*1 family re- micromanaging into even more I affirm Accordingly, would

lationships. appeals.

the court

PAGE, (dissenting). Justice Gilbert. in the dissent of Justice join

STRINGER, (dissenting). Justice Gilbert. in the dissent of Justice join

I al., Appellants, BLANCHE, et

James

v. (VIN: PRIX GRAND

1995 PONTIAC

162WJ12M95F268403),

Respondent.

No. C4-97-2259. of Minnesota.

Supreme Court

Sept. 1999. *2 Carp, Bolter,

Howard S. Howard L. Borkon, Ramstead, Letourneau, Mariani & Ltd., Minneapolis, appellants. Gaertner, Susan Ramsey County Attor- ney, Kathryn Eilers, M. Ramsey Assistant County Attorney, Rohland, Patrick R. Cer- Paul, tified Student Attorney, St. for re- spondent.

OPINION BLATZ, Chief Justice. 10, 1996, April

On police stopped the respondent vehicle, a 19951 Pontiac Grand Prix. A plastic small bag containing nine rocks of crack cocaine was found on the pavement vehicle, next to the leading po- lice to believe the vehicle contained the drugs when it stopped. The vehicle was seized under the administrative forfei- statute, ture (1998), 609.5314 provides which for the forfeiture of con- veyance containing or more of a controlled Appellants substance.2 re- quested judicial determination of the for- feiture as set forth statute. MinmStat. subd. 3 After the hear- ing, the district court ordered forfeiture of rejecting appellants’ contention they were entitled to the innocent owner defense. appeals The court of af- firmed the district court. We now reverse and remand.

The facts are essentially undisputed. At p.m. 10, 1996, around April 7:30 on an off- duty police St. Paul officer heard gunshots near the University intersection of Avenue Dunlap Street St. Paul. As the scene, officer ran toward the he observed three driving away. vehicles One of the 1. appellants "includes, The lower courts and described 2. A device but is not 1994, 1995, alternately the car as a to, limited a motor vehicle.” Minn.Stat. However, Pontiac Grand Prix. the bill of sale 1(a) (1998). registration and vehicle card show it to be a 1995. Prix occu- of the administrative forfei-

vehicles, Pontiac a 1995 Grand by appellant ture converted the administrative forfei- males and driven pied by four Blanche, in traf- into a with all of its became ensnarled Carlos Appellants accompanying side of defenses. then ran the driver’s fic. The officer drawn, gun argued they ordered with his *3 knowledge presence of had no of the crack ignition, to turn off the Blanche vehicle, they their in the were everyone in the car to raise cocaine innocent structed as he not be officer testified that owners whose should hands. The waiting for addi- that Appellants the vehicle feited. also asserted be- stood behind assistance, passengers police tional the crack cocaine was found cause outside comply not with his order fidgeted and did the vehicle no controlled substance He further filed, hands visible. keep county their charges offense were was had a clear as he waited he testified that presumption entitled to the of forfeita- not the vehicle’s pavement near view bility accorded in administrative forfei- sub- and saw no controlled passenger door plain that a tures. The state maintained ground. stances on reading of the forfeiture statute shows that appellants are not entitled to an innocent police at the arrived When additional defense forfeitures initiated as scene, from occupants were removed forfeitures. administrative two occu- at a time. After vehicle one side of pants passenger exited claims, Rejecting appellants’ the district vehicle, plastic bag police found a small found that Blanche was the court Carlos was containing what later determined owner, the vehicle vehicle’s that when was pave- of crack cocaine on the be nine rocks plastic bag which stopped contained the door. No just passenger ment outside a retail held crack cocaine with value of in the substances were found $180.00, that the vehicle was occu- respondent and none of the under the administrative forfei- relat- pants charged with an offense ture statute. district court also found own- ing substances. Vehicle to controlled proven by was clear and “[i]t that Blanche, ership records indicated James that Blanche convincing evidence Carlos father, registered Carlos Blanche’s was was fact that cocaine was the vehicle. owner of automobile, posses- or that the Defendant with Carlos of such cocaine occurred sion pursuant was seized The vehicle Blanche’s consent.” providing for administrative forfei- Prix, No. containing Blanche v.1996 Pontiac Grand ture of “all devices Dist.Minn.1996). (4th Fi- at 3 with a retail value C4-97-5762 controlled substances district ordered the vehicle possession nally, if sale of court or more $100 un- forfeited. felony would be a to be controlled substance chapter der 152.” Minn.Stat. affirmed, appeals reasoning The court of 1(a)(2) James Appellants for the there was sufficient evidence notice as given Blanche were Carlos that the crack cocaine district court find required by the administrative forfeiture stopped. it was inside the vehicle when statute,3 appellants timely exer- both Prix, No. Blanche v.1995 Pontiac Grand judicial de- right their to demand a cised (Minn. C4-97-2259, *2 405018 at WL by filing termination of the forfeiture By focusing on the differences App.1998). complaint. civil administra forfeitures initiated as between judi initiated as appellants forfeitures and those hearing, tive At appeals also procedures, the court their demand for cial contended registered proceeding. presumption 3. There is a that the 6a(b) (1998). registered is the James Blanche owner of a motor vehicle is the owner respondent vehicle. purposes owner of the vehicle for motor innocent owner as an In light concluded that the administrative forfeiture. administratively apply police testimony, does not initiated we officer’s hold that forfeitures. Id. finding the district that the court’s illegal supported contained drugs by the

