Civil Forfeiture in Minnesota
|
|
- Camron Robinson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Civil Forfeiture in Minnesota Lee McGrath Institute for Justice April 17, 2015 Approved CLE Event Code:
2 Agenda: Civil Forfeiture I. Institute for Justice II. Incentives III. Design and perspectives IV. History V. Conclusions VI. Q.& A. 2
3 Institute for Justice Libertarian public-interest law firm with 45 lawyers in seven offices. Founded in 1991 Supported by 8,000 donors. We don t charge our clients. Constitutional rights: Speech Economic Liberty Property Misuse of eminent domain, forfeiture and other governmental powers. Defend school choice programs. 3
4 IJ believes Civil Society Big Families Churches Markets Private organizations Friends Schools Media Government Limited: Protect people and property from crime 4
5 IJ s legal view Institute for Justice: People enjoy a presumption of liberty under the law. More popular counterview: Laws enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. 5
6 Part II: Forfeiture s Incentives Forfeiture is One of the Biggest Issues Today Involving Property and Due Process Rights
7 State Law Forfeiture in Minnesota (2013) Forfeiture: Property seized: Vehicles 58% Cash 28% Firearms 13% Crimes: Drugs 46% DUI 45% 7,000 incidents $8 million Average Seizure: $1,408 7
8 Federal Forfeitures in Minnesota (2013) Total property seized: $1,800,000 Largest collaborations: West Metro Drug Task Force $342,000 Hennepin County Sheriff's Office $157,000 MSP International Airport Police $139,000 Saint Paul Police Department $137,000 8
9 Incentives Forfeiture proceeds supplement official budgets State forfeiture Up to 70% to police and sheriffs budgets and Up to 20% to prosecutors Federal forfeiture Up to 80% to police/sheriffs 9
10 10
11 One LEO s View 11
12 Part III: Forfeiture s Design and Perspectives.
13 Design: Two-Track Process Person enters criminal justice system. Property enters civil system. In rem jurisdiction ( against the thing. ) Legal fiction that property can be found liable Responsibility for filing civil claims varies: Prosecutor in DUI cases; Suspect who owns property in drug cases; or Innocent owner claimant in DUI and drug cases; 13
14 Perspective: Police and Prosecutors Police do seizures Certainty level: On streets Based on probable cause 35% Can call either state or federal prosecutor triggering application of different criminal and forfeiture laws. Prosecutors do forfeitures In court rooms Legislators sets burden of proof: Prosecutor must prove claim or Property owner must disprove claim Legislators sets standard of proof: Preponderance of the evidence 51% Clear and convincing evidence 70% Beyond a reasonable doubt 95% 14
15 Perspective: Defense attorney Suspect enters criminal justice system. Government has burden to prove crime. Standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Property enters civil system. Public defender cannot represent property in civil court. Different burdens and standards of proof Do legal costs exceed the property s value? 15
16 Perspective: Two property owners Suspect Was the property an instrument of the crime? Were the proceeds derived from the crime? Innocent owner claimant Spouse, relative, friend, bank, leasing, or rent-a-car company Did innocent owner claimant: Consent to the property s misuse? Know about the property s misuse? 16
17 Side-by-Side: Constitutional Protections Track 1: Crime Miranda warnings Right to counsel Prompt probable-cause hearing/grand jury Process: Criminal procedure Burden: Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumption of innocence Track 2: Civil Forfeiture None None None Process: varies by type of crime Burden: Clear and convincing* Burden on innocent owner claimant to prove lack of knowledge or consent 17
