The police removed him from the car, obviously intoxicated, and he eventually completed a breath test revealing a 0.22 alcohol concentration, according to the appellate court.

The state charged him with fleeing police, second-degree impaired driving, and driving after his license had been cancelled. He had five previous alcohol-related driving convictions or license revocations.

Mr. Briles' son told police that he had never previously driven the GMC and that he did not have his father's permission to drive it.

The police called Mr. Briles that same day. He likewise told police that the GMC belonged to him, not to his son, and that his son had no permission to drive the GMC or any other car.

The officer told Mr. Briles that the vehicle was being held for forfeiture and that a certified letter declaring that had already been sent.

On September 25, 2015, Mr. Briles received by certified mail the formal “Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit Vehicle / Property,” identifying his GMC and stating, “This property is subject to forfeiture because it was used to commit: Impaired Driving – MS § 169A.63.”

Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.63 is the impaired-driving forfeiture statute.

On the same day that Mr. Briles received the written forfeiture notice, an assistant county attorney sent a letter to Mr. Briles' insurance carrier, Progressive Insurance. The letter notified Progressive of the police department's forfeiture interest in Mr. Briles' GMC and urged Progressive not to disburse any insurance proceeds until the forfeiture was resolved.

Mr. Briles subsequently filed a civil complaint seeking a judicial determination of the forfeiture.

The trial court held that the impaired-driver forfeiture statute specifically stated that the seizing agency was vested with “[a]ll right, title, and interest” in the vehicle and that, in this case, the police department's rights included the totaled vehicle's insurance proceeds.

Mr. Briles appealed.

Minnesota Law

Section 169A.63 provides:

All right, title, and interest in a vehicle subject to forfeiture under this section vests in the appropriate agency upon commission of the conduct resulting in the designated offense or designated license revocation giving rise to the forfeiture.

Minn. Stat. § 169A.63(3).

The Appellate Court's Decision

The appellate court held that a forfeiting agency's authority to forfeit the “right, title, and interest” in a wrecked vehicle under Minnesota Statutes Section 169A.63 did not include the right to insurance proceeds for damage to the vehicle to which the policyholder otherwise was entitled.

In its decision, the appellate court pointed out that Section 169A.63 “nowhere” specified that money, proceeds, or anything other than the right, title, and interest in the vehicle itself was forfeitable.

The appellate court pointed out that the state's criminal forfeiture statute, Minn. Stat. § 609.5312(1)(a), which did not apply to this case, expressly included the targeted property and property “that represent[ed] proceeds of a designated offense.”

In the appellate court's opinion, this demonstrated that the legislature knew how “to expressly include the kind of liberal and broadening language that the city ask[ed the court] to incorporate inferentially into [S]ection 169A.63.”

It then ruled that nothing in the language of Section 169A.63 suggested that any property other than the right, title, and interest in the offender's vehicle itself was forfeitable property under that section.

The case is Briles v. 2013 GMC Terrain, No. A16-0768 (Minn. Ct.App. March 13, 2017). Attorneys involved include: James M. Ventura, Wayzata, Minnesota (for appellant); Ronald Hocevar, Scott County Attorney, Todd P. Zettler, Assistant County Attorney, Shakopee, Minnesota (for respondent).