Today the Minnesota Supreme Court released a decision interpreting a Minnesota Statute in a way to deprive an innocent spouse of their legal right to keep their car, jointly owned by a spouse who drove it in violation of a law. The Case, David Lee Laase vs 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, A07-2023, December 17, 2009, was another 4-3 split and splintered decision – with the majority reversing the Minnesota Court of Appeals, to rule against the civil property rights of the individual (Justices Lorie S. Gildea, Eric J. Magnuson, G. Barry Anderson and Christopher J. Dietzen in the majority, with Dissents from Justices Paul H. Anderson, Alan C. Page and Helen M. Meyer.)
The court’s majority held that “innocent owner defense” in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d) (2008), does not apply in a case of joint ownership of a vehicle if one of the joint owners is also the offender causing forfeiture of the vehicle.
The majority’s new rule is that all joint owners of a motor vehicle must be innocent in order for any owner to employ the innocent owner defense in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7(d).
As Justice Paul Anderson points out in his dissent,
“The context of the case before us involves a DWI forfeiture statute that contemplates both the ability of law enforcement agencies to seize and forfeit motor vehicles used in the commission of designated offenses and protection for innocent motor vehicle owners. Thus, the context within which we must conduct our analysis is a disfavored forfeiture statute that we must strictly construe which means that if we have any doubt about the application of the statute, that doubt is to be resolved in favor of joint owner … .”
The case involves Minnesota’s DWI forfeiture statute which creates both a presumption that a person arrested for suspected DWI will forfeit their car to the State; and also contains an affirmative defense for innocent owners of cars driven by someone else arrested for suspected DWI. What about the case where a car is jointly owned by two or more people, such as the family car that the non-offending spouse needs to get to work?
Justice Page concludes his dissent with:
“I would construe the word ‘owner’ to refer to each individual owner throughout section 169A.63. Thus, under subdivision 7(d), a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture if any of its owners can demonstrate that he or she, individually, did not know the vehicle would be used contrary to law. Similarly, under subdivision 7(d), it is up to each of the owners to demonstrate that he or she ‘took reasonable steps to prevent use of the vehicle by the offender.’ An owner that can make the required showing cannot be divested of his or her interest in the vehicle, which subdivision 1(h) instructs extends to the whole of the vehicle. Because Mr. Laase made the required showing, I would hold that his interest in the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture.”
Is this another bad 4-3 splintered decision, with the slim majority again ruling against the rights of the individual? So it would seem. At least in this unjust situation, the Minnesota legislature could fix it next legislative session by amending the statute the court was interpreting.
Will the legislature repair this injustice in the law? Public anger has been building for years over the use of asset forfeiture laws to legally steal private property, with the excuse of some crime having been committed, or the possibility of one. The most frequent use of these laws has been in the areas of Minnesota asset forfeitures in drug cases, and in DWI cases. Most of the injustices in these laws are common to all types of asset forfeiture statutes (whether based upon drugs, DWI or prostitution). The innocent owner issue is only one of many.
One of these issues is the conflict of interest created by allowing the law enforcement agency which legally steals the property from the citizen, to keep much of the money proceeds from that seizure and forfeiture. Two of the Justices concurring with the majority in David Lee Laase vs 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe highlighted the issue, in Justice Barry Anderson’s concurrence:
“[T]here is reason to question the balance struck by the legislature between various competing interests. For example, given the general disfavor of forfeiture statutes, the wisdom of vesting the right to possession of a forfeited vehicle in the law enforcement agency responsible for the arrest of a defendant and the forfeiture of a defendant‘s vehicle is not immediately evident. See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.63, subds. 1(b), 2, and 3 (2008). But such issues are for the legislature to address, not this court.”
Justice Gildea wrote the 4-3 majority opinion. However, only one other justice joined her opinion, Magnuson. The two concurring Justices wrote, in essence, that the law was unfair and should be changed – but by the legislature not the court (see quote above). The three dissenting Justices also noted the serious unfairness of the statute as interpreted by the majority opinion. Therefore five of the seven essentially agreed on one thing – the statute allowing the government to take the private property of an innocent spouse or other co-owner is unfair and should be changed.
This issue was referenced in a recent article in the Star Tribune newspaper, Crime fighters gone rogue, where a leader of the Minnesota Gang Strike Force explained in relation to financial stress due to underfunding form the legislature, he:
“… turned in 2003 to the only major source of cash he could find: money seized from suspected drug dealers, gang members and other targets. Over the next two years, Ryan told state examiners, his unit survived on virtually nothing else.
‘We had no money and we were begging, borrowing and I hesitate to say stealing, that would be the wrong place, but … that’s the way we were operating,’ Ryan said, according to a transcript of his formal interview with the Legislative Auditor’s Office.”
Is it fair to law enforcement officers to create laws like this with inherent conflicts of interest – inciting them to take from the poor, and give to their own agency of the government? Can a normal human be completely immune to such powerful temptations? Why should Minnesota laws encourage such mischief upon the individual people of Minnesota?
Let’s see if the Minnesota legislature will reform forfeiture laws in Minnesota this year.