18 Part III: History How did we get here?
19 History British Navigation Acts of the mid-17 th century. King prosecuted ships and cargo. Owners were beyond personal jurisdiction. Practical necessities of enforcing admiralty, piracy & custom laws. A ship is the most living of inanimate things. It is only by supposing the ship to have been treated as if endowed with personality, that the arbitrary seeming peculiarities of the maritime law can be made intelligible. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., The Common Law 25 (1881). 19
20 History of Forfeiture in U.S. Customs Act of July 31, 1789 first used forfeiture in U.S. Owners beyond jurisdiction. National Prohibition Act extended forfeiture to include instrumentalities of crime: vehicles. Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention & Control Act of 1970 Amended in 1978 to provide for civil forfeiture of: All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of this subchapter 20
21 History of Forfeiture in U.S. Proceeds realized from federal forfeitures were deposited in the general fund of the U.S change: Funds go to Justice Department's Assets Forfeiture Fund and the Treasury Department's Forfeiture Fund. Usable for forfeiture-related expenses and various law enforcement purposes. 21
22 History of Forfeiture in Minnesota Forfeiture in Minnesota was unremarkable until 2009 Scandal of Metro Gang Strike Force. Sworn officers repeatedly took for their own personal use property seized during searches; Officers and family members purchased, at low prices, property from evidence room including flat screen televisions, jet skis, a trailer and other items; and Substantial quantities of evidence went missing. 22
23 History of Forfeiture in Minnesota Strike Force used saturation details where suspected gang members congregated. Later included stops of individuals with no connection to gang activity and seizures of money and property. Strike Force officers began to seize funds from those stopped, regardless of any intent to file charges against the people stopped and without regard to whether the funds could reasonably be connected to illegal activity. Source: 23
24 Laase v Chevrolet Tahoe 776 N.W.2d 431 (Minn. 2009) Mr. David Laase was asleep when his wife called about 1 a.m. on May 17, 2006 Mrs. Jean Laase was stopped in the early morning on suspicion that she was DWI. Mr. and Mrs. Laase owned jointly the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe. They shared the vehicle, although he was the primary driver. Each had a set of keys. Ms. Laase was arrested, charged and pleaded guilty to second degree criminal test refusal under Minn. Stat. 169A.20, subd. 2. (It is a crime for any person to refuse to submit to a chemical test of the person s blood, breath or urine). Sept. 28, 2006, the district court convicted Ms. Laase of this offense and imposed sentence. Isanti County seized the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe that Ms. Laase drove. 24
25 Laase v Chevrolet Tahoe Holding Innocent-owner defense does not apply in a case of joint-ownership of a vehicle. If one of the joint owners is convicted. 25
26 Laase v Chevrolet Tahoe Holding While Mr. Laase may be an innocent owner, Ms. Laase is not. Because Ms. Laase is both an owner and the offender, we hold that the innocent owner defense does not apply. The vehicle was properly forfeitable. We recognize the result in this case may be open to question on policy grounds. We do not disagree with Justice Paul Anderson s view about the importance of private property rights. 26
27 Three Rounds of Legislative Changes 2010 Reporting of all seizures Petition to prosecutor for mitigation; and Increased access to conciliation court; Hennepin County Conciliation Court s forms and video: goo.gl/lmrxws 2014 Prerequisite of conviction/admission; and Switch burden of proof in drug cases. 27
28 Garcia-Mendoza v Chevrolet Tahoe MN Supreme Court adopts holding in One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v. Pennsylvania 380 U.S. 693 (1965) Court issues unanimous decision on August 20, 2014 Illegally seized evidence must be suppressed in civil forfeiture cases. IJ s amicus brief at: 28
29 2015 Proposed Legislative Changes SF384/HF456 Innocent owner reforms Addresses Laase v Chevrolet Tahoe Shifts burden of proof to state Defines actual and constructive knowledge. SF385/HF415 Proceeds reporting and restrictions Requires reporting of use of proceeds Prohibits using proceeds for salaries, benefits and overtime. 29
30 Nationwide: Legislative Reforms Landmark reforms: End civil forfeiture. Replace it with criminal forfeiture; Eliminate profit incentive; and Limit participation in federal programs; Major reforms: Restore the presumption of innocence for property of suspects and innocent owner claimants; Provide for prompt hearing; and Provide for counsel. 30
31 Public Opinion Criminal conviction should be required before losing property. Law enforcement should be held to beyond a reasonable doubt standard to take property through forfeiture. Property owners should be presumed innocent and government should have to prove owner s guilt 31
