FORFEITURE HEARINGS

When the State of Minnesota prosecutes a criminal action, property that appears to be tied to the commission or furtherance of criminal activity can be seized by the State. The property may be held as evidence of the crime, or it can be seized and sold at auction if the State proves a relationship between the property and the criminal action. This practice has received nationwide attention and criticism because property and especially cash may be seized and eventually become property of the State. This practice has drawn criticism because not all cash or property seized and later forfeited is related to criminal activity.

​

Examples of forfeitures are cash related to illicit activities where money is exchanged for illegal substances, illegal services, and vehicles used in the commission of drug trafficking or high-level driving under the influence charges. Most property having monetary value is subject to civil asset forfeiture based on its relationship to the charged crime. A conviction is not necessary for the initial seizure of the property, only that probable cause exists (a crime has been committed, and a reasonable belief that person X committed the offense) for the State to seize property related to that criminal offense. The fate of the property is determined after its seizure at a Forfeiture Hearing.

​

Kyle Murray has successfully defended against forfeiture actions and recovered client property.

 

One such example is a client who was charged with possession of marijuana above the misdemeanor amount deemed personal possession under Minnesota law. The client had saved cash tips from his food services job and was saving money to afford a car. The State seized his shoebox of savings money from his closet and argued that it was in close enough proximity to the marijuana because it was in the same bedroom. Attorney Kyle Murray successfully argued that the client had a single bedroom and roommates, and therefore it would be improper to assume that any currency within his room was directly related to the crime. Surely, the client could not have been expected to keep his savings elsewhere in the apartment where it would be accessible to others, just for the purpose of avoiding forfeiture at a later time.

 

To the client’s delight, Kyle Murray dissected the arresting officer’s testimony in a way that the officer would not admit that $20 bills are the most used denomination in controlled substance offenses. (Fact check: they are) Why did this matter? Because the client had 85 one-dollar bills mixed in with less than 20 other non-$1 bills. The forfeiture referee concluded that the cash was not related to criminal activity and instead was the client’s savings. This victory stands out not because it was a significant amount of currency, but because it mattered to the client. After all, the client’s hard-earned money and savings would have simply vanished because it happened to be in his bedroom: his only place of privacy in the apartment. Kyle Murray stands up for the ‘little guy’ against the State.