In a recent opinion that bodes well for individual rights, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use at trial of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, is applicable in civil asset forfeiture actions brought pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.531-.5319.

The court’s decision was largely based on an almost fifty year old United States Supreme Court case that held the exclusionary rule to be applicable in federal civil asset forfeiture cases because the proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and their purpose, much like a criminal proceeding, is to penalize an individual for breaking the law.

As addressed in last week’s blog post, civil asset forfeiture has been a rising issue across the nation recently, and its potential for abuse has led to widespread calls for reform. Civil asset forfeiture allows federal, state and local government agencies to seize, permanently retain, and use, often entirely at their own discretion, currency or property seized from citizen’s involved in law enforcement encounters. In many cases forfeiture occurs regardless of whether the individual is convicted, or even charged, with a crime. The burden of proof on the government in civil asset forfeiture actions is much lower than the burden in a criminal case which is why the property can be forfeited even though a criminal conviction isn’t obtained.

The fact that the seizing agencies can often use seized currency to pad their own budgets has led to allegations by some that law enforcement across the nation has begun to focus more on seizing cash than fighting the actual crime that they are alleging that cash is a product of.

If you or someone you know has a civil asset forfeiture issue or has been charged with a crime of any type, call Minneapolis – St. Paul criminal defense attorney John J. Leunig for a free phone consultation at (952) 540-6800.