Minnesota's Forfeiture Laws

By Ben Johnson, Ben.Johnson@house.mn

Minnesota’s Forfeiture

Laws

July 2022

Executive Summary

Police departments and similar agencies have the right to seize property associated with

certain crimes and, under proceedings known as “civil forfeiture,” assume ownership of the

property. There are two forms of civil forfeiture: judicial and administrative. Judicial

forfeiture requires a court order before an agency can take ownership of a person’s property.

Administrative forfeiture allows an agency to take possession before any court review, but

requires it to give notice to the owner. This publication describes the laws dealing with

forfeiture and discusses cases of note in Minnesota and recent changes made to forfeiture

laws.

In particular, this information brief includes the following:

 Part 1 summarizes the general forfeiture law applicable to most felony offenses,

including judicial, administrative, and summary forfeiture.

 Part 2 describes several special forfeiture laws that apply to particular criminal

offenses such as DWI violations, game and fish violations, gambling crimes, and

racketeering crimes.

 Part 3 briefly discusses the circumstances under which a court may rule that a

particular forfeiture violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against “excessive

fines” or “double jeopardy.”

 Part 4 highlights several Minnesota cases of interest.

 Part 5 examines the legislative changes made since the shutdown of the Metro Gang

Strike Force in 2010.

 Part 6 provides a brief overview of the federal program known as equitable sharing.

 An appendix provides definitions of terms and statutory references.

Contents

1. General Forfeiture Law ....................................................................................... 2

2. Specific Forfeiture Laws ...................................................................................... 9

3. Major Constitutional Issues .............................................................................. 13

4. Minnesota Cases of Interest ............................................................................. 17

5. Minnesota Legislative Action ............................................................................ 17

6. The Federal Government’s Equitable Sharing Program ................................... 20

Appendix ............................................................................................................... 21

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 2

1. General Forfeiture Law

The general forfeiture law is codified in Minnesota Statutes, sections 609.531 to 609.5319.

Seizure of Property in Advance of Forfeiture

Minnesota law permits a law enforcement agency to seize forfeitable property

in advance of its forfeiture.

Seizure may be made pursuant to a formal authorization issued by any court having jurisdiction

over the property. The law also authorizes seizure without formal authorization under the

following circumstances:

 the seizure is incident to a lawful arrest or a lawful search

 the property has been the subject of a prior judgment in favor of the state in a

criminal injunctive or forfeiture proceeding

 the appropriate agency

has probable cause to believe that the delay required to

obtain court process would result in the property’s removal or destruction and that

the property is either dangerous to health or safety or was used or is intended to be

used to commit a felony

When an officer seizes property, the officer must provide a receipt to the person found in

possession of the property or leave a receipt where the property was found. The seizing agency

must use reasonable diligence to secure the property and prevent waste. Minn. Stat. § 609.531,

subds. 4, 5.

The owner of the seized property may give security or post a bond in an amount equal to the

property’s retail value and, thereby, regain possession of the property. If this is done, the

forfeiture action proceeds against the security as if it were the seized property. This option is

not available if the property is contraband or is being held for investigatory purposes.

Alternatively, if the seized property is a motor vehicle, the owner may regain possession of the

vehicle pending determination of the forfeiture action by surrendering the vehicle’s certificate

of title to the seizing agency. The agency must notify the Department of Public Safety and any

secured party noted on the certificate that this has occurred and must notify them if and when

the certificate of title is returned to the owner. Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 5a.

Seizures of motor vehicles used to commit certain prostitution crimes or used to flee from a

pursuing peace officer are governed by more restrictive provisions.

These provisions apply to

See appendix for the definition of “appropriate agency.” This publication will use the terms “seizing agency” and

“law enforcement agency” in lieu of “appropriate agency.”

In 2003, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a vehicle forfeiture for fleeing a peace officer is governed

exclusively by Minnesota Statutes, section 609.5312, subdivision 4, and as a result, a defendant may not seek

possession of the vehicle by surrendering its title before the forfeiture action is determined. Gaertner v. One

1999 Dodge Pickup Truck, 668 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. App. 2003).

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 3

the seizure of vehicles from persons alleged: (1) to have engaged in or hired another to engage

in prostitution; or (2) to have fled from a peace officer in a manner that endangered life or

property. If such a vehicle is seized before a judicial forfeiture order has been issued, a hearing

must be held before a judge or referee within 96 hours. Notice of the hearing must be given to

the registered owner within 48 hours of the seizure.

The prosecutor must certify to the court

before the hearing that he or she has filed or intends to file charges against the alleged violator.

After the hearing, the court must order the motor vehicle returned to the owner if the

prosecutor fails to certify that charges have been filed or will be filed in the case, the owner has

demonstrated that he or she has a defense to the forfeiture, or the court has determined that

seizure of the vehicle would create an undue hardship for members of the owner’s family. If a

seized vehicle ultimately is not forfeited, neither the owner nor the alleged violator is

responsible for seizure and storage costs. Minn. Stat. § 609.5312, subds. 3, 4.

Judicial Forfeiture

Minnesota law allows the state to take possession of a person’s property under certain

circumstances. The process of judicial forfeiture allows law enforcement to seize property, but

prevents the government from selling, destroying, or otherwise disposing of the property until

a court order grants that power.

Judicial Forfeiture; Designated Offenses

Minnesota law permits a court to order the forfeiture of certain property

associated with the commission of a “designated offense.”

The definition of “designated offense” includes most serious felonies against persons, a number

of property felonies, and felony or gross misdemeanor violations of the crime of unauthorized

computer access. It also includes the gross misdemeanor crime of carrying a rifle or shotgun in a

public place and certain prostitution crimes, regardless of the penalty prescribed for the

violation. Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1. The term does not include controlled substance

offenses. Those offenses are governed by the special forfeiture provisions described in the next

section. (See the appendix for a complete list of the crimes included within the definition of

“designated offense.”)

Property is subject to forfeiture if it was either: (1) personal property used or intended for use

to commit or facilitate the commission of a designated offense; or (2) real or personal property

representing the proceeds of a designated offense. Additionally, all contraband property is

subject to forfeiture as is any weapon used or possessed in furtherance of any criminal code

violation, controlled substance offense, violation of chapter 624, or violation of a domestic

abuse order for protection. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.5312; 609.5316, subd. 3.

