Was Your Vehicle Seized After a DWI Arrest?
Clients facing a DWI are often worried about fees, a mark on their criminal record and harm to their reputation and employment. However, Minnesota adds an extra burden to the already long list of punishments for a DWI. In Minnesota, a defendant facing a DWI can have their car taken (forfeited) in some circumstances. Vehicle forfeiture is one of the costliest repercussions of a DWI. Vehicles can only be forfeited under certain circumstances including repeat offenses and when a person receives a DWI while their license is under cancellation.
DWI Offenses in Minnesota That Result In Vehicle Forfeiture
According to Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 Subd. 1(e), circumstances where a vehicle can be forfeited include:
- Being charged with a DWI with a driver’s license that is under cancellation.
- Being charged with a DWI with a driver’s license that has a “B-card” constraint (the person may not use or consume any amount of alcohol or a controlled substance).
- Being charged with a DWI that is the 4th offense within 10 years.
- Being charged with a DWI that is the 3rd offense within 10 years.
- Being charged with a DWI that is the 2nd offense within 10 years and there is a child under the age of 16 present, or the driver has a blood-alcohol level of over 0.20%.
Once police have seized a vehicle, the owner must file a claim and demand a hearing for “judicial determination,” which in turn must be held within 180 days after the claimant filed their request and after the criminal case against the driver has resolved. If a claim isn’t filed and the person is found guilty of the concomitant crime, the car is deemed forfeited. The car is usually sold at an auction by law enforcement and the proceeds are kept by the government.
Leased Cars and DWI Vehicle Forfeiture
Thankfully, if there is a lien on the driver’s vehicle (if the car is being leased) then part of the sale from the vehicle can be used to pay off the lien so that the defendant doesn’t owe money on the car. However, if the value of the vehicle is less than the money owed, the defendant could still be on the hook for the remainder of the lease.
Issues with Forfeiture
The first issue often argued by opponents of forfeiture is that DWI vehicle forfeiture arguably violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “excessive fines.” A violation of the “excessive fines” provision occurs when the seriousness of the criminal activity is grossly disproportionate to the fine imposed. In other areas of criminal law, there are guidelines and fines written in statutes that help judges decide exactly how much a person should pay based on the seriousness of a crime. With DWI vehicle forfeiture, the same crime could be punished by taking a defendant’s thousand-dollar 1991 Buick or a four-million-dollar Lamborghini. While the Minnesota Supreme Court has judged DWI vehicle forfeiture constitutional, there is much debate over whether forfeiture law actually comports with the constitution.
Also, DWI vehicle forfeiture arguably violates the Eight Amendment’s prohibition of “double jeopardy.” By punishing a defendant twice by both criminal sanctions and taking their property, a person is receiving two punishments for the price of one. This punishes a defendant twice, perhaps beyond what the legislature contemplated when writing the law. The Minnesota Supreme Court has found this provision constitutional as well.
Questions relating to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” are also implicated by vehicle forfeiture. Because forfeiture hearings must take place after the criminal case is resolved and it often takes a long time for a criminal case to resolve, a person is without their vehicle for a long time without any kind of hearing or ability to contest the forfeiture.
Innocent Owner Defense
Minn. Stat 169A.63 subd. 7(d) outlines the “innocent owner” defense to forfeiture. The innocent owner defense allows a person who drives the car that the DWI was received in to avoid vehicle forfeiture under some circumstances. A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture if any of its owners who petition the court can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioning owner did not have knowledge and did not have reason to know that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law. The innocent owner defense can also be invoked if the petitioning owner took reasonable steps to prevent use of the vehicle by the offender – like hiding the keys. If the offender is a family or household member of any of the owners who petition the court and has three or more prior impaired driving convictions, the petitioning owner is presumed to know of any vehicle use by the offender that is contrary to law and they cannot use the innocent owner defense.
Recent Advancements in Forfeiture Law
Forfeiture law is a rapidly evolving both in the courts and in the legislature. Several groundbreaking laws have been passed and judicial decisions have been made within the last few years relating to forfeiture and the due process and excessive fine issues.
Thankfully, a Minnesota law, effective July 1, 2019, provides some relief for recipients of a DWI that would normally be subject to forfeiture. Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 13 provides an exception to the DWI forfeiture law for situations in which the offender enters the ignition interlock program.
The ignition interlock program allows a person convicted of a DWI to drive a car by installing a breathalyzer in their car. The program comes with restrictions including how many times the person must blow into the breathalyzer per month and consequences for tampering with the interlock device. The new law allows a person enrolled in the ignition interlock program to pause the forfeiture that would have otherwise occurred. If the person successfully completes the ignition interlock program, the person will not have their vehicle forfeited. However, the new law comes with some strings attached. The person must not receive another DWI until their full driving privileges are restored or within three years, whichever comes later.
Due process issues related to vehicle forfeiture have also recently been discussed at the Minnesota Supreme Court. A forfeiture proceeding made its way to the Minnesota Supreme Court after a hearing on forfeiture took 18 months in order to comply with the statute which notes that a forfeiture proceeding must take place after the criminal case has resolved. In this case, the mother of the defendant claimed the innocent owner defense described above. The court found that due process protections guaranteed by the Constitution urgently require a prompt hearing on innocent owner defenses under the DWI forfeiture statute and that the 18 months that passed between the charge and the hearing was a violation of due process.
The United States Supreme Court recently held in a 2019 case, Timbs v. Indiana, that prohibitions on excessive fines prohibited by the Constitution apply to state and local governments, not just the federal government. This will likely spur challenges from those who have expensive cars forfeited after a DWI as a violation of the Constitution.
There has been legislation introduced in Minnesota to end forfeiture as a punitive measure for DWI crimes entirely as the legislative pendulum swings toward allowing more due process rights for those charged with a crime. While advocates are hopeful for a change, this legislation has not yet passed into law.
Am I Eligible for Ignition Interlock as an Alternative to Forfeiture?
The statute does not limit who is eligible under the new law as long as they are eligible for and enroll in the ignition interlock program. However, per the statute, the offender must become an ignition interlock program participant before the vehicle is forfeited. Any person who currently has their vehicle forfeited would not be eligible. However, if the person’s vehicle has not yet been forfeited, the person is generally eligible under the statute.
Potential Pushback to Advancements in Forfeiture Law
A decrease in forfeitures has been objected to by law enforcement in the past. Funds received from vehicle forfeitures are used for special equipment and training for law enforcement. People and organizations strongly opposed to loosening laws on DWIs will also likely argue that allowing DWI offenders an avenue back into driving is dangerous and provides less of an incentive to drive sober.
However, proponents of the new law argue that allowing DWI offenders a way to ease back into driving through the ignition interlock program instead of taking away their vehicle will be beneficial for public safety. Some argue that if a person’s driving privileges and vehicle are taken away for long amounts of time, they will likely resume drunk driving because they haven’t been given an incentive through the ignition interlock program to remain sober and establish a habit of sober driving.
We’re Available 24/7 – Call Our Minneapolis DWI Attorney
Contact John Lesch today if you are facing DWI charges. An experienced Minneapolis DWI attorney will be able to navigate forfeiture, the ignition interlock program, and other subtleties of DWI law.