Williams v. Pine Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't

• Court: Minnesota Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Klaphake, Judge
• Decision Date: 09 April 2018
• Docket Number: A17-0964
• Citation: Williams v. Pine Cnty. Sheriffs Dep't, A17-0964 (Minn. App. Apr 09, 2018)
• Parties: Jamey Ryan Williams Respondent, v. Pine County Sheriffs Department, Appellant.

Jamey Ryan Williams Respondent, v. Pine County Sheriffs Department, Appellant.

A17-0964

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS

April 9, 2018

This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

Affirmed

Klaphake, Judge^*

Dissenting, Johnson, Judge

Pine County District Court

File No. 58-CV-17-48

Samuel J. Edmunds, Sieben Edmunds PLLC, Mendota Heights, Minnesota (for respondent)

Reese Frederickson, Pine County Attorney, Christopher T. Nippoldt, Assistant County Attorney, Pine City, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Kirk, Judge; and Klaphake, Judge.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

KLAPHAKE, Judge

Appellant Pine County Sheriff's Department claims that the district court erred in returning to the respondent a pistol that had been seized and retained by appellant. Because we conclude the trial court did not err, we affirm.

DECISION

Appellant argues that the 9mm Beretta pistol it seized from respondent as evidence in his criminal case is contraband and was forfeited by operation of law under Minnesota's forfeiture statutes. See generally Minn. Stat. §§ 609.531-.5318 (2016). Interpretation of a statute is subject to de novo review, Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, 650 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn. 2002), but a district court's factual findings "are given great deference, and shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous," Fletcher v. St. Paul Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999).

The legislature has declared that the forfeiture statutes are to be "liberally construed." Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1a. "Yet, the United States Supreme Court has stated that 'forfeiture generally and statutory in rem forfeiture in particular historically have been understood, at least in part, as punishment.'" Riley, 650 N.W.2d at 443 (quoting Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 618, 113 S. Ct. 2801, 2810 (1993)). As such, Minnesota courts strictly construe our forfeiture statutes, and resolve "any doubt in favor of the party challenging it." Id.

The district court is prohibited from ordering the return of seized property if it finds that the property is contraband. Minn. Stat. § 626.04(a)(3) (2016). Contraband is "propertywhich is illegal to possess under Minnesota law," Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(d), and "the legislature intended 'contraband' to include property which is illegal for the particular offender in question to possess," Johnson v. Multiple Miscellaneous Items Numbered 1-424, 523 N.W.2d 238, 240 (Minn. App. 1994) (emphasis omitted).

It is not illegal for respondent to possess the pistol. His crime was not the possession of the pistol, but the failure to have the required permit. He is not a felon, for example, and even without a permit he may possess the pistol on private property, or transport it in his vehicle if the pistol is unloaded and either properly cased or transported in a closed trunk. See Minn. Stat. §§ 97B.045, subd. 1, 624.713, subd. 1(10), 624.714, subd. 1a (2016).

Appellant argues that, after respondent's conviction for possessing a pistol without a permit, the pistol became contraband by operation of law under Minn. Stat. § 609.5316, subd. 3. That statute provides: "Weapons used are contraband and must be summarily forfeited to the appropriate agency upon conviction of the weapon's owner or possessor for a controlled substance crime; for any offense of [chapter 609] or chapter 624, or for a violation of an order for protection." Id. (emphasis added). An object is a "weapon used" if it is a dangerous weapon, defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 6 (2016), "that the actor used or had in possession in furtherance of a crime." Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(b). In order for a weapon to be used or possessed in furtherance of a crime, the dangerous weapon must be more than merely present, the use or possession of the weapon must have played a significant part in committing the crime. Cf. City of Worthington Police Dep't v. One 1988 Chevrolet Berreta, 516 N.W.2d 581, 584-85 (Minn. App. 1994) (interpreting "used or intended for use to commit or facilitate" a crime under Minn. Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 1(1992), and holding that "if the use of property plays a significant part in committing an offense, then the property may be forfeited, no matter what its value").