These time limits do not apply to the seizures of recreational vehicles or motorboats allegedly used to flee a

peace officer.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 4

Property associated with a designated offense (other than weapons and contraband) may be

forfeited by judicial order, following a civil in rem proceeding.

Minn. Stat. § 609.5313. The

government has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the property is

subject to forfeiture. The fact that a designated offense was committed may be established

only by proof of a criminal conviction. Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 6a. The law also provides

certain defenses for innocent common carriers, innocent owners, and innocent secured parties.

“Innocent” in this context means that the party neither knew of, consented to, or was involved

in the act or omission giving rise to the forfeiture. The existence of a security interest must be

established by clear and convincing evidence. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.5312; 609.5319.

Judicial Forfeiture; Controlled Substance Offenses

Minnesota law provides for judicial forfeiture of property associated with

controlled substance (i.e., illegal drug) offenses.

Forfeiture related to controlled substance offenses can take the form of either judicial

forfeiture or administrative forfeiture. Judicial forfeiture of property that is an instrument or

represents the proceeds of a controlled substance offense is subject to Minnesota Statutes,

section 609.5311. The procedure for judicial forfeiture arising from a controlled substance

offense is only slightly different from the judicial forfeiture procedure for designated offenses.

The key differences include:

 if the government did not charge a person with a controlled substance crime

because the person provided information regarding the criminal activity of another,

the government does not need the fact of a criminal conviction to establish clear

and convincing evidence that the property was an instrument, or represents the

proceeds, of a controlled substance offense

 a “conveyance device” (i.e., a motor vehicle) used to commit the controlled

substance offense is forfeitable only if the retail value of the drugs is $100 or more

and was used in the transportation or exchange of a controlled substance intended

for distribution or sale

 real property associated with the controlled substance offense is forfeitable not only

when it represents the proceeds of the offense but also when it is used in the

commission of the offense; however, forfeiture of such property in the second

instance is permitted only if the retail value of the controlled substance is $2,000 or

 money is subject to forfeiture only if it has a total value of $1,500 or more or there is

probable cause to believe the money was exchanged for the purchase of a

controlled substance

Minn. Stat. §§ 609.531, subd. 6a; 609.5311.

A civil in rem forfeiture proceeding is a proceeding directed against “guilty property” instead of against a criminal

offender. Technically speaking, it is separate from and independent of any criminal prosecution.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 5

Administrative Forfeiture

Administrative forfeiture allows the government to dispose of property without a judicial order

unless the owner challenges the forfeiture. Law enforcement must give the owner notice of the

seizure, but the owner is responsible for filing a challenge with the court. If the owner does not

file an action, the agency becomes the owner.

Administrative Forfeiture; Controlled Substance Offenses

Minnesota law contains a separate, nonjudicial procedure for forfeiting certain

property seized in connection with a controlled substance offense.

This administrative forfeiture law creates a presumption that the following property is subject

to forfeiture:

 all money totaling $1,500 or more, precious metals, and precious stones that there

is probable cause to believe represents the proceeds of a controlled substance

offense

 all money found in proximity to controlled substances when there is probable cause

to believe the money was exchanged for the purchase of a controlled substance

 conveyance devices containing controlled substances with a retail value of $100 or

more if there is probable cause to believe the conveyance device was used in the

transportation or exchange of a controlled substance intended for sale

 all firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories found: (1) in a conveyance device

used or intended for use to commit a felony drug offense; (2) on or in proximity to a

person from whom a felony-level amount of drugs was seized; or (3) on the

premises where drugs were seized and in proximity to the drugs, if the possession or

sale of the drugs would be a felony offense

Administrative forfeiture procedures may only be used if the property involved does not exceed

$50,000.

If the property is a vehicle, a person other than the defendant can assert an ownership interest

as an innocent owner and seek return of the vehicle by sending notice to the prosecuting

authority. A prosecutor may return the vehicle to the asserting person or file an action in either

conciliation court or district court. To the extent possible, the court must hold a hearing on the

matter within 30 days. The prosecutor must prove that the vehicle was seized pursuant to a

lawful arrest or search and that the vehicle was used in the transportation of a controlled

substance intended for distribution or sale. The person asserting ownership must prove

ownership and that the person did not know the vehicle would be used to commit an offense. If

the prosecution meets its burden and the asserting person does not, the court must permit the

forfeiture to continue. Otherwise, the court must order that the vehicle be returned to the

innocent owner after payment of certain towing and storage costs.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 6

The law enforcement agency is permitted to seize the property immediately and must send a

notice to all persons known to have an ownership, possessory, or security interest in the

property within 60 days of the seizure. The notice must state that the property will be forfeited

unless the arrested person files a demand for a judicial forfeiture hearing or an innocent owner

sends the required notice within 60 days. Any filing fee is waived. If the claimant files a

demand, the court must follow the judicial forfeiture procedures and hold a hearing within 180

days of filing the demand. If no claimant files a demand for judicial forfeiture, the property is

forfeited. Minn. Stat. § 609.5314.

Administrative Forfeiture; Drive-by Shooting Offenses

Minnesota law also contains a separate, nonjudicial procedure for forfeiting

motor vehicles used to commit a “drive-by shooting” offense.

The “drive-by shooting” offense imposes felony penalties on any person who recklessly

discharges a firearm at or toward a person, vehicle, or building while in or having just exited

from a motor vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e. A motor vehicle is subject to

administrative forfeiture if the prosecutor establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the

motor vehicle was used to commit the drive-by shooting offense.

As is true of other types of administrative forfeitures, this law permits the immediate seizure of

the property and, unless the owner demands a judicial forfeiture proceeding, the forfeiture of

the vehicle without any further hearings. However, this law differs from other administrative

forfeiture laws in the following ways:

 notice of a vehicle seizure must be given within seven days of the seizure

 if criminal charges are filed in connection with the drive-by shooting incident, the

60-day period during which the owner may demand a judicial forfeiture proceeding

begins to run at the conclusion of the criminal proceeding instead of when the

seizure notice is sent

 the “innocent owner” defense does not apply if the owner was grossly negligent in

allowing the vehicle to be used by another

Minn. Stat. § 609.5318.

Summary Forfeitures

Minnesota law permits seizing agencies to summarily forfeit certain property

without going through any judicial or administrative proceedings.