I. record and does not constitute abuse of first Appellants argue that Further, discretion. as administrative for- in finding district court erred may feitures for conveyance be initiated motor vehicle contained controlled sub containing more of stance, and therefore forfeiture was drugs, we hold that the district court was improperly as an initiated concluding correct the action was findings forfeiture. A court’s district appropriately as an initiated *4 fact clearly shall not be set aside unless pursuant forfeiture to Minn.Stat. Kornberg Kornberg, erroneous. See v. 542 § 609.5314. (Minn.1996). 379, However, N.W.2d 386 we review the district de novo court’s de II. properly termination that action was Appellants argue next that once initiated as an administrative contested, an administrative forfeiture is presents of law. question Brug See a judicial procedure, becomes Inc., geman Jerry’s Enterprises, v. 591 and they per therefore should have been (Minn.1999). 705, N.W.2d 708 plead mitted to innocent an owner defense hearing, police At the officer at hearing. state con stopped respon- testified that after he tends that the forfeiture statutes set out vehicle, dent he stood behind the vehicle entirely two different forfeiture mecha

waiting police for additional assistance. nisms types property, for different and From behind the vehicle he had a clear that forfeitures initiated as administrative pavement view of the near passenger incorporate forfeitures do not the innocent vehicle, door of the he and testified that he presents owner defense. this issue As did not see unusual anything laying on the conflicting interpretations of the forfeiture ground. He testified further that no one statutes, de we review it novo. Wyn See passed near the vehicle while it was koop v. Carpenter, N.W.2d 425 stopped. After two of the vehicle’s occu- (Minn.1998) (citing Lolling v. Midwest Pa pants were from the passenger removed trol, (Minn.1996)). 545 N.W.2d side of the police found a small plastic bag crack containing cocaine on the Against a backdrop of increasing drug ground next vehicle’s passenger crime, legislature created a scheme Appellants side. that although asserted permitting property forfeitures used in adjacent crack cocaine was found connection with crimes. The drug frame- car, analysis a fingerprint conducted on work for forfeitures of associated bag was inconclusive failed to as- with or connected to controlled substances bag any occupants. sociate the §§ is set out in Minn.Stat. 609.531-.5319 Further, a trained narcotics sniffing dog (1998). words, In legislature’s own did not any find other controlled sub- these forfeiture laws aim: stances in the vehicle. (1) (2) law; to enforce the to deter crime; (3)

At the conclusion of the forfeiture to reduce economic incen- (4) hearing, the district court found that the tive to engage enterprise; criminal vehicle at stopped the time it was pecuniary “con increase the loss resulting tained a bag containing sandwich from nine the detection criminal activity; * ** (5) rocks of crack cocaine a retail property unlawfully [with] to forfeit value of acquired The court used or divert $180.00.” concluded properly the action purposes. had been initiated to law enforcement forfeitures, process In order for uncontested avoid- subd. la. legislature hearings delin- goals, ing unnecessary achieve its when forfeitures procedures, types challenged. two are not

eated Minn. judicial and administrative. See creating expedited pro While §§ 609.5313-.5314