The use or possession of a dangerous weapon plays a significant part in committing the crime if it increases the danger to the public from the commission of the crime. Throughout Minnesota's criminal code, the use or possession of a dangerous weapon enhances a criminal penalty when that use or possession increases the risk of harm to the public. For example, simple robbery becomes aggravated robbery in the first degree if committed while "armed with a dangerous weapon," and the maximum sentence doubles. Compare Minn. Stat. § 609.24 (2016) with Minn. Stat. § 609.245, subd. 1 (2016). Possessing a dangerous weapon while depriving another of parental or custodial rights also doubles the maximum penalty for that offense. See Minn. Stat. § 609.26, subd. 6(a)(1)-(2)(i) (2016). Engaging in criminal sexual conduct and using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon to cause submission to the criminal sexual conduct at least doubles the maximum sentence. Compare Minn. Stat. §§ 609.342, .343 (2016), with Minn. Stat. §§ 609.344, .345 (2016). And violating a restraining order, an order for protection, or committing a stalking crime, is enhanced to a felony if committed while possessing a dangerous weapon. See Minn. Stat. §§ 518B.01, subd. 14, 609.748, subd. 6 (2016). In all of these instances, possession of the weapon enhances the criminality of the conduct and the threat to the public.

And, in the only case analyzing the summary forfeiture of a firearm under Minn. Stat. § 609.5316, subd. 3, our analysis similarly focused on the relationship between the appellant's possession of the firearms and the danger to the public from the combined effectof his possession and his crime. See Tveit v. Connecticut Valley Arms Black Powder .58 Cal. Rifle, No. C4-98-392, 1998 WL 727735 (Minn. App. Oct. 20, 1998). In Tveit,¹ the appellant was convicted for making terroristic threats. Id. at *3. We reasoned that the appellant's possession of the firearms furthered his crime because his victims felt terrorized by knowing he had the ability to carry out the threats. Id. Here, respondent's having an unloaded pistol in the center console of his vehicle does not enhance the danger to the public from his not having a permit for the pistol, and the pistol is therefore not a "weapon used" under Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(b). Because the pistol is not a weapon used, and respondent is legally allowed to possess the pistol, it is not contraband and the district court did not err in ordering appellant to return the pistol to respondent.²

Affirmed.

JOHNSON, Judge (dissenting)

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the court. Appellant argues that the district court erred in three ways. The opinion of the court rejects appellant's first argument, but I respectfully disagree with the court's resolution of that issue. Appellant's second and third arguments present issues for which there is a lack of precedent, but I believe that appellant's arguments have merit. Therefore, I would conclude that the district court erred by granting relief to Williams.

Williams was charged with unlawful possession of a pistol in a motor vehicle without a permit to carry. See Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 1(a) (2016). After pleading guilty, Williams petitioned the district court for the return of the pistol, which was seized when he was arrested. See Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (2016). In the memorandum of law accompanying his petition, he essentially conceded that the pistol is "contraband" pursuant to section 609.5316, subdivision 3, of the Minnesota Statutes. He presented only two arguments to the district court: first, that the Pine County Sheriff violated his right to procedural due process by not giving him notice of intent to seek the forfeiture of the pistol and, second, that the sheriff violated a forfeiture statute by not giving him a receipt after seizing the pistol. At the brief hearing on the petition, counsel confined their oral arguments to the two issues raised in Williams's memorandum.

Notwithstanding the limited scope of counsel's arguments, the district court determined that the pistol is not contraband on the ground that the pistol is not within the definition of "contraband" in section 609.531, subdivision 1(d). The district court also determined that Williams "was never served with a property receipt or summary forfeiturenotice indicating that Pine County intended to forfeit the firearm as required by Minn. Stat. § 609.531." The district court's order concludes by stating, "The Plaintiff's petition is, hereby, GRANTED."

I.

Appellant argues that the district court erred by determining that the pistol is not "contraband." Appellant contends that, upon Williams's conviction, the pistol became contraband by operation of law pursuant to section 609.5316, subdivision 3. Appellant's contention is consistent with the assumption that was shared by the parties during district court proceedings.

In the relevant statutes, there are two means by which a firearm may be deemed "contraband." The first means is reflected in section 609.531, which this court has described as "the repository of 'general rules' governing various forfeiture proceedings." Gaertner ex rel. Minnesota State Patrol v. One 1999 Dodge Pickup Truck, 668 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Minn. App. 2003). The second means is reflected in section 609.5316, which specifically concerns "summary forfeiture." Appellant relies on the latter statute, which provides, in relevant part, as follows: "Weapons used are contraband and must be summarily forfeited to the appropriate agency upon conviction of the weapon's owner or possessor for a controlled substance crime; for any offense of...