The types of property included in this provision are:

 contraband property; i.e., property that is illegal to possess under Minnesota law.

This property must either be destroyed by the agency or used for law enforcement

purposes;

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 7

 police radios used to commit or attempt to commit a felony or to flee a peace officer

in a motor vehicle;

 schedule I controlled substances that are illegally sold or possessed, or that are

seized by peace officers and of unknown ownership; and species of plants from

which controlled substances in schedules I and II may be derived that are growing

wild, of unknown ownership, or lack appropriate registration;

 weapons used or possessed in furtherance of a criminal code violation, a controlled

substance crime, a violation of chapter 624, or a violation of a domestic abuse order

for protection, upon the owner’s or possessor’s conviction for one of these crimes;

 firearms used in any way during the commission of a domestic assault or stalking

crime;

 bullet-resistant vests worn or possessed during the commission or attempted

commission of a criminal code violation or controlled substance crime, upon the

owner’s or possessor’s conviction for one of these crimes; and

 telephone-cloning paraphernalia (materials capable of creating a cloned cellular

telephone) used to commit a cellular telephone-counterfeiting crime.

Conciliation Court Jurisdiction

The conciliation court has jurisdiction to determine certain forfeiture claims

that do not exceed $15,000.

If a claim does not exceed $15,000 and involves money or personal property subject to

forfeiture under section 609.5311 (controlled substance offenses); 609.5312 (designated

offenses); 609.5314 (administrative forfeiture for certain controlled substance offenses); or

609.5318 (drive-by shootings), the claimant may file a demand for judicial review in conciliation

court instead of district court. The determination of claims in conciliation court must be without

jury trial and by a simple and informal procedure. The filing fee in conciliation court is $65 as

compared to $285 in district court. Claimants and people asserting an innocent owner claim in

an administrative forfeiture action arising from a controlled substance offense do not need to

pay a filing fee. In administrative forfeiture actions arising from drive-by shootings where the

property is worth less than $500, the claimant does not have to pay the conciliation court filing

fee.

Minn. Stat. §§ 357.021; 357.022; 491A.01, subd. 3; 609.5314.

Forfeiture Sales; Distribution of Forfeiture Proceeds

Minnesota law provides various formulas for the disposition of forfeited

property.

Property may be sold if it is not otherwise required by law to be destroyed and is not harmful to

the public; it may be kept for official use by the law enforcement and prosecuting agencies; or it

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 8

may be forwarded to the federal Drug Enforcement Administration. If the forfeited property is a

firearm, the law enforcement agency has the following options:

 if the firearm is an antique, the agency may sell it at a public sale

 if the firearm is an assault weapon, the agency must either destroy it or keep it for

official use

 if the firearm is neither of the foregoing, the agency may destroy the firearm, keep it

for official use, or sell it to a federally licensed firearm dealer

The law also provides that if the Hennepin or Ramsey county board disapproves of the sale of

forfeited firearms, the local sheriff must comply with that directive.

Before administratively forfeited property may be sold, a county attorney must certify that: (1)

an evidence or seized property receipt was provided; (2) the seizing agency served timely notice

of the intent to forfeit; and (3) probable cause for the forfeiture exists.

Property may not be sold to an employee of the seizing agency or to an employee’s family

member.

If property representing proceeds of a designated offense is sold, the proceeds must be applied

first, to satisfy valid liens and forfeiture sale expenses and second, to pay court-ordered

restitution. If other forfeited property is sold, the proceeds also must be used first to satisfy

valid liens and forfeiture sale expenses. The remaining sale proceeds from both types of

property are distributed according to the following formula:

 70 percent to the law enforcement agency

 20 percent to the prosecuting agency

 10 percent to the state general fund

A special formula applies to the distribution of proceeds from the sale of vehicles forfeited for

prostitution violations. In these cases, proceeds are distributed as follows:

 40 percent to the law enforcement agency

 20 percent to the prosecuting agency

 40 percent to the city treasury for distribution to neighborhood crime prevention

programs

A special formula also applies to the distribution of proceeds from the sale of property forfeited

for trafficking of persons. In these cases, proceeds are distributed as follows:

 40 percent to the law enforcement agency

 20 percent to the prosecuting agency

 40 percent to the commissioner of public safety for distribution to trafficking crime

victim service organizations

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 9

An additional special formula applies to the distribution of money forfeited as a result of

facilitating prostitution offenses. In these cases, proceeds are distributed as follows:

 40 percent to the law enforcement agency

 20 percent to the prosecuting agency

 40 percent to the commissioner of public safety to be deposited in the Safe Harbor

for Youth account and distributed to crime victims services organizations that

provide services to sexually exploited youth

Each law enforcement agency or the prosecutor must give a written record of each forfeiture

incident to the state auditor. The report must be made quarterly and include detailed

information about each forfeiture, such as the amount forfeited, the statutory authority for the

forfeiture, the date of the forfeiture, a brief description of the circumstances involved, and

whether the forfeiture was contested. The report also must include the number, make, model,

and serial number of firearms seized by the agency. For DWI and drug forfeitures, the report

must indicate if it was initiated as an administrative or judicial forfeiture. Finally, the report

must indicate how the property was disposed or if it was returned to the property owner.

Reports on the disposition of property must include a description of how the law enforcement

agency or prosecuting authority used the proceeds. The state auditor must, in turn, report

annually to the legislature on the nature and extent of forfeitures during the preceding year.

These reporting requirements apply to the following types of forfeiture: game, fish, and

wetland violations (motor vehicles, bows, and firearms only), DWI, gambling, racketeering, and

general forfeiture under chapter 609. Minn. Stat. § 609.5315. See also Minn. Stat. §§ 84.7741,

subd. 13; 97A.221, subd. 5; 97A.223, subd. 6; 97A.225, subd. 10; 169A.63, subd. 12.

2. Specific Forfeiture Laws

Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles and Recreational Vehicles Used to

Commit Impaired Driving Offenses

Minnesota’s impaired driving law provides a special forfeiture procedure

applicable to motor vehicles and recreational vehicles (such as snowmobiles,

all-terrain vehicles, and motorboats) used to commit certain alcohol-related

traffic offenses.