32 Public Opinion Law enforcement agencies should not be allowed to keep property they take for their own use. It should be placed in a state general fund or some other neutral account State and local agencies should not be allowed to take property under federal law to make civil forfeiture easier and receive more in proceeds than under state law. 32
33 IV. Conclusion
34 Not Just Bad Apples Incentives Matter 34
35 FACT 35
36 36
37 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE Lee McGrath Institute for Justice 520 Nicollet Mall-Suite 550 Minneapolis MN (612) John Oliver's show on HBO: 37
38 38
39 Innocent Owner Claimants Burden of Proof 39
40 40
41 I 41
Asset Forfeiture Model State Law April 9, 2011
Asset Forfeiture Model State Law April 9, 2011 Table of Contents GENERAL PROVISIONS 100.01 Definitions 100.02 Purpose 100.03 Exclusivity 100.04 Criminal asset forfeiture 100.05 Conviction required; standard
More informationDRAFT Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection Act To replace ALEC Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act (2000)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DRAFT Asset Forfeiture Process and Private Property Protection Act To
More informationCriminal Forfeiture Act
Criminal Forfeiture Act Model Legislation March 20, 2017 100:1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the terms defined in this section have the following meanings: I. Abandoned property means personal
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A07-2023 Court of Appeals Gildea, J. Concurring, Anderson, G. Barry and Dietzen, JJ. Dissenting, Anderson, Paul H. and Page, JJ. Dissenting, Page and Meyer, JJ. David
More informationCRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE COURTS AND CORRECTIONS / PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, THE COURTS AND CORRECTIONS / PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform The Act ends the practice of civil forfeiture but preserves criminal forfeiture, in which property
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 580 U. S. (2017) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES LISA OLIVIA LEONARD v. TEXAS ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, NINTH DISTRICT No. 16 122. Decided March
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, TYREL LAMAR PATTERSON DOB: 04/13/1989 1818 BRYANT AVE N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. Prosecutor File No. Court File No. District
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, SONAM TSERING DOB: 02/21/1981 885 LONG POND RD PLYMOUTH, MA 02360 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor File
More informationARGUMENT. Both the United States and Minnesota Constitutions provide that a person shall not
ARGUMENT Because of the punitive and disfavored nature of the forfeiture laws, [the Court] is to strictly construe [their] language and resolve any doubt in favor of the party challenging [them]. Laase
More informationMatthew McBee vs. Safety
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 7-17-2014 Matthew McBee vs. Safety
More informationNO THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT. v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS. ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 2009-52869 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT v. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ONE 2004 CHEVROLET SILVERADO 269th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANT-COUNTERCLAIMANT ZAHER EL-ALI S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND
More informationMinnesota s Forfeiture Laws
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp INFORMATION BRIEF Research
More informationTitle 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL
Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL Chapter 517: ASSET FORFEITURE Table of Contents Part 7. ASSET FORFEITURE... Section 5821. SUBJECT PROPERTY... 3 Section 5821-A. PROPERTY NOT SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, JOSHUA CHIAZOR EZEKA DOB: 02/12/1996 2107 Oliver Ave N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, EMANUEL ANTONIO PATTERSON DOB: 04/26/1993 1252 Moore Lake Drive Fridley, MN 55432 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationOPINION. STRAS, Justice.
884 N.W.2d 395 STATE of Minnesota, Appellant, v. Douglas John OLSON, Respondent. No. A14 1482. Supreme Court of Minnesota. Summaries: Source: Justia Aug. 24, 2016. Defendant was charged with several criminal
More information1 SB By Senators Orr, Smitherman, Beasley, Dunn, Sanford, Ward and. 4 Whatley. 5 RFD: Finance and Taxation Education
1 SB213 2 189610-1 3 By Senators Orr, Smitherman, Beasley, Dunn, Sanford, Ward and 4 Whatley 5 RFD: Finance and Taxation Education 6 First Read: 23-JAN-18 Page 0 1 189610-1:n:01/22/2018:CMH/cr LSA2018-45
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CR-1890-2015 v. : : GARY STANLEY HELMINIAK, : PRETRIAL MOTION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER
More informationCRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PROCESS
TEXAS CRIMINAL DEFENSE GUIDE E-BOOK CRIMINAL DEFENSE COURT PROCESS nealdavislaw.com NEAL DAVIS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CONTENTS COURT PROCESS... 3 HOW CRIMINAL CASES PROCEED... 3 PRE-TRIAL HEARINGS AND MOTIONS...
