Car Owner Escapes Forfeiture For Now

Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN  #1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate # 578VYH, Minn.Ct.App., 10/31/2011, petition for further review granted.

In March of 2010, police stopped Ms. Patino’s significant other, Mr. Rosas, for erratic driving, only to discover that he did not have a license.  Mr. Rosas had a 2006 conviction for DWI.  In April 2010, police again stopped Mr. Rosas for suspected impaired driving; he had Ms. Patino’s ten year old daughter with him.  Mr. Rosas eventually pled guilty to third degree DWI (child endangerment).

The police served Ms. Patino, the owner of the 2007 Chevy, with notice of intent to seize and forfeit the car; she filed for a judicial determination.  After hearing, the district court said that even though Mr. Rosas was not convicted of an offense that would trigger forfeiture – second degree DWI, the state could nonetheless seize the car.

The forfeiture statute, Minn.Stat. 169A.63, says that the state can seize a car that was used in the commission of a designated offense, which translates to first or second degree DWI.  The forfeiture statute is confusing to say the least.  There’s a provision in the subsection on judicial determinations that says that if the person charged with the designated offense appears at the criminal hearing and is not convicted of the designated offense “the court shall order the property returned to the person legally entitled to it.”  Two other provisions in the forfeiture statute, however, have given the appellate court room to squirm out of forfeiture by permitting the court to look into whether the person in fact committed the designated offense even though not convicted of it.  Mastakoski v. 2003 Dodge Durango, 738 N.W.2d 411, 414-15 (Minn. App. 2007), review denied (Minn. Nov. 21, 2007).