Stat. forfeitures, legis cess for uncontested Both lature retained claimants’ access to the may procedures be initiated challenge courts to of adminis forfeitures prox properties certain found confiscate origin. Specifically, trative substances, and also imity to controlled provided facing a claimant administra “conveyance containing tive forfeiture of his or her must with a retail value of substances $100 * * upon request receive a determina more tion of the administrative forfeiture. added). 1(a)(2) (emphasis Judicial plain language requires statute’s notice to procedures may be initiated also “conspicuously” claimants to state “if the conveyance device to confiscate a they have a to obtain re “right substance is retail value of the controlled and be view” warned “IF YOU DO more device is *5 DEMAND NOT JUDICIAL REVIEW felony-level controlled associated with a * * *, A YOU THE TO LOSE RIGHT 609.5311, § substance crime.” OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION 3(a) added). Impor (emphasis subds. AND THIS YOU LOSE FORFEITURE subject all administra tantly, property to MAY THE ANY RIGHT YOU HAVE TO of within the tive forfeiture falls definition Id. ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY.” judicial property subject to forfeiture. 2(b)(3). 609.5314, § subd. If a claimant initi- procedures forfeiture are Judicial judicial of demands review the administra county complaint ated when the files a forfeiture, judicial pro tive forfeiture stating the basis for against property ceeding is held with the claimant as gives forfeiture and notice to the own- 609.5314, all plaintiff. § Id. As subd. 3. Minn. possessor property. er subject property to forfei administrative judi- § At the subsequent 609.5313. Stat. property subject ture is a subset of to hearing, for- property presumed cial 609.5311, judicial forfeiture under section feitable, county but the bears the burden 3(a), judicial process for forfei subd. proof giving act or of each omission 609.531, in procedure set out sections by to the clear and convinc- rise forfeiture 6a, 609.5311, governs the claim subd. 6a(a). 609.531, § ing evidence. Id. subd. judicial procedure. forfeiture ant-initiated judicial proce- In forfeiture addition to dures, judicial adminis- The dissent forfei- established states ini- judicial procedures, expedite tures and review forfeitures trative forfeiture follow To initiate tiated as administrative forfeitures some uncontested forfeitures. county procedure, procedures administrative different because an Instead, applies “as- complaint. not issue a feiture devices does county notice with” controlled while property gives seizes the sociated substances applies convey- ownership persons to all known have an administrative forfeiture sub- “containing” in possessory property, interest ance judi- interpretation forming they may ignores them that stances. This demand property plain simple review the forfeiture. Minn.Stat. fact all cial (cid:127) 609.5314, by subject § If a subd. 2. claimant chooses administrative forfeiture forfeiture, subject judicial for- property not to contest the definition 609.5314, feiture, proce- days. forfeited in so Id. 3(a). judicial re- dures must be followed once subd. The administrative forfeiture requested. provides view is procedure thereby a streamlined to the of- Important consideration administrative statute states statutory on this case are the limitations that for determinations of admin- Limitations on forfeitures appropriate forfeitures. istrative forfeitures “the procedures, agency whether the must conduct the forfeiture under 609.531, procedure is initiated as a section 6a.” subdivision Minn. 3(c). 609.5314, are out set Stat. subd. Subdivision 609.5311, subd. out of proof section 3. The 6a sets the burdens for all may only civil hearings, stating ap- states that be forfeited “[t]he if propriate agency handling “its owner [unlawful] * * *, use or use or the unlawful evidentiary pre- intended has the benefit of the 609.5314, other sumption use or intended use section subdivision wise occurred with but otherwise the burden bears 3(d). or consent.” proving giving Id. subd. act or rise omission barring no limitation statute lists clear and convincing evi- plead 6a(a). being innocent owner from dence.” proceedings. ed Subdivision 6a does out not set different procedures determinations of plain reading statutory This forfeitures, nor it lim- does scheme, plead allowing owners to the inno may it the defenses the court hear. defense, supported by cent owner testi mony given during hearing committee on best, At the failure of section proposed response laws. In 6a(a), explicitly incorpo concerning an legislator’s hypothetical rate the innocent owner defense creates innocent owner’s motor an assis ambiguity as to whether the defense is *6 tant county attorney explained that the in judicial available determinations of for case of a co-owned vehicle used to trans feitures initiated as administrative forfei port more than worth of controlled $250 If a tures. ambiguous, statute is the substances, county all the would “notice court “must ascertain and effectuate the people ownership [in with an interest legislature.” intent of the Hersh Proper up would be to vehicle] and it to them ties, Corp., LLC v. McDonald’s show that it wasn’t connec [in either used (Minn.1999). N.W.2d Laws tion with substances] interpreted should be as to so make the they had no illegal [the use].” entire statute effective. See Minn.Stat. S.F.1937, Hearing on H. Crime Fami 645.17(2) (1998). We cannot reconcile Div., ly Leg., 75th Minn. March 1988 the statute’s requirements detailed notice (audio (statement tape) Appleby, James judicial procedure the limited Hennepin Atty.). Asst. The Co. assistant requests state and the dissent sets forth. county attorney’s explanation forfei of the By express statutory language, notice of ture response scheme in to a legislator’s given administrative forfeiture must be inquiry plain reading with a consistent persons “all known an ownership to have of the legisla statute and underscores the interest,” possessory including a motor ture’s aim permit the innocent owner registered vehicle’s owner. Minn.Stat. judicial proce defense in all 2(a). process due While dures. requires notice to owners before a forfei