More informationState of Minnesota Department of Public Safety
This document is made available electronically by the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library as part of an ongoing digital archiving project. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/lrl.asp State of Minnesota
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor File No. 18A06751 Court File No. 27-CR-18-14222 State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, IVAN GIOVANNI HERNANDEZ-ENRIQUEZ
More informationAmerican Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary
American Criminal Law and Procedure Vocabulary acquit: affidavit: alibi: amendment: appeal: arrest: arraignment: bail: To set free or discharge from accusation; to declare that the defendant is innocent
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. DAVID EDWARD CAMPBELL DOB: 07/26/1958 NPA Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor File No. 17A11291 Court File
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, EMERY JARRIS WINFORD DOB: 08/07/1975 483 Lynnhurst Ave W Apt 19 St. Paul, MN 55104 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationExpungement & Beyond. Understanding and Addressing Criminal Records. EXPUNGEMENT 10/1/2015 WHAT ARE CRIMINAL RECORDS?
Expungement & Beyond Understanding and Addressing Criminal Records. Funding provided by Jay and Rose Phillips Family Foundation Joshua Esmay The Council on Crime and Justice EXPUNGEMENT WHAT ARE CRIMINAL
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals Anderson, J.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A16-0277 Court of Appeals Anderson, J. Mitchell Edwin Morehouse, Appellant, vs. Filed: May 2, 2018 Office of Appellate Courts Commissioner of Public Safety, Respondent.
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA O P I N I O N AND O R D E R
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : DOCKET NO. 11-00,856 : vs. : CIVIL ACTION : ONE BLACK CHEVROLET CORVETTE : FORFEITURE VIN # 161YY26XYX65100132
More information(A) subject to the condition that the person not commit a Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release
Title: New Jersey Bail Reform Act Section 1: Release or detention of a defendant pending trial 1 a. In general This Section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of relying upon contempt
More informationMEMORANDUM (via ) Changes to DWI Seizure and Felony Speeding Elude Seizure Laws
Legal and Legislative Services Division Peter E. Powell Legal and Legislative Administrator PO Box 2448, Raleigh, NC 27602 T 919 890-1300 F 919 890-1914 MEMORANDUM (via E-Mail) TO: FROM: Senior Resident
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ANTHONY LAMONT FOOTE DOB: 08/05/1992 608 SELBY AVE #4 St. Paul, MN 55101 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationForfeiture of motor vehicle for impaired driving after impaired driving license revocation; forfeiture for felony speeding to elude arrest.
20-28.2. Forfeiture of motor vehicle for impaired driving after impaired driving license revocation; forfeiture for felony speeding to elude arrest. (a) Meaning of "Impaired Driving License Revocation".
More informationTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO ) ) ) ) ) )
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff vs EDWARD WALKER Defendant CASE NO. CR 429590 MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER FRIEDMAN, J.: 1. The Court has before it a proposed
More informationPolicyBrief. by Trey Moore & Scott Sumner
PolicyBrief March 18, 2013 No. 13-01 The Perils of Policing for Profit Why Tennessee should reform its civil asset forfeiture laws by Trey Moore & Scott Sumner Introduction Imagine living in a society
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, SAMUEL DAVID RONNEBERG DOB: 11/14/1990 17601 KETTERING TRAIL LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, CEDRIC LAMAR SMITH JR DOB: 09/27/1996 5505 Brookdale Dr N Apt 212 Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, THOMAS JAMES HOUCK DOB: 04/16/1957 18296 CASSCADE DRIVE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationThis opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012). STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0242 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Arash
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, MAURICE TYRONE FOREST DOB: 12/03/1980 2929 Chicago Ave S Apt 301 Minneapolis, MN 55407 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ZHAXI TAXING DOB: 05/03/1976 6938 MEADOWBROOK BLVD ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55426 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, EMMANUEL DESHAWN ARANDA DOB: 08/23/1994 2710 Park Ave Minneapolis, MN 55408 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, GARRETT BRUCE ITTEL DOB: 05/10/1992 9545 PARKSIDE TRAIL CHAMPLIN, MN 55316 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationWhat To Do. When Your Property Has Been Seized. Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation F. E. A. R.
