State v. One 2002 Dodge Intrepid Automobile, 841 N.W.2d 239

In April 2012, Kawo Otis Flah was arrested on controlled-substance charges; he remained in custody throughout the events here.
In August 2012 the Burleigh County sheriff personally served Flah at the detention center with a forfeiture summons and complaint; the sheriff’s return was not filed until after the forfeiture hearing.
Flah filed a written objection to the forfeiture (treated as an answer), identifying a P.O. box address, and thus was an interested party entitled to a hearing.
A March 28, 2013 notice to appear for the forfeiture hearing was mailed to a residential Bismarck address (not Flah’s in-custody address), was returned undeliverable, and then forwarded to a Minneapolis address.
Flah did not receive notice, did not attend the May 9, 2013 hearing, and learned of the forfeiture only after judgment was entered; the district court ordered the vehicle forfeited to a narcotics task force.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Flah)	Held
Whether Flah had a due process right to receive mailed notice of the forfeiture hearing	Statutory procedure satisfied due process; notices may be mailed to last known address under the rules	Flah contended he was entitled to notice and did not receive it because notice was mailed to a residential address instead of his in-custody address	Court: Flah had a due process right to have the notice mailed to his last known address under the forfeiture statute and civil rules
Whether mailing the notice to a residential address (not his in-custody address) violated due process	Mailing to last known address was adequate; procedural requirements were followed	Mailing to a known-invalid residential address when Flah was in custody here denied notice reasonably calculated to apprise him	Court: Mailing to the residential address violated due process because authorities knew or should have known he could not be contacted there
Whether the forfeiture judgment must be reversed/remanded	Forfeiture valid if procedures followed and State met burden at hearing	Judgment should be set aside because he lacked notice and opportunity to be heard	Court: Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion

Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (observing notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of pendency of action)
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (establishing the basic standard for constitutionally adequate notice)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (framework for balancing private interest, risk of erroneous deprivation, and government interest in procedural-due-process analysis)
State v. One Black 1989 Cadillac, 522 N.W.2d 457 (N.D. 1994) (interpretation of North Dakota forfeiture statutory procedures and due process protections)