Contrary ture, very to the dissent’s and state’s legislature it unusual for the positions, did not out such go lengths set to set forth how entirely procedures judicial different to be given for notice is and what the notice § 40A.122, determinations of forfeitures initiated as must state. See Minn.Stat. (1998) Rather, (notice administrative requirements forfeitures. ad- subd. 4 for actions); dition to to a allowing right claimants the eminent domain id. (1998) (notice forfeitability, requirements determination subd. 3 for process rights that their due impoundment tention of vehicles

sale order). legisla- violated. In effectuate the order to intent, unusually strin- including

ture’s Reversed and remanded. in the requirements notice contained gent statute,' owners administrative STRINGER,-Justice (dissenting). innocent permitted plead be must respectfully I dissent. There is no stat- defense. owner utory support majority’s conclusion a demand for a determination laws Finally, applying of the forfeiture converts an administrative de- recognizing the innocent owner without forfeiture into a procedures for all fense the innocent feiture where owner For exam- to absurd results. could lead majority trespasses available. The on friend. her car to a person lends ple, legislative territory in order to achieve a gives person, friend third then palatable. it finds more result know, a ride whom the owner does has worth of person The third store. ju- forfeiture and the the driver drugs pocket, in his but separate forfeiture are and distinct dicial If drugs. vehicle unaware so after a de- schemes remain even person third stopped the car is for a has been mand searched, the cannot Both made. and the adminis- This an innocent owner defense. assert clearly trative forfeiture statutes un- result, sup- by the state and advocated ambiguously right establish state’s dissent, clearly contravenes ported by prescribe procedure seize purpose when legislature’s stated statutory type in each of forfeiture. The laws it neither enacted language simply provide does not crime nor reduces the economic deters forfei- transformation of an administrative enterprises. in criminal engage centives a de- upon into a la(2), subds. See fact, In mand for a determination. specif- the administrative case, In court district ically limits the remedies available *7 been proven found that had not requests who a determina- person privy Blanche “was appellant Carlos tion: in was the Defendant

that fact cocaine timely demand the claimant makes If automobile, possession of such or that the this under Blanche’s occurred with Carlos cocaine subdivision, agency appropriate .the However, the in knowledge consent.” under sec- must conduct the forfeiture de is affirmative nocent owner defense 609.531, tion subdivision 6a. proven the claim by which must be fense (1998) 3(c) 609.5314, § subd. Minn.Stat. v. Assets ant. United States All See referenced, added). The statute (emphasis 66 487 Corp., F.3d Automotive G.P.S. (1998), § discusses Minn.Stat. 609.531 (2nd Cir.1995); States v. One United 6a generally, and subdivision feitures SRH-16266, 43 F.3d Royce, Rolls V.I.N. plainly: states Cir.1994). (3rd therefore 804-05 We handling the appropriate agency proceedings remand case for further the eviden- has the benefit of in accordance with our decision. 609:531 n , tiary section presumption forfei- [the de- subdivision hold that the innocent owner As we statute], otherwise bears has but to a claimant who fense is available omission the act or a for- burden of judicial determination of demanded proving clear and by rise giving forfei- initiated as an feiture * * convincing *. ture, con- evidence appellants’ address we need not added). Likewise, (emphasis property subject Id. the inno- that the to forfeiture was in cent defense found drug-related owner associated unlawful ac- clearly 609.5311, is limited tivity. forfeiture statute See Minn.Stat. subd. 3(d). having statute: Thus any property even a activity minimal involving nexus to unlaw- subject is Property to forfeiture under subject judi- ful controlled is substance if only this section its owner was * * * requirement cial if the scienter use the use intended by subdivision 3 can be established unlawful use or intended use state. property otherwise occurred with the