What To Do When Your Property Has Been Seized Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation F. E. A. R. The police took my property. What do I do to get it back? If your property was seized as evidence
More informationDEFENDING DRINKING AND DRIVING CASES
Index A.L.E.R.T., see APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE ALCOHOL INFLUENCE REPORT, see APPENDIX G APPROVED INSTRUMENT, see APPENDIX C APPROVED SCREENING DEVICE Charter violations 4.8 Conduct of test calibration
More informationEXPUNGEMENT WORKSHEETS
1 EXPUNGEMENT WORKSHEETS Preparing for a Criminal Record Expungement: A Step-by-Step Guide Before Seeking Legal Help 1. Expungements in Minnesota 2. Collecting Your Criminal Records 3. Collecting Evidence
More information[ ] WARRANT [ ] ORDER OF DETENTION v. [ ] AMENDED COMPLAINT
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ISANTI DISTRICT COURT TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FILE NO. COUNTY ATTORNEY FILE NO. 14-0125 CONTROLLING AGENCY: MN062095Y CONTROL NUMBER: 12000578 State of Minnesota, Plaintiff,
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ANTHONY EDWARD CANNADY DOB: 12/30/1970 6100 Emerson Ave N Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationSUPCR 1104 FOR COURT USE ONLY SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ DUI ADVISEMENT OF RIGHTS, WAIVER, AND PLEA FORM. (Vehicle Code 23152)
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): SUPCR 1104 FOR COURT USE ONLY TELEPHONE NO: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): FAX NO. (Optional) SUPERIOR COURT OF
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, KENNETH WALTER LILLY DOB: 06/22/1987 165 WESTERN AVE NORTH #500 ST PAUL, MN 55102 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW HOUSE BILL 656
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2013 SESSION LAW 2013-243 HOUSE BILL 656 AN ACT TO REVISE THE LAWS GOVERNING THE SEIZURE, FORFEITURE, AND SALE OF MOTOR VEHICLES USED BY DEFENDANTS IN FELONY
More informationThe court process CONSUMER GUIDE. How the criminal justice system works. FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON
The court process How the criminal justice system works. CONSUMER GUIDE FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Inside The process Arrest and complaint Preliminary hearing Grand jury Arraignment
More informationHome Model Legislation Public Safety and Elections. Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture Act
Search GO LOGIN LOGOUT HOME JOIN ALEC CONTACT ABOUT MEMBERS EVENTS & MEETINGS MODEL LEGISLATION TASK FORCES ALEC INITIATIVES PUBLICATIONS NEWS Model Legislation Home Model Legislation Public Safety and
More informationIN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear
More informationSUPCR 1106 FOR COURT USE ONLY
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): SUPCR 1106 FOR COURT USE ONLY TELEPHONE NO: E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): ATTORNEY FOR (Name): FAX NO. (Optional) SUPERIOR COURT OF
More informationCommonwealth v. Hernandez COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SABINO HERNANDEZ, JR., DEFENDANT Criminal Law: PCRA relief based upon an illegal sentence; applicability of Gun and Drug mandatory minimum sentence. 393 1. A Defendant is
More informationCriminal Justice Process
Criminal Justice Process 1. Describe the basic steps that are followed when a crime is investigated. (See the chart on page 135) Search and Seizure Warrant file an affidavit (sworn statement of facts)
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 3-21-2012 State of Tennessee Department
More informationMINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST
MINNESOTA JUDICIAL TRAINING UPDATE GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS: EVERYTHING A JUDGE NEEDS TO KNOW - ALMOST Unless You Came From The Criminal Division Of A County Attorneys Office, Most Judges Have Little Or
More informationAsset forfeiture in Illinois: What it is, where it happens, and reforms the state needs
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Asset forfeiture in Illinois: What it is, where it happens, and reforms the state needs By Ben Ruddell, Bryant Jackson-Green Most people expect Illinois law enforcement to defend the private
More information... ~ ;cwrn~1 LQ1 ' ',, illj
SIA IE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY rn@it... ~ ;cwrn~1 LQ1 ' ',, illj DISIRJCI COURT SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT v and, Petitione1 s, One MN License Plate No.: VIN: (City of Maplewood), Respondent Cowt File
More informationIdentifying Chronic Offenders
1 Identifying Chronic Offenders SUMMARY About 5 percent of offenders were responsible for 19 percent of the criminal convictions in Minnesota over the last four years, including 37 percent of the convictions
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE VEHICLE CODE MISDEMEANOR GUILTY PLEA FORM. 1. My true full name is
For Court Use Only 1. My true full name is 2. I understand that I am pleading GUILTY / NOLO CONTENDERE and admitting the following offenses, prior convictions and special punishment allegations, with the
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Dakota State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, ALBERTO PEREZ-MARTIN DOB: 01/23/1980 7857 Mount Shasta Cir Las Vegas, NV 89145 Defendant. District Court 1st Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationSuperior Court of Washington For Pierce County
Superior Court of Washington For Pierce County State of Washington, Plaintiff vs.. Defendant No. Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty to Sex Offense (STTDFG) 1. My true name is:. 2. My age is:. 3.
