On November 10, 2021 a
Demand for Judicial Determination - Forfeit MV (MSA 169A.63)
was filed
involving a dispute between
Taylor, Michael Russell,
and
for Forfeiture
in the District Court of Wright County.
Preview
86-CV-21-5432
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
11/10/2021 12:08 PM
STATE 0F MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF WRIGHT 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Michael Russell Taylor, Court File No.
Case Type: Forfeiture
Plaintiff,
DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL
vs. DETERMINATION PURSUANT
T0 MINN. STAT. § 609.5314 SUBD. 3
One 2014 Cadillac SRX, VIN #BGYFNEE31E8641017;
One Walther PPS 9 mm handgun, Serial # AB559S; and
One Kimber Micro 9 mm handgun, Serial fl P80050512,
Defendants.
TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY 0F WRIGHT, AND THE WRIGHT
COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 3700 BRADDOCK AVENUE NE, SUITE
2100, BUFFALO, MN 55313.
COMES NOW the Plaintiff by and through the undersigned attorney, and for the
Plaintiffs Complaint in this matter, states and alleges as follows:
l.) That the Plaintiffs full name is Michael Russell Taylor, and his date of birth is June
22, 1968, and that Plaintiff resides at 13658 Clearwater Forest Circle, South Haven,
Minnesota.
2.) That the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of Defendant(s).
3.) That Plaintiff has been charged with a criminal related offense regarding an incident
which occurred on or about October 21, 2021 in Wright County, Minnesota.
4.) That Defendant(s) were improperly seized.
5.) Specific grounds upon which PlaintifflClaimant alleges the improper seizure are as
follows:
A. Plaintiff is the owner or innocent owner of Defendant(s).
B. Whether or not Defendant(s) were used to commit a designated offense or in
conduct resulting in a designated offense as defined, said offense and/or
conduct cannot be accorded significance because Plaintiff’s state and federal
constitutional and/or statutory rights were violated as follows:
86-CV-21-5432
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
11/10/2021 12:08 PM
i. The peace officer who arrested Plaintiff did not have reasonable and
probable grounds to believe Plaintiff violated Minn. Stat. § 609.5314.
ii. Defendant(s) were not obtained by Plaintiff by selling any controlled
substance.
iii. Defendant(s) were obtained by Plaintiff by lawful means.
C. The defendant(s) were not seized incident to a lawfiil arrest or a lawful
search, the Defendant(s) are not the subject of a priorjudgment in favor of
the state in a criminal injunction or forfeiture
proceeding.
D. Plaintiff was not properly notified with notice of seizure and intent to forfeit
as required by Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 8 and also by the due process of
law provisions in the state and federal constitutions.
E. The forfeiture violates the ban against excessive fines guaranteed
by the 8'"
Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Timbs v. Indiana 586 U.S.
__ (2019).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
6.) As affirmative defenses to the seizure and forfeiture of Defendant(s), Plaintiff hereby
re-asserts everything in paragraph five (5),
7.) To the extent that it purports to authorize forfeiture, the forfeiture statute and also the
statute which “governs” it - i.e. Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, is unconstitutional, but on its
face and applied.
8.) Seizure and forfeiture of the Defendant(s) is impermissible in that it violates the
double je0pardy provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, Article l §7 of the Minnesota Constitution, and Minn. Stat. §
609.035.
9.) Plaintiff asserts an innocent owner defense of Defendant(s).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays: (a) that the Defendant(s) be returned forthwith as
unlawfiilly seized and not otherwise, subject to forfeiture; (b) and that the Court
grant all fees, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attomey’s fees as
provided by statute; and (c) for such other relief as the Court deems just and
equitable.
86-CV-21-5432
Filed in District Court
State of Minnesota
11/10/2021 12:08 PM
Respectfully Submitted,
CARLSON & JONES, P.A.
Dated:
bert v. JE‘r‘fés, #0264258
' 1'”
Attorney for Plaintiff
215 East Highway 55, Suite 201
Buffalo, MN 55313
(763) 682—2220
Document Filed Date
November 10, 2021
Case Filing Date
November 10, 2021
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
86-CV-21-5432 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/10/2021 12:08 PM STATE 0F MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF WRIGHT 10TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Michael Russell Taylor, Court File No. Case Type: Forfeiture Plaintiff, DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL vs. DETERMINATION PURSUANT T0 MINN. STAT. § 609.5314 SUBD. 3 One 2014 Cadillac SRX, VIN #BGYFNEE31E8641017; One Walther PPS 9 mm handgun, Serial # AB559S; and One Kimber Micro 9 mm handgun, Serial fl P80050512, Defendants. TO: THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, COUNTY 0F WRIGHT, AND THE WRIGHT COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, 3700 BRADDOCK AVENUE NE, SUITE 2100, BUFFALO, MN 55313. COMES NOW the Plaintiff by and through the undersigned attorney, and for the Plaintiffs Complaint in this matter, states and alleges as follows: l.) That the Plaintiffs full name is Michael Russell Taylor, and his date of birth is June 22, 1968, and that Plaintiff resides at 13658 Clearwater Forest Circle, South Haven, Minnesota. 2.) That the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of Defendant(s). 3.) That Plaintiff has been charged with a criminal related offense regarding an incident which occurred on or about October 21, 2021 in Wright County, Minnesota. 4.) That Defendant(s) were improperly seized. 5.) Specific grounds upon which PlaintifflClaimant alleges the improper seizure are as follows: A. Plaintiff is the owner or innocent owner of Defendant(s). B. Whether or not Defendant(s) were used to commit a designated offense or in conduct resulting in a designated offense as defined, said offense and/or conduct cannot be accorded significance because Plaintiff’s state and federal constitutional and/or statutory rights were violated as follows: 86-CV-21-5432 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/10/2021 12:08 PM i. The peace officer who arrested Plaintiff did not have reasonable and probable grounds to believe Plaintiff violated Minn. Stat. § 609.5314. ii. Defendant(s) were not obtained by Plaintiff by selling any controlled substance. iii. Defendant(s) were obtained by Plaintiff by lawful means. C. The defendant(s) were not seized incident to a lawfiil arrest or a lawful search, the Defendant(s) are not the subject of a priorjudgment in favor of the state in a criminal injunction or forfeiture proceeding. D. Plaintiff was not properly notified with notice of seizure and intent to forfeit as required by Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 8 and also by the due process of law provisions in the state and federal constitutions. E. The forfeiture violates the ban against excessive fines guaranteed by the 8'" Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Timbs v. Indiana 586 U.S. __ (2019). AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 6.) As affirmative defenses to the seizure and forfeiture of Defendant(s), Plaintiff hereby re-asserts everything in paragraph five (5), 7.) To the extent that it purports to authorize forfeiture, the forfeiture statute and also the statute which “governs” it - i.e. Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, is unconstitutional, but on its face and applied. 8.) Seizure and forfeiture of the Defendant(s) is impermissible in that it violates the double je0pardy provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Article l §7 of the Minnesota Constitution, and Minn. Stat. § 609.035. 9.) Plaintiff asserts an innocent owner defense of Defendant(s). WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays: (a) that the Defendant(s) be returned forthwith as unlawfiilly seized and not otherwise, subject to forfeiture; (b) and that the Court grant all fees, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attomey’s fees as provided by statute; and (c) for such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 86-CV-21-5432 Filed in District Court State of Minnesota 11/10/2021 12:08 PM Respectfully Submitted, CARLSON & JONES, P.A. Dated: bert v. JE‘r‘fés, #0264258 ' 1'” Attorney for Plaintiff 215 East Highway 55, Suite 201 Buffalo, MN 55313 (763) 682—2220