of Appellate Courts
M. Ventura, Wayzata, Minnesota, for
Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, First
Assistant County Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota, for
Mahesha P. Subbaraman, Subbaraman PLLC, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, for amicus curiae Americans for Forfeiture Reform.
J. Koewler, Ramsay Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Roseville, Minnesota
for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense
complaint for judicial determination of a forfeiture under
Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8 (2016) is time-barred if
it is filed more than 60 days after receipt of the notice the
Because insurance proceeds payable as a result of damage to a
forfeited vehicle are not a part of all "right, title,
and interest" in the vehicle under Minn. Stat. §
169A.63 (2016), that statute does not authorize the
forfeiture of insurance proceeds.
GILDEA, Chief Justice.
case asks us to interpret the vehicle forfeiture statute,
Minnesota Statutes § 169A.63 (2016). Respondent Russell
Briles brought a complaint under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63,
subd. 8(e), challenging the forfeiture of his vehicle and the
insurance proceeds payable to him under an insurance policy
covering property damage to the vehicle. The district court
dismissed the complaint because Briles filed it more than 60
days after he received the notice section 169A.63 requires.
The court of appeals affirmed the district court's
conclusion that Briles filed his complaint too late, but
reversed the district court's conclusion that the
insurance proceeds were subject to forfeiture under section
169A.63. Because we conclude that Briles's complaint is
time barred, but that insurance payments are not subject to
forfeiture under section 169A.63, we affirm the court of
Briles owned a 2013 GMC Terrain, which was driven by his son
and heavily damaged in a single-vehicle accident. The City of
Savage police arrested Briles's son for driving under the
influence of alcohol as a result of the accident and seized
the vehicle. On September 25, 2015, the police department
served Briles with a timely notice of the seizure and the
intention to seek forfeiture of the vehicle, as required by
Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8. The notice described
Briles's rights under the statute and informed Briles
that if he did not file a complaint for judicial
determination of the forfeiture within 60 days, pursuant to
Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 8(e), he would lose the
vehicle "automatically." Id., subd. 8(c).
Briles did not file a complaint within 60 days.
September 25, the Scott County Attorney sent a letter to
Briles's insurer, notifying the carrier of the
forfeiture. The letter asserted a right to any insurance
proceeds for the vehicle and asked the insurer to delay the
disbursement of those proceeds until the forfeiture was
completed. Briles was not provided a copy of the letter and
the County did not otherwise notify him of the County's
intention to seek forfeiture of the insurance proceeds.
Briles did not learn of the letter to his insurance company
until sometime in December, after the 60-day deadline in
Minn. Stat. § 169A83, subd. 8(e) had passed. When he
learned of the letter, ...