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, JOHNATHAN BPIERRE MORRIS DOB: 05/30/1988 818 LOGAN AVE N Minneapolis, MN 55411 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationDepartment of Legislative Services
Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2008 Session SB 972 FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE Senate Bill 972 Judicial Proceedings (Senator Forehand) Identity Fraud - Seizure and Forfeiture This
More informationCourtroom Terminology
Courtroom Terminology Accused: formally charged but not yet tried for committing a crime; the person who has been charged may also be called the defendant. Acquittal: a judgment of court, based on the
More informationWHAT DO I DO IF I AM ARRESTED?
WHAT DO I DO IF I AM ARRESTED? An information leaflet by Centre for Justice Talking to the Police A police officer may speak with any member of the public at any time and is entitled to ask questions
More informationCriminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas. Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded
[Cite as State v. Germany, 2014-Ohio-3202.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BYRON GERMANY, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL
More informationFORFEITURE PROCEDURES AMENDMENTS. Sponsor: Lyle W. Hillyard
FORFEITURE PROCEDURES AMENDMENTS 2004 GENERAL SESSION STATE OF UTAH Sponsor: Lyle W. Hillyard This act modifies the Utah Uniform Forfeiture Procedures Act. This act provides additional definitions, expands
More informationCriminal Gangs/Gang-Free Zones
Criminal Gangs/Gang-Free Zones This legislation enacts a number of provisions about gang-related offenses. For example, it creates an offense for aspiring to commit or committing certain crimes as a member
More informationChapter SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART. Section 2.1 A Dual Court System
Chapter 2 SECTION OPENER / CLOSER: INSERT BOOK COVER ART Section 2.1 Chapter 2 A Dual The Court Court System System Section 2.1 Section 2.2 Trial Procedures Why It s Important Learning the structure of
More informationSuppose you disagreed with a new law.
Suppose you disagreed with a new law. You could write letters to newspapers voicing your opinion. You could demonstrate. You could contact your mayor or governor. You could even write a letter to the President.
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, MARCUS TERRELL FISCHER DOB: 02/01/1999 3927 6TH ST N MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55412 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationThere is no way around this: forfeiture procedure is a mess.
70 THE FEDERAL LAWYER September 2016 A Practical Guide to the Procedure of Civil Forfeiture DOUGLAS A. BRITTON There is no way around this: forfeiture procedure is a mess. Scattered throughout the U.S.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 540 U. S. (2003) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationLEGAL PROCESS WRITTEN DIRECTIVE: 14.3 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVISION DATE:
LEGAL PROCESS WRITTEN DIRECTIVE: 14.3 EFFECTIVE DATE: 09-15-1995 REVISION DATE: 04-11-2016 Contents I. Purpose II. Policy III. Definitions IV. Documentation V. Service/Execution of Criminal Documents VI.
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 11-4-2009, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION January 11, 2011 9:05 a.m. V No. 291993 Saginaw Circuit Court A QUANTITY OF MARIJUANA, DRUG LC No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PARKER, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-7661
More informationREVISOR LCB/NB A
1.1... moves to amend H.F. No. 2414, the delete everything amendment 1.2 (A19-0349), as follows: 1.3 Page 538, after line 4, insert: 1.4 "Sec. 37. Minnesota Statutes 2018, section 295.75, subdivision 11,
More informationTitle 6: AERONAUTICS
Title 6: AERONAUTICS Chapter 11: ENFORCEMENT Table of Contents Section 201. ARRESTS... 3 Section 202. PROHIBITIONS... 3 Section 203. PENALTIES... 4 Section 204. IMPLIED CONSENT TO CHEMICAL TESTS... 5 Section
More information21 USC 881. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 21 - FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 13 - DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL SUBCHAPTER I - CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT Part E - Administrative and Enforcement Provisions 881. Forfeitures (a) Subject property
More informationCHAPTER Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1056
CHAPTER 99-234 Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1056 An act relating to driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs; amending s. 322.34, F.S.; providing that a motor
More informationPRE TEST. 1. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to? A. limit the rights of individuals. B. specify the powers of citizens
PRE TEST NAME: DATE: 1. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to? A. limit the rights of individuals B. specify the powers of citizens C. specify the powers of the government D. prove that Bill is right!
