Top Minnesota DWI Drunk Driving DUI Attorneys Lawyers

STATE OF MINNESOTA

COUNTY OF

DISTRICT COURT

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

DWI Defendant’s Name HERE,

Plaintiff,

vs.

One «Vehicle_Year» «Make» «Model»,

VIN No.«VIN»,

License Plate No.«Plate_»,

Defendant.

DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION PURSUANT

TO MINN. STAT. § 169A.63

1.

The State has improperly seized Defendant motor vehicle.

2.

Defendant motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 or under any other statutory authority purporting independently, or in association with Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, to authorize forfeiture in this matter.

3.

The specific grounds and alternative bases upon which Plaintiff and Claimant alleges the improper seizure of Defendant motor vehicle include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

i. The peace officer who arrested Plaintiff did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe Plaintiff violated Minn. Stat. § 169A.20.

ii. The peace officer did not lawfully place Plaintiff under arrest for a violation of Minn. Stat. § 169A.20, because there was insufficient cause for either the initial stop or intrusion, there was no basis for use of any preliminary screening device, there was not probable cause to support the arrest, and/or there was some other violation of the Plaintiff’s federal- and/or state-constitutional rights.

iii. Plaintiff did not drive, operate, or physically control the Defendant motor vehicle at the relevant time.

iv. The peace officer did not properly inform Plaintiff of her/his rights or consequences with respect to taking or refusing a chemical test to determine her/his alcohol concentration.

v. The chemical testing method employed to determine alcohol concentration was invalid and unreliable.

vi. The State inaccurately evaluated the chemical test results.

vii. Plaintiff did not refuse to submit to chemical testing to determine Plaintiff’s alcohol concentration and/or had a reasonable basis under the circumstances for refusing to submit to chemical testing.

viii. Plaintiff was unable to complete the chemical test or tests requested.

ix. Plaintiff's statutory right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain an additional chemical test or tests to determine Plaintiff’s alcohol concentration of his own choosing was prevented or denied by a peace officer.

x. The peace officer involved in the arrest and/or chemical testing of Plaintiff did not fully vindicate Plaintiff's right to consult with an attorney under Minn. Const., Art. I § 6, and applicable case law.

xi. The peace officer involved in the arrest and/or chemical testing of Plaintiff unlawfully coerced the result of the test request by her or his actions and advice, in violation of due process of law. This includes but is not limited to, the principles found in Moser v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 473 N.W.2d 848 (Minn. 1991).

xii. The peace officer involved in the arrest and/or chemical testing of Plaintiff read an advisory which did not comport with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 169A.51, subd. 2.

xiii. The peace officer involved in the arrest and/or chemical testing of Plaintiff violated Plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights, as summarized in the issues enumerated in Minn. Stat § 169A.53, subd. 3.

xiv. The State did not properly notify Plaintiff of the revocation, disqualification, or determination to deny.

xv. Plaintiff’s prior revocations and/or convictions were uncounseled and/or otherwise lacked sufficient constitutional protections; thus, it is a violation of due process of law to allow said revocations and/or convictions to place Plaintiff in a position to face forfeiture under Minnesota law.

4.

Plaintiff's interest in the motor vehicle is as an “owner,” as the term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(h).

5.

Plaintiff's interest in Defendant motor vehicle is possessory in that, prior to the State’s unlawful seizure, he/she was lawfully entitled to use and/or possess the motor vehicle and/or did actually possess the vehicle.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1.

As affirmative defenses to the seizure and forfeiture of Defendant motor vehicle, Plaintiff hereby re-asserts everything in paragraph two, supra.

2.

To the extent that Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 purports to authorize forfeiture here, the forfeiture statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. To the extent that Minn. Stat. §§ 169A.50-169A.53 supplements the forfeiture statute in authorizing forfeiture here, the implied consent statutes are unconstitutional both facially and as applied to the Plaintiff.

3.

Seizure and forfeiture of Defendant motor vehicle is impermissible because such seizure and forfeiture violates Minn. Stat. § 609.035, as well as the double jeopardy provisions of the federal and state constitutions.