Court of Appeals affirms judicial forfeiture of Ferrari valued at over $75,000

On August 31, 2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued Gary Allen Jensen vs. 1985 Ferrari - plt 391-957 - VIN# ZFFUA12A9F0057043, A19-1927 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2020), a published appellate case affirming the forfeiture of Jensen’s $75,000 Ferrari.

The forfeiture was associated with a repeat DWI conviction, a process that has—for years—drawn harsh criticism from criminal defense lawyers in Minnesota and nationwide. Civil forfeiture is a process by which a law enforcement agency (like the Minnesota State Patrol in the case here), obtains legal title to property connected with alleged criminal activity.

As background, where an individual in Minnesota is arrested for a “designated offense,” the individual’s vehicle may be seized as part of the arrest process under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subds. 1(e) and 2(b)(1). Seizure is also permitted if the vehicle is “used in conduct resulting in a designated license revocation.” Typically, designated offenses include first-degree or second-degree DWI, or any level of DWI if committed by a person whose driving privileges were cancelled or whose license is restricted when the person consumes alcohol (B-card holders and B-card violations). 

A person whose vehicle is subject to forfeiture may demand a hearing before a district court judge; however, the rules leave some uncertainty in terms of the timing for that hearing. Regardless, due to an exception that the Minnesota legislature enacted in 2019, a driver may request a stay of the forfeiture proceedings pending their successful completion in the state’s ignition-interlock program. Under this exception, if the driver becomes a program participant before the driver’s vehicle is ordered forfeited, forfeiture is stayed and the vehicle is returned pending the driver’s successful completion of the program.

Specifically, the statutory exception states: “If the driver who committed a designated offense or whose conduct resulted in a designated license revocation becomes a program participant in the ignition interlock program . . . at any time before the motor vehicle is forfeited, the forfeiture proceeding is stayed and the vehicle must be returned.” Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 13(a).

In this case, between August 2018 and November 2019, law enforcement seized Jensen’s Ferrari, but had not forfeited it. After being arrested for a subsequent DWI, Jensen began participation in the ignition-interlock program with one of his other vehicles—a Range Rover—from October 2018 through the time of his forfeiture trial. The Ferrari, meanwhile, remained in the custody of the Minnesota State Patrol, accumulating daily storage fees. 

Despite that Jensen installed ignition interlock in his Range Rover and drove in compliance with the ignition interlock program for over one year—on the assumption that his seized Ferrari would be returned at the end of the program—the district court nevertheless ordered the forfeiture of the Ferrari following the forfeiture trial.

As of today, the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. It held that “the plain meaning of Minnesota Statutes section 169A.63, subdivision 13, generally requires the driver to be participating in the program with “the vehicle” that is to be forfeited, not just any vehicle.”

The Court of Appeals claimed that permitting drivers to install ignition interlock in a different vehicle—as opposed to the vehicle that was subject to forfeiture—would unfairly benefit the rich over the poor. 

The Court explained that Jensen could have installed interlock on his Ferrari (even while it was in the custody of the State Patrol), but only if he paid to have it released, first (i.e. paid for the towing costs, paid the Minnesota State Patrol for its daily storage costs, and paid for the installation of the ignition interlock device). 

The Court of Appeals also cited to Minn. Stat. § 171.306, subd. 3(d), which states—in a different but related context—that an ignition interlock participant must install “an ignition interlock device on every motor vehicle that the participant operates or intends to operate.” The Court found that there was no evidence that Jensen did not intend to operate his Ferrari (even though it was in the custody of the Minnesota State Patrol).

When a motor vehicle is forfeited through the judicial forfeiture process, the proceeds are often retained by the state in some capacity. This creates the appearance of an incentive for State agents to more vigorously pursue forfeitures where there are no liens or significant loans on the vehicles, or where they are owned outright by the driver (i.e. in situations where the individual needed no financial assistance in purchasing a vehicle). It also creates the appearance of a strong incentive for the State to aggressively pursue more valuable vehicles over less valuable ones. 

Despite the progress being made in amending and revising Minnesota’s forfeiture laws, prosecutors and state agencies are still aggressively pursuing civil vehicle forfeitures related to criminal proceedings, including driving while intoxicated (DWI), driving while under the influence (DUI), drunk driving, Driving While High, Criminal Vehicular Operation, and Criminal Vehicular Homicide. Wilson Criminal Defense has aggressive Minnesota forfeiture and DWI lawyers that will answer questions related to vehicle forfeiture in a free consultation. Our Minneapolis forfeiture attorneys will fight aggressively against the police seizing vehicles, property, and money as the apparent proceeds or instruments of a criminal act. 

Read the full opinion here: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/Appellate/Court%20of%20Appeals/Standard%20opinions/OPa191927-083120.pdf