Minnesota lawmakers change civil forfeiture law

Forfeiture has long been a tool law enforcement use when battling issues such as drug crimes and driving while intoxicated. An individual found guilty of dealing drugs, for example, may lose his or her home. Civil forfeiture, however, is based on the idea that the property itself committed a crime, not the owner.

Law enforcement agencies in Minnesota have specific codes by which they are required to abide when it comes to seizing property. Until recently, civil forfeiture was not limited to a criminal conviction and therefore left the door open for abuse.

Allegations of abuse

Before SF 874 was signed into law this year, people who had been acquitted in a criminal court were subject to losing their items in civil court. According to the state auditor, property that is forfeited typically is not worth much, as the average value is around $1,250. The lack of regulations, made it easy for law enforcement to abuse the property forfeiture law. Many law-abiding citizens experienced the threat of losing their homes, businesses and even small items, such as shoes and televisions.

Law enforcement agencies are entitled to keep as much as 90 percent of the proceeds of civil forfeiture. Despite small average values, the revenues are skyrocketing; the Institute for Justice reports that Minnesota law enforcement collected $30 million in 2010. Combine free reign with the right motives, and it is unsurprising that 8,500 people filed lawsuits in the state from 2007 to 2013, many of whom claimed their items were taken illegally.

For example, a man in Minnesota – a former U.S. senator – lent his SUV to a relative who was charged with DUI and drug possession while driving the vehicle. As a result, law enforcement seized the SUV, and it could take months for the former senator to get it back.

Establishing new guidelines

The new law, which will go into effect on Aug. 1, 2014, will change the landscape of civil forfeiture. Under the regulations, an individual may have to turn over property if the following apply:

  • The person is found guilty of a crime
  • The person becomes an informant
  • The person turns in a guilty plea

The government may also seize property if it attains the equivalent to one of the above examples. The law is a milestone for property rights’ advocates and is a step in the right direction for making the legal system just. Anyone who has questions regarding this new law should contact an attorney.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Experience: Practicing since 1997
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

Can You Be Charged With a Drug Crime Based on Text Messages Alone?

You can be charged with a drug crime based on text messages alone in Minnesota, especially when the messages show intent to purchase, sell, distribute, or traffic drugs. Prosecutors often use text messages to demonstrate intent to commit a drug crime, show a history of drug activity, link you to a specific phone, and corroborate physical evidence. Text messages often strengthen the probable cause required for the police to arrest and charge you. They are, however, not sufficient for a conviction without compelling supporting physical evidence.

Can the Police Lie to You During an Interrogation in Minnesota?

Criminal defendants who interact with police officers for the first time are often left wondering, “Can the police lie to you during an interrogation?” Police officers can lie to you during an interrogation. In fact, deception is a lawful and fully permitted police technique provided the officers do not use it to force a confession. Police often claim possession of non-existent evidence or witnesses to trick you into disclosing information that can aid their investigation.