language to be deleted (2) new language
relating to public safety; modifying vehicle forfeiture provisions to include more than one owner of a vehicle;
amending Minnesota Statutes 2016, section 169A.63, subdivision 7.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
(a) A vehicle is presumed subject to forfeiture under this section if:
(1) the driver is convicted of the designated offense upon which the forfeiture is based;
(2) the driver fails to appear for a scheduled court appearance with respect to the designated offense charged and fails to voluntarily surrender within 48 hours after the time required for appearance; or
(3) the driver's conduct results in a designated license revocation and the driver fails to seek judicial review of the revocation in a timely manner as required by section 169A.53, subdivision 2, (petition for judicial review), or the license revocation is judicially reviewed and sustained under section 169A.53, subdivision 2.
(b) A vehicle encumbered by a security interest perfected according to section 168A.17, subdivision 2, or subject to a lease that has a term of 180 days or more, is subject to the interest of the secured party or lessor unless the party or lessor had knowledge of or consented to the act upon which the forfeiture is based. However, when the proceeds of the sale of a seized vehicle do not equal or exceed the outstanding loan balance, the appropriate agency shall remit all proceeds of the sale to the secured party after deducting the agency's costs for the seizure, tow, storage, forfeiture, and sale of the vehicle. If the sale of the vehicle is conducted in a commercially reasonable manner consistent with the provisions of section 336.9-610, the agency is not liable to the secured party for any amount owed on the loan in excess of the sale proceeds. The validity and amount of a nonperfected security interest must be established by its holder by clear and convincing evidence.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b), the secured party's or lessor's interest in a vehicle is not subject to forfeiture based solely on the secured party's or lessor's knowledge of the act or omission upon which the forfeiture is based if the secured party or lessor demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the party or lessor took reasonable steps to terminate use of the vehicle by the offender.
(d) A motor vehicle is not subject to forfeiture under this section if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law or that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent use of the vehicle by the offender. If the offender is a family or household member of the owner and has three or more prior impaired driving convictions, the owner is presumed to know of any vehicle use by the offender that is contrary to law. "