiction over the forfeiture, as well as the <br />forfeiting agency. A Certificate of Representation & <br />Informational Statement must be filed with the court, along with <br />the Demand. <br /> <br />If the vehicle is valued at $7500 or less, the claimant may file an <br />action in conciliation court for recovery of the seized vehicle. <br />This may not be cost effective for the claimant represented by <br />counsel, in that even if the conciliation court orders the return of <br />the vehicle, that decision can be removed by the prosecutor to <br />district court for a trial de novo under Minn.R.Prac. 521. The <br />claimant must serve the prosecutor and the forfeiting agency <br />with a copy of the conciliation court statement of claim within <br />the 30-day window. 9169A.63, subd. 7(d). <br /> <br />Failure to properly serve a Demand or conciliation court <br />statement of claim within 30 days of service of the Notice is <br />jurisdictional and not subject to waiver by the parties. Garde v. <br />One 7992 Ford Explorer, 662 N.W.2d 165 (Minn.App. 2003). <br /> <br />2. Judicial Review of License Revocation <br />Where the offender has two prior impaired driving incidents in <br />the preceding 10 years, it is crucial that a petition for judicial <br />review of the license revocation be filed under 9169A.53, subd. <br />2. Failure to contest the license revocation will allow the <br />forfeiture to be perfected by default under 9169A.63, subd. <br />7(a)(3). Therefore, even if the 3rd in 10 offender already has a <br />revoked license, a petition for review is necessary to preserve <br />the right to judicial review of the forfeiture. <br /> <br />3. Hearing <br />This is an independent civil action that cannot be combined <br />with the implied consent hearing. 9169A.63, subd. 9 governs all <br />aspects of the judiCial determination proceedings. The review <br />of the forfeiture action is conducted before a district judge in <br />the jurisdiction where the alleged offense occurred. There is no <br />right to a jury trial. In larger counties, such as Hennepin, the <br />court administrator will as a matter of course assign the <br />forfeiture contest to a judge as part of their civil block on the <br />filing of the Demand. The assigned judge will then handle the <br />scheduling of pretrial conferences, motions and trial. <br /> <br />SEnLEMENT OF THE FORFEITURE ACTION <br /> <br />Most contested forfeiture matters settle prior to hearing. Once the <br />criminal case is disposed of or the judicial review of the license revocation <br /> <br />12 6 J.. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.