2005-11-30 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Negotiated transfers to family or household members of the repeat DUI offender are not favored by forfeiting agencies. Not only is there an undeniable increased risk that the vehicle might again be used to commit a designated offense, but the purchaser will have practical difficulties in complying with the release requirements of ~ 169A.42. If title is transferred to a family or household member of the offender and the plates of the vehicle were previously impounded under ~ 169A.60, the purchaser will not be able to obtain reissued registration plates without satisfaction of the conditions set forth in subdivisions 7 and 8 thereof. This delays the ability of the related purchaser to secure the release of the vehicle, Securing vehicle insurance may also be difficult. If the Demand has been filed in district court, the parties must provide the court with a Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41 signed by both parties, It is presumptively without prejudice, unless otherwise noted on its face. The Stipulation should acknowledge that it is to allow the forfeiting agency to administratively forfeit the vehicle as if no Demand had been filed and to allow a transfer of title by Administrative Forfeiture Certificate, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES · Every constitutional challenge thus far raised to Minn, Stat. ~ 169A.63 on its face, or in application, has been rejected by the Minnesota appellate courts, A. Double Jeopardy Simply because the civil in rem forfeiture action has some punitive aspects it does not necessarily violate double jeopardy because it still seNes an important non-punitive goal of enhancing publiC safety by removing from the repeat DUI offender the instrumentality used to commit their violations. City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford Excursion supra, citing Lukkason v. 7993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N,W.2d 803 (Minn,App. 1999) review denied, May 18, 1999; City of Pine Springs v. One 7992 Harley Davidson 555 N,W,2d 749 (Minn.App. 1996); City of New Hope v. 7986 Mazda 626,546 N,W.2d 300 (Minn,App, 1996). Using the two-step inquiry of U.S. v. Ursury, 518 U,S. 267 (1996), Minnesota appellate courts have found: 1.) The legislature intended ~ 169A.63 to be civil/remedial, not criminal/punitive; 2.) The record fails to contain the requisite 'clearest proof that the effect of the statute is so punitive that it negates the legislature's intent to establish a civil remedial mechanism', B. Excessive Fines Where the property subject to forfeiture provides the actual means by which the qualifying offense was committed, the forfeiture is less capable of being characterized as a fine in disguise violating the 8th Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines. The Minnesota 14 $/