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Rice State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, JOSHUA PAUL BARRON DOB: 07/02/1983 23440 Northfield Blvd Hampton, MN 55031 Defendant. District Court 3rd Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 26 1
Article 26. Bail. Part 1. General Provisions. 15A-531. Definitions. As used in this Article the following definitions apply unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (1) "Accommodation bondsman" means
More informationCivil Asset Forfeiture; Kansas Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Repository; HB 2459
Civil Asset Forfeiture; Kansas Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Repository; HB 2459 HB 2459 creates and amends law related to civil asset forfeiture. Creation of Kansas Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Repository
More informationVermont Bar Association Seminar Materials. 62nd Mid-Year Meeting. Criminal Law 101
Vermont Bar Association Seminar Materials 62nd Mid-Year Meeting Criminal Law 101 March 22, 2019 Lake Morey Resort Fairlee, VT Speakers: Katelyn Atwood, Esq. Katelyn B. Atwood, Esq. Rutland County Public
More informationUnit 4 Assessment Amending the Constitution
Unit 4 Assessment Amending the Constitution 1. Which 1 st Amendment right does the freedom to gather and associate imply? a. speech b. assembly c. religion d. the press 2. The Fourth Amendment prevents
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PRETRIAL SERVICES AGENCY Processing Arrestees in the District of Columbia A Brief Overview This handout is intended to provide a brief overview of how an adult who has been arrested
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION
-GR-102-Guilty Plea IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREENE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE CRIMINAL DIVISION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) NO. Criminal Sessions, VS. ) Charge: ) ) Defendant. ) BEFORE THE
More informationGENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 H 1 HOUSE BILL 471. Short Title: Fail to Obtain DL/Increase Punishment. (Public)
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION H 1 HOUSE BILL 1 Short Title: Fail to Obtain DL/Increase Punishment. (Public) Sponsors: Referred to: Representatives Millis, Destin Hall, Cleveland, and Burr
More informationIC Chapter 16. Problem Solving Courts
IC 33-23-16 Chapter 16. Problem Solving Courts IC 33-23-16-1 "Board" Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "board" refers to the board of directors of the judicial conference of Indiana under IC 33-38-9-4.
More informationASSEMBLY, No STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 218th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2018 SESSION
ASSEMBLY, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Assemblyman JOHN F. MCKEON District (Essex and Morris) Co-Sponsored by: Assemblyman Benson SYNOPSIS
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : : CP-41-CR-0001136-2017 v. : : EARL GERALD FINZEL, : SUPPRESSION Defendant : OPINION AND ORDER On August 23,
More information*HB0019* H.B CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM AMENDMENTS. LEGISLATIVE GENERAL COUNSEL Approved for Filing: E. Chelsea-McCarty :36 PM
LEGISLATIVE GENERAL COUNSEL Approved for Filing: E. Chelsea-McCarty 12-09-16 3:36 PM H.B. 19 1 CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE REFORM AMENDMENTS 2 2017 GENERAL SESSION 3 STATE OF UTAH 4 Chief Sponsor: Brian M.
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, BENJAMIN LOVE DOB: 11/27/1972 5649 34TH AVE S #2 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55417 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationProhibition and Prevention of [No. 14 of 2001 Money Laundering THE PROHIBITION AND PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING BILL, 2001
73 THE PROHIBITION AND PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING BILL, 2001 Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY PART II ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING AUTHORITY
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, LINCOLN FINIS BOWMAN DOB: 09/03/1971 8561 SAVANNAH OAKS LANE WOODBURY, MN 55125 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District
More informationLAWS GOVERNING THE ACCOUNTING FOR PROPERTY SEIZED AND FORFEITED, CONFISCATED AND OTHERWISE OBTAINED (COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT)
LAWS GOVERNING THE ACCOUNTING FOR PROPERTY SEIZED AND FORFEITED, CONFISCATED AND OTHERWISE OBTAINED (COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT) OFFICE OF THE STATE AUDITOR Division of Technical Assistance August
More information