This law authorizes the forfeiture of a motor vehicle or recreational vehicle used to commit a

first-degree DWI offense or a third offense within ten years. A person is guilty of a first-degree

DWI offense if the person: (1) violates DWI law within ten years of the first of three or more

qualified prior impaired driving incidents; or (2) violates DWI law and has previously been

This section does not include any discussion of property forfeiture due to tax law violations.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 10

convicted of a felony DWI or felony criminal vehicular operation while under the influence of

drugs or alcohol.

A person’s vehicle also may be forfeited under this law based on a license revocation instead of a

criminal conviction, if it is preceded by two or more prior impaired driving convictions or license

revocations within the previous ten years. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1, paras. (e) and (f).

A motor vehicle is subject to forfeiture if it was used in the commission of a designated offense

or used in conduct resulting in a designated license revocation. There is a presumption that a

vehicle is subject to forfeiture if: (1) the driver is convicted of the designated offense on which

the forfeiture

is based; or (2) the driver’s conduct results in a designated license revocation

and the driver does not seek timely judicial review or judicial review is upheld. Minn. Stat. §

169A.63, subd. 7.

A person other than the violator can assert an ownership interest in the vehicle by providing

notice to the prosecuting authority. A prosecutor then has 30 days to either turn the vehicle

over to that person or file the claim in court. To the extent possible, a judge must hold a

hearing within 30 days. The prosecutor must prove the seizure was incident to a lawful arrest or

search and must certify that the prosecutor has, or intends to, file charges. The person

asserting an ownership interest must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the

person has an ownership interest in the vehicle and either did not have knowledge that the

vehicle would be operated in violation of the law or that the person took reasonable steps to

prevent that action. If the prosecuting authority meets its burden and the asserting person does

not, the court must order that the vehicle remains subject to forfeiture. Otherwise, the vehicle

must be turned over to the innocent owner after that person pays certain towing and storage

costs. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 7a.

The forfeiture may be affected either through administrative forfeiture or judicial action. These

administrative and judicial processes are essentially the same as those provided under the

general forfeiture law described in part 1. The claimant must file a demand for a judicial hearing

within 60 days of service. The demand must be filed with the court administrator and served on

both the prosecuting attorney and the appropriate agency. The claimant does not need to pay

a filing fee. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8. The vehicle must be returned to the owner

immediately if the person charged with committing the designated offense appears in court

and is not convicted of the offense, the license revocation is rescinded, or a vehicle owner can

demonstrate that he or she did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the offense.

Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 9.

If a driver becomes a participant in the ignition interlock program, forfeiture must be stayed

and the vehicle must be returned. If the person commits a new offense or ceases to participate

in either the interlock program or treatment court, forfeiture can resume. If the person

See Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.24; 169A.25.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 11

successfully completes the interlock program, the forfeiture proceeding must be

dismissed. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 13.

If a vehicle is forfeited under this section, the vehicle must either be sold or kept by the local

law enforcement agency for official use. If the proceeds do not equal or exceed an outstanding

loan balance on the vehicle, the agency must remit all sale proceeds (minus storage and sale

expenses) to the secured party.

If a vehicle is sold, the net proceeds must be distributed as

follows:

 70 percent to the law enforcement agency for use in DWI-related enforcement,

training, and education

 30 percent to the prosecuting agency

Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 10.

Any law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority that returns a vehicle in good faith and

pursuant to state law is immune from being sued for any damages or injury caused by a

driver after a vehicle is returned. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 14.

Forfeiture of Motor Vehicles and Boats Used to Commit Game and

Fish Offenses

Minnesota law authorizes conservation officers to seize and forfeit any

property, motor vehicle, or boat used to commit certain violations of the

game and fish laws.

For example, a conservation officer has the power at any reasonable time to inspect premises

and motor vehicles requiring a license under the game and fish laws. The officer must seize

unlawfully possessed firearms and must seize any items used to illegally take game if no owner

of the items can be identified. These items are subject to an administrative forfeiture process,

not a judicial one.

The officer also may confiscate any wild animals, wild rice, prohibited invasive species, or other

aquatic vegetation that have been unlawfully taken or possessed as well as any equipment

having a value under $1,000 that was used to commit the violation. Boats and motors with

trailers used to take, possess, or transport wild animals when the animal’s restitution value

exceeds $500, may also be seized by an officer.

A secured party may elect to foreclose on the loan and sell the vehicle at its own foreclosure sale. If so, that sale

process replaces the forfeiture sale process. The secured party is subject to certain limits and must reimburse the

law enforcement agency for its seizure, storage, and forfeiture expenses. After paying its costs and satisfaction of

the lease or lien, the secured party must forward any proceeds that remain to the state treasury for credit to

the appropriate fund. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 11.

Seizure and administrative forfeiture may be appealed if the owner requests a hearing within 45 days after the

seizure.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 12

Furthermore, conservation officers must seize and seek judicial forfeiture of any:

 motor vehicles used illegally to shine wild animals, to transport big game or fur-

bearing animals that have been illegally taken or purchased, or to transport

minnows illegally; and

 boats and motors used to net fish illegally on Lake of the Woods, Rainy Lake, Lake

Superior, Namakan Lake, or Sand Point Lake.

The law outlines a confiscation and judicial forfeiture process applicable to persons convicted of

these game and fish law violations. This process is similar to that contained in the general

forfeiture law described in part 1 for “designated offense” forfeitures, except that 70 percent of

proceeds from the sale of forfeited motor vehicles, boats, and motors are credited to the game

and fish fund in the state treasury and 30 percent are forwarded to the prosecuting authority

that handled the forfeiture. Minn. Stat. §§ 97A.215 to 97A.225.

Forfeiture of Off-Highway Vehicles

Minnesota law authorizes a law enforcement officer to seize and forfeit an off-

highway vehicle if it was used in the commission of certain wetland crimes.

Upon a repeat gross misdemeanor violation for operating an off-highway vehicle in a careless

manner and recklessly upsetting the natural and ecological balance of a wetland or public

waters wetland, a law enforcement officer may seize an off-highway vehicle used in the

commission of the offense. The forfeiture provisions under section 84.7741 are similar to

those for DWI violations except that any sale proceeds must be distributed as follows:

 70 percent to the seizing agency for use in purchasing equipment for off-highway

vehicle enforcement, training, and education

 30 percent to the prosecuting agency

Minn. Stat. §§ 84.774; 84.7741.

Forfeiture of Gambling Devices, Prizes, and Proceeds

A separate forfeiture law applies to persons convicted of various gambling

offenses.

The following property associated with gambling is subject to forfeiture:

 illegal gambling devices

 money and property used or intended for use as payment to participate in gambling

or a prize or receipt for gambling

 books, records, and research products used or intended for use in gambling

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 13

 property used or intended to be used to illegally influence the outcome of a horse

race

The law outlines a judicial forfeiture process applicable to persons convicted of gambling

violations. This process is similar to that contained in the general forfeiture law described in

part 1

for “designated offense” forfeitures, except that proceeds from the sale of forfeited

property are shared equally by the law enforcement and prosecuting agencies. Minn. Stat. §

609.762.

Forfeiture of Property Associated with Racketeering Crimes

Minnesota law provides a unique criminal forfeiture procedure applicable to

persons convicted of a “racketeering” crime.

Racketeering is associated with organized crime and involves the use of a legal or illegal

business or other organization to commit crimes or conceal the proceeds of those crimes by

investing them in otherwise legitimate businesses. A person is guilty of a racketeering crime if

the person is employed by or associated with an enterprise and intentionally conducts or

participates in the affairs of the enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity. The

law defines “pattern of criminal activity” to encompass only certain serious crimes and to

require that at least three of these criminal acts must have occurred within the ten years

preceding the racketeering prosecution. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.902; 609.903.

When a court convicts a person of racketeering, it may authorize the forfeiture of any real or

personal property used in, intended for use in, derived from, or realized through the

racketeering conduct. This forfeiture procedure differs from the other forfeiture procedures

found in Minnesota law because it is not a separate civil in rem proceeding; rather it is an in

personam criminal forfeiture penalty applied by the court in addition or as an alternative to the

other criminal sanctions available, such as fines and imprisonment.

Once a court orders

forfeiture of property, the prosecutor may dispose of the property or forfeiture sale proceeds in

a manner similar to that provided for “designated offense” forfeitures under the general

forfeiture law. Minn. Stat. §§ 609.905; 609.908.

3. Major Constitutional Issues

Forfeiture and the U.S. Constitution’s Prohibition Against Excessive

Fines

Four significant rulings have been issued by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning whether a

particular property forfeiture violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “excessive

A civil in rem forfeiture proceeding is a proceeding directed against “guilty property” instead of against a criminal

offender. Technically speaking, it is separate from and independent of any criminal prosecution. In contrast, an in

personam forfeiture penalty results from a criminal conviction and is imposed directly on an individual offender

as punishment for criminal wrongdoing.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 14

fines” when its value is disproportionate to the seriousness of criminal activity on which it is

based.

In 1993, the Court ruled that there are constitutional limits on the value of property that may

be subject to either criminal in personam or civil in rem forfeiture due to its having been used to

commit or facilitate the commission of a crime. Regardless of whether the forfeiture provision

is characterized as a criminal penalty (like the racketeering forfeiture provision) or as a civil

remedial remedy (like the general forfeiture law), its purpose in both contexts is to serve as a

penalty for criminal behavior and, as such, it is subject to the limitations imposed by the

“Excessive Fines Clause” of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court,

therefore, remanded both cases to the courts of appeal from which they came, with

instructions to determine whether the forfeitures in the two cases were unconstitutionally

excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993);

Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544 (1993).

In the Austin and Alexander cases, the Court declined to articulate an analytical, constitutional

test for determining whether a particular fine or forfeiture is excessive, leaving that task to the

lower courts. In a concurring opinion, Justice Scalia indicated some sympathy for a more

relaxed “excessiveness” inquiry in civil forfeiture cases than in criminal ones; but the majority

opinion declined to endorse his analysis or otherwise influence the future decisions of the

lower courts on this matter.

In 1998, the Court ruled for the first time that the government’s forfeiture of a particular sum

of money in an in personam forfeiture proceeding did, in fact, violate the Excessive Fines Clause

of the Eighth Amendment.

In this case, the government forfeited $357,144 from the defendant because he had unlawfully

failed to report to customs officials that he was carrying the money at the time he boarded an

international flight. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because the defendant’s offense was

“solely a reporting offense” and involved minimal culpability or harm, the forfeiture of this

large sum of currency was unconstitutional because it was “grossly disproportional” to the

gravity of the offense. This “grossly disproportional” standard, the Court stated, is the proper

one to use in deciding excessive fine inquiries under the Eighth Amendment because it gives

adequate deference to legislative judgments concerning the appropriate level of punishment,

and it recognizes the “inherent imprecision” of any judicial determination regarding the gravity

of particular criminal offenses. United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998).

More recently, the court concluded that the Eighth Amendment applies to state forfeiture

actions. In Timbs v. Indiana, 1395 S.Ct. 682 (2019), the defendant was convicted of selling

heroin. The police seized a vehicle worth $42,000, claiming that it had been used to transport

the heroin. It was undisputed that Timbs used money he received from an insurance policy to

purchase the vehicle. The Indiana Supreme Court had concluded that the Eighth Amendment’s

prohibition on excessive fines did not apply to the state. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that

decision, finding that the prohibition does apply to forfeiture actions taken by a state. The court

did not decide the question of whether this particular forfeiture was excessive. Instead, the

court sent the case back to Indiana state courts for further action.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 15

Minnesota’s appellate courts look to the “grossly disproportional” test

articulated in U.S. v. Bajakajian to resolve Eighth Amendment challenges to

civil forfeitures.

In a 2000 case involving a challenge to court-imposed fines and surcharges, the Minnesota

Supreme Court looked to the U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Bajakajian, for guidance

in applying the Excessive Fines Clause. State v. Rewitzer, 617 N.W.2d 407 (Minn. 2000). In

Bajakajian, the Supreme Court held that a fine is unconstitutional if it is grossly disproportional

to the gravity of the offense and adopted the standard of gross disproportionality articulated

in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). The Solem court looked at three factors when

considering proportionality: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (2)

comparison of the contested fine with fines imposed for the commission of other crimes in the

same jurisdiction; and (3) comparison of the contested fine with fines imposed for commission

of the same crime in other jurisdictions. Although the Rewitzer case involved criminal fines,

Minnesota courts have applied the same analysis of the excessive fines clause in civil in rem

forfeiture cases. See Miller v. One 2001 Pontiac Aztek, 669 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. 2003) (upholding

forfeiture of a $16,000 vehicle for a first-degree DWI offense); City of New Brighton v. 2000

Ford Excursion, 622 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. App. 2001) (upholding forfeiture of $40,000 vehicle for

a gross misdemeanor DWI offense); and Borgen v. 418 Eglon Avenue and $1,230.00, 712

N.W.2d 809 (Minn. App. 2006) (upholding forfeiture of defendant’s house and money as a

result of a controlled substance offense).

Before Minnesota courts adopted the gross disproportionality standard, some courts had relied

on the “instrumentality or nexus” test, which asks if the property bears a close relationship to

the offense. See City of Worthington Police Dep’t v. One 1988 Chevrolet Berreta, 516 N.W.2d

581 (Minn. App. 1994). While the Minnesota Supreme Court since has rejected solely using the

“instrumentality or nexus” test, it has stated that the courts may still use the test in conjunction

with the gross-disproportionality test. Borgen, 712 N.W.2d at 812 (citing Miller v. One 2001

Pontiac Aztec, 669 N.W.3d 893, 897 n. 2 (Minn. 2003)).

Forfeiture and the U.S. Constitution’s Prohibition Against Double

Jeopardy

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that it does not violate the Fifth

Amendment’s prohibition against “double jeopardy” to convict a person for a

criminal offense and forfeit the person’s property through a civil proceeding.

The Court ruled that the government does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy

Clause when it both punishes a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeits the defendant’s

property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. In contrast to its analysis under

the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause, the Court ruled that the forfeiture of property

in a civil in rem proceeding does not constitute “punishment” for purposes of the Double

Jeopardy Clause.

The Court applied a two-pronged test. First, it considered whether the legislature intended the

forfeiture proceedings to be criminal or civil. The Court found that, in this case, Congress clearly

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 16

intended the proceedings to be civil because it targeted the property itself rather than the

property owner as the “guilty party,” and it provided distinctly civil procedures for conducting

the proceedings. Second, the Court considered whether the forfeiture proceedings were so

punitive in form or effect as to clearly render them criminal, despite Congress’s intent to the

contrary. It found that, while the proceedings had certain punitive aspects, they also served

important nonpunitive goals, such as deterring the illegal use of property and ensuring that no

one profits from engaging in criminal activity. For these reasons, the Court ruled that civil in

rem proceedings to forfeit either the proceeds of criminal activity or property used to commit

criminal acts are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 (1996).

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ursery is consistent with recent forfeiture

decisions of the Minnesota Court of Appeals concerning the double jeopardy

issue.

In State v. Rosenfeld, 540 N.W.2d 915 (Minn. App. 1995), decided six months before Ursery, the

Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld the authority of the state to prosecute the defendant for a

drug crime after having civilly forfeited property representing instrumentalities and proceeds of

the crime. The court ruled that the two actions did not violate either the Double Jeopardy

Clauses of the federal or state constitutions because the forfeiture was rationally related to

such remedial, nonpunitive goals as eliminating the means for engaging in future drug

trafficking and reducing the financial incentive for drug dealing.

However, the court of appeals also ruled that when the state seeks to forfeit property that is

merely “associated” with a crime, the forfeiture is subjected to closer scrutiny. To escape the

limitations of the Double Jeopardy Clause, it must be shown either that the property being

subjected to forfeiture was “proceeds” or “instrumentalities” of the crime, or that the

forfeiture served some other remedial goal such as compensating the government for its costs

in connection with the property owner’s criminal activity. See Freeman v. Residence Located at

1215 East 21st St., 552 N.W.2d 275 (Minn. App. 1996).

Similarly, in City of New Hope v. 1986 Mazda 626, 546 N.W.2d 300 (Minn. App. 1996), the court

of appeals upheld the constitutionality of a motor vehicle forfeiture under the DWI forfeiture

law. The court ruled that civil forfeiture of a motor vehicle used by a repeat DWI offender to

commit a DWI offense is rationally related to the statute’s remedial purpose of protecting

public safety and, therefore, is not punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clauses of

either the federal or state constitutions. Accord, City of Pine Springs v. One 1992 Harley

Davidson, 555 N.W.2d 749 (Minn. App. 1996); see also Johnson v. 1996 GMC Sierra, 606 N.W.2d

455 (Minn. App. 2000), reviewed denied April 18, 2000; Hawes v. 1997 Jeep Wrangler, 602

N.W.2d 874 (Minn. App. 1999); Lukkason v. 1993 Chevrolet Extended Cab Pickup, 590 N.W.2d

803 (Minn. App. 1999), review denied May 18, 1999; City of New Brighton v. 2000 Ford

Excursion, 622 N.W.2d 364 (Minn. App. 2001); Schug v. Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Sixteen

Dollars & Fifty Cents in U.S. Currency, 669 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. App. 2003).

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 17

4. Minnesota Cases of Interest

Minnesota appellate courts have issued decisions on specific forfeiture issues.

“[T]he Minnesota Constitution’s homestead exemption, as implemented by Minnesota

Statutes, section 510.01, exempts homestead property from forfeiture.” The court looked at

the question of whether the drug-asset forfeiture statute, Minnesota Statutes, section

609.5311, subdivision 2, was constitutional as applied to homestead property. Torgelson v. Real

Property Known As 17138 - 880th Ave., 749 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 2008). The court emphasized that

this exemption applies only to homestead property in Nielsen v. 2003 Honda Accord, 845

N.W.2d 754 (Minn. 2013).

A prior administrative license revocation may be used as an aggravating factor to subject a

vehicle to forfeiture pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 169A.63, subdivision 6, without

violating due process when there was no hearing on a petition for judicial review (PJR) because

of the petitioner’s voluntary decision to withdraw the PJR prior to the commencement of the

forfeiture trial. Heino v. One 2003 Cadillac, 762 N.W.2d 257 (Minn. App. 2009).

The vehicle forfeiture statute (Minn. Stat. § 169A.63) is civil/regulatory and thus cannot be

enforced by the state against Indian-owned vehicles for conduct occurring on the owner’s

reservation. Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen, 754 N.W.2d 587 (Minn. App. 2008).

An insurance-settlement payment representing the fair-market value of a destroyed vehicle

qualifies as a proceed from a crime under Minnesota Statutes, section 609.5312. An insurance

ayment is subject to forfeiture where the destroyed vehicle is al

so subject to forfeiture. Schug,

669 N.W.2d 379 (Minn. App. 2003).

Delay in hearing a challenge to a forfeiture action from a person claiming to be an innocent

owner can be a due process violation. Olson v. One 1999 Lexus, 924 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. 2019).

5. Minnesota Legislative Action

The legislature has addressed specific issues related to forfeiture.

The 2010 Legislature enacted laws aimed at addressing allegations of misconduct by officers

assigned to the Metro Gang Strike Force, including improper seizures and forfeitures. The

legislature expanded on these changes in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2017, and 2021.

In 2021, the legislature codified the holding in Minnesota Statutes section 609.5311, subdivision 2. Laws 2021,

1st spec. sess., ch. 11, art. 5, § 5.

The legislature amended innocent owner procedures related to DWI and controlled substances to provide earlier

hearings for those claiming to be the innocent owner of a vehicle subject to forfeiture. Laws 2021, 1st spec. sess.,

ch. 11, art. 5, §§ 3 and 15.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 18

2010

In May 2009, the Legislative Auditor’s financial audit division conducted a special review of the

Metro Gang Strike Force and found that “internal controls were not adequate to safeguard

seized and forfeited property, properly authorize its financial transactions, accurately record its

financial activity in the accounting records, and conduct its financial activities in a reasonable

and prudent manner.”

Subsequent to this report and after further allegations of misconduct,

the strike force was shut down. An additional investigation was conducted at the request of the

Department of Public Safety. This report, known as the “Luger” report, found “credible

allegations of misconduct relating to strike force employees that went beyond the findings of

the Legislative Auditor,” including illegal seizures, potential civil rights violations, and improper

handling of seized property and evidence.

In an effort to curb further potential abuse, the 2010 Legislature passed two bills that

addressed the oversight of multijurisdictional task forces, such as the Metro Gang Strike

Force,

and made changes to various seizure and forfeiture laws. Regarding the latter, chapter

391 implemented the following changes in forfeiture law:

 Requires officers to give receipts upon seizing property

 Amends bond provisions for forfeited property

 Implements timelines for forfeiture notice and hearings

 Amends conciliation court jurisdiction to include certain forfeiture claims

 Places a cap on the value of property that may be forfeited administratively

 Requires prosecutors to certify administrative forfeitures

 Prohibits sales of forfeited property to officers and their family members

 Amends and expands forfeiture reporting requirements

 Requires the Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Board and the Minnesota

County Attorneys’ Association to develop a statewide model policy for best practices

in forfeiture

One of the legislature’s main concerns was the use of administrative forfeiture provisions. If an

agency administratively forfeits property, there is no judicial review or formal process.

Moreover, the previous law did not set any time limits for initiating these actions. To increase

accountability and oversight, the legislature implemented a 60-day timeline to serve notice

after seizure and required that contested claims be heard within 180 days of the demand. A cap

Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, Metro Gang Strike Force: Special Review (May 20, 2009), 1,

http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/fad/pdf/fad0918.pdf.

Andrew Luger and John Patrick Egelhof, Report of the Metro Gang Strike Force Review Panel (August 20, 2009),

2, http://www.https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/co/about/Documents/final_report_mgsf_review_panel.pdf.

One strike force officer was indicted by a federal grand jury in August 2010. A month later, Hennepin County

Attorney Mike Freeman announced he had insufficient evidence to criminally charge former strike force officers

under Minnesota state law. Randy Furst, “Obstacles Sink State’s Strike Force Case,” Star Tribune, September 9,

2010.

See Laws 2010, ch. 383.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 19

of $50,000 was placed on administrative forfeitures (anything above that value would need to

be forfeited judicially), and prosecutors must certify that certain procedures were met before

an agency can dispose of administratively forfeited property. Reporting requirements were also

expanded to increase transparency of forfeiture actions.

2012

In 2012, the legislature expanded on the 2010 legislation by making similar revisions to DWI,

off-highway vehicle (OHV), and drive-by shooting forfeiture laws. It also amended notification

language for administrative forfeitures; prohibited sale of forfeited property to prosecuting

authorities and their families; and increased the monetary threshold on value of certain

property that may be adjudicated in conciliation court. Finally, it clarified the burden of proof

(rewording only) in forfeiture cases and created a new reporting requirement if a forfeiture

proceeding transfers to another agency.

2013

A 2013 change expanded the forfeiture law to include money possessed by men soliciting

prostitutes.

2014

The 2014 Legislature amended the forfeiture burden of proof by requiring a conviction for

judicial forfeiture of property in controlled substances crimes. An informant’s plea bargain or a

stayed sentence or diversion are also considered “convictions” for forfeiture purposes. Before

this change, only “designated offense” forfeitures required a criminal conviction (i.e., certain

felony-level offenses).

2017

In the 2017 session, the legislature made a slight change to the “innocent owner” defense in

forfeiture cases involving a vehicle seized when an offender was driving while intoxicated.

Previously, a co-owner could not challenge the forfeiture if another co-owner was the offender.

The new law allows any owner of a motor vehicle to petition the court for return of a motor

vehicle. The petitioning owner must prove a lack of actual or constructive knowledge of the

illegal vehicle use, or an attempt to prevent the use. In addition, petitioning owners are

presumed to know of an offender’s illegal use if the offender is a family or household member

of any petitioning owner and has three or more prior DWI convictions.

2021

The 2021 Legislature made multiple changes to forfeiture law. The majority of those changes

involved administrative forfeitures based on alleged DWI or controlled substance offenses. The

changes limited some property that could be subject to forfeiture by increasing the minimum

value of that property and requiring a closer connection between the property and alleged

offense. The changes also expanded the innocent owner defense, required additional reporting

on property subject to forfeiture, established a requirement on reporting how forfeiture

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 20

proceeds are used, limited participation in the federal equitable sharing program, and

eliminated some filing fees for forfeiture challenges. The legislature also required a report, due

on January 15, 2025, on the effect of forfeiture and ignition interlock on both DWI recidivism

and public safety.

6. The Federal Government’s Equitable Sharing

Program

Local law enforcement agencies can give seized property to the federal

government to handle forfeiture procedures in some situations.

Federal law authorizes the U.S. Attorney General to share forfeited property with

participating law enforcement agencies. Several provisions apply: 21 U.S.C. § 881, 18 U.S.C. §

981, and 19 U.S.C. § 1616a. Federal forfeiture may apply under one of two conditions: (1) a

joint investigation, or (2) adoption of a state or local seizure.

Joint investigations are those in which federal agencies work with local agencies to enforce

federal laws and often involve a formal federal task force. The local share of property seized in

a joint investigation can vary widely based on many factors, and the federal government’s share

will be at least 20 percent.

The federal government operates a program known as “Equitable Sharing” or “Adoptive

Forfeiture.” Adoptions occur when a local law enforcement agency seizes property, but asks the

federal government to adopt the seizure and proceed with federal forfeiture. In adoptive

forfeiture, the federal share is usually only 20 percent—leaving 80 percent for the local agency.

Like state law, federal forfeiture may be administrative or judicial. Administrative forfeiture

under federal law must be based on probable cause and applies to cash or other money

instruments of any amount; vehicles, aircraft, or other hauling conveyances of any amount; and

other property including jewelry, bank accounts, and electronic devices worth $500,000 or less.

Judicial forfeiture applies when a person claiming ownership files a timely claim in an

administrative forfeiture, the value of “other property” exceeds $500,000, or the property is

real estate. Some property that would be subject to the more stringent judicial forfeiture

proceedings under Minnesota law would be subject to administrative forfeiture under federal

law.

In 2021, the legislature prohibited Minnesota law enforcement agencies and prosecutors from

transferring property subject to forfeiture to the federal government for adoption if the

forfeiture would be prohibited under state law.

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 21

Appendix

Definition of “Appropriate Agency” in the General Forfeiture

Law (Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1)

 Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

 Department of Commerce Division of Insurance Fraud Prevention

 Minnesota Division of Driver and Vehicle Services

 Minnesota State Patrol

 A county sheriff’s department

 Three Rivers Park District park rangers

 Department of Natural Resources Division of Enforcement

 University of Minnesota Police Department

 Department of Corrections Fugitive Apprehension Unit

 A city, metropolitan transit, or airport police department

 A multijurisdictional task force

Definition of “Designated Offense” in the General Forfeiture Law

(Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1)

For dangerous weapons used or possessed in furtherance of a crime, “designated offense”

includes every offense in chapter 609 (the Criminal Code), chapter 152 (controlled

substance provisions), and chapter 624 (firearms and other criminal provisions).

For driver’s license or ID card transactions, “designated offense” includes any violation of

section 171.22 (to use, possess, make, or display a fictitious or fraudulently altered card;

to permit another to use one’s card; to display a card that is not one’s own; to make a false

application; to alter a card; to give a false name or date of birth to a peace officer).

For all other purposes, “designated offense” includes:

1) felony violations of or felony-level attempts or conspiracies to violate the following

laws:

unlawful sale or transfer of recorded sounds or materials (Minn. Stat. §§

325E.17; 325E.18)

murder in the first, second, or third degree (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.185; 609.19;

609.195)

o criminal vehicular homicide and injury (Minn. Stat. § 609.21)

o assault in the first, second, third, or fourth degree (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.221 to

609.2231)

o simple or aggravated robbery (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.24; 609.245)

o kidnapping (Minn. Stat. § 609.25)

o false imprisonment (Minn. Stat. § 609.255)

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 22

o labor trafficking and unlawful conduct with respect to documents in

furtherance of trafficking (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.282; 609.283)

solicitation or promotion of prostitution or sex trafficking (Minn. Stat. §

609.322)

o criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, third, or fourth degree

(certain provisions only) (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342 to 609.345)

solicitation of children to engage in sexual conduct (Minn. Stat. § 609.352)

o bribery (Minn. Stat. § 609.42)

o corruptly influencing a legislator (Minn. Stat. § 609.425)

Medical Assist

ance fraud (Minn. Stat. § 609.466)

o escape from custody (Minn. Stat. § 609.485)

o fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle (Minn. Stat. § 609.487)

o theft (Minn. Stat. § 609.52)

o bringing stolen goods into the state (Minn. Stat. § 609.525)

o identity theft (Minn. Stat. § 609.527)

o possession or sale of stolen/counterfeit checks (Minn. Stat. § 609.528)

o receiving stolen property (Minn. Stat. § 609.53)

o embezzlement of public funds (Minn. Stat. § 609.54)

o rustling and livestock theft (Minn. Stat. § 609.551)

o arson in the first, second, or third degree (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.561 to 609.563)

o burglary (Minn. Stat. § 609.582)

o possession of burglary or theft tools (Minn. Stat. § 609.59)

o damage to property (Minn. Stat. § 609.595)

o insurance fraud (Minn. Stat. § 609.611)

o check forgery (Minn. Stat. § 609.631)

o drive-by shooting (Minn. Stat. § 609.66, subd. 1e)

o hazardous waste, water pollution, and air pollution crimes (Minn. Stat. §

609.671, subds. 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12)

o adulteration (Minn. Stat. § 609.687)

o financial transaction card fraud (Minn. Stat. § 609.821)

o bribery of official or contestant in contest (Minn. Stat. § 609.825)

o commercial bribery (Minn. Stat. § 609.86)

o computer damage or theft (Minn. Stat. §§ 609.88; 609.89)

o telecommunications and information services fraud (Minn. Stat. § 609.893)

o counterfeiting intellectual property (Minn. Stat. § 609.895)

o use of minors in sexual performance (Minn. Stat. § 617.246)

o possession of pornographic work involving minors (Minn. Stat. § 617.247)

Minnesota’s Forfeiture Laws

Minnesota House Research Department Page 23

2) gross misdemeanor and felony violations of:

o unauthorized computer access (Minn. Stat. § 609.891)

o carrying a rifle or shotgun in a public place (Minn. Stat. § 624.7181)

3) any prostitution offense violation (involving patrons and prostitutes) (Minn. Stat. §

609.324)

Minnesota House Research Department provides nonpartisan legislative, legal, and

information services to the Minnesota House of Representatives. This document

can be made available in alternative formats.

www.house.mn/hrd | 651-296-6753 | 155 State Office Building | St. Paul, MN 55155