CASE LAW UPDATE: Whether petitioner is barred from getting his motor vehicle back after a wrongful forfeiture because he didn’t file in a timely manner
Brutal vehicle forfeiture case.
In his criminal case, defendant prevailed on a motion to suppress, on the grounds that the the search of his residence and curtilage violated his Fourth Amendment rights. It was this search that resulted in the seizure of his motor vehicle, and subsequent forfeiture action against it.
After his criminal case, petitioner brought an action for the return of his motor vehicle. The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint, on the grounds that he did seek timely judicial review under Minn. Stat. §169A.63, subd. 8(e). Petitioner appealed. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that because Minn. Stat. §169A.63, subd. 8(f) precludes any other action for the return of a vehicle unless the person complies with subdivision 8, and petitioner did not timely seek judicial review of the forfeiture, dismissal of his complaint was proper. Affirmed.
Knouse v. Aukes, A20-1553, Hubbard County.
Minneapolis Criminal Defense Lawyer Lynne Torgerson was not attorney of record in this case.