owner’s or consent. statute, The administrative forfeiture 3(d) (1998) unlike the added). (emphasis The innocent owner statute, specific limited to defense is not available in the administra- kinds of by and commenced tive forfeiture statute and its can absence government appropriate agency seizing the nothing mean more than the property and giving notice of the seizure in not to be intended available. Neither the accordance with the statute administrative forfeiture statute nor the having or others a possessory interest. judicial forfeiture statute reference each The administrative forfeiture statute cre- other, majority’s and the conclusion that presumption forfeitability ates a an administrative forfeiture an de- in the found mand for a determination converts the items of listed in the statute - proceeding into a presumption to this money, with all sup- the defenses available is not metals, stones, precious precious convey- ported any by legislative authority.1 devices, ance and firearms in prox- found clear What imity controlled substances or tools of - provided has separate two drug distinct trade trafficking are items com- proceedings the forfeiture of property monly related directly drug associated with a of- activity. substance See Minn.Stat. - 1(a). fense administra- tive forfeiture. both While schemes proceed- method of commencing - objective serve legislative the same to ing differing proof and the burdens of deter the commission of controlled sub- the two forfeiture statutes further under- - majority stance offenses chooses to purposes. scores different Judicial ignore the fact that the statutes material- proceedings filing are initiated com- ly respect differ with both scope plaint against property stating the ba- procedure. *8 sis of the forfeiture claim and notice to the owners, sweep

The with petitioning forfeiture stat- the agency carry- ute is applies formidable and prop- ing proof “[a]ll the burden of of each element of erty, personal, real and that has been the An forfeiture. administrative forfei- used, use, any ture, hand, is intended for or has in on the by other is commenced way a facilitated” of- property substances seizure of the notice the - is, any fense that property having a Only even claimant. if the claimant demands a remote connection illegal drug with by complaint activi- determination a as- ty. 609.5311, § improper Minn.Stat. subd. 2. The a claim serting of seizure is there breadth all, right forfeiture statute a at hearing and the claimant tempered however requirement is the the of rebutting pre- bears burden the that the owner of the property sumption above, was aware of forfeiture. As noted of assault, majority’s any 1. The property robbery assertion that armed is also an but the subject to legislature administrative forfeiture is sub- also has chosen to treat the narrower ject Every quite differently. forfeiture is irrelevant. conduct the connection is a more indirect between here that while interest particular illegal activity property required requires that proceeding justifiably proceeding under the use or intended use privy to the “was greater property a concern that the or the unlawful raises in subdivision described unfairly of could be sub property other- innocent owners or intended use of use reason, ject For knowledge to forfeiture. that with the owner’s wise occurred legislature provided consent,” proceeding judi subd. a 3(d), procedure county bearing cial in nature with the the administrative neither proof a as to the of proceedings for burden elements itself nor forfeiture, raised, including, if that own pro- in its an administrative determination use Com- er “was use or intended provide such a limitation. ceeding n * * 3(d), or the unlawful use or intended use pare Minn.Stat. property the ad- of the otherwise occurred with 609.5314. While with Minn. may appear or consent.” forfeiture statute ministrative 3(d). harsh, Accordingly, Stat. legislature’s it is availability this there is a solid rationale for the it so and it is not court’s be in plain the innocent owner defense to circumvent the statu- prerogative in proceeding but not the admin tory language. proceeding. istrative forfeiture that because there majority asserts for the distinctions is no rational reason majority’s Finally, turning asser- forfeiture, types the different between reading tion that our the statutes leads in an person property whose is seized to an absurd and anomalous result because proceeding innocent owners would lose vehicles the innocent owner entitled to should be no doubt innocent owners It is disagree. I clear defense. lose their when it is might procedure respect the administrative activity. But if in substance illegal volved provide a legislature intended to absurd, that the lies absurdity on the door- the seizure and forfei- speedy process for for that is the result step legislature, directly found to be em- ture of statutory prescribes. are scheme We illegal controlled substance ac- ployed in If a scheme legislators. legislative not tivity. result, the answer is leads to harsh statute, as the court to re-write the majority’s to the conclusion Critical recog- long do. have majority would We administrative forfeiture the assertion that “[cjourts do nothing to have nized for un really designed proceedings expediency of statutes. with the wisdom again forfeitures. Once there contested inexpedient remedy leg- for unwise or statutory plain language support no judicial.” Hick- political and not islation reaching it the a conclusion and for such 480, 485, 22 Margolis, 221 ok v. Minn. important distinction majority ignores the it is Accordingly, N.W.2d the nexus of type in each of forfeiture up legislators changes to make such to the substance seized appropriate. as it deems quite It is reasonable assume activity. the knowl intended that the district court I would conclude *9 be irrelevant when edge the owner to holding defendant vehi- did not err in directly implicated was under the admin- lawfully cle forfeited activity, and that forfeiture such statute. istrative forfeiture society is price is the property in to extract for use of entitled

illegal drug activity, regardless of own close knowledge,

er’s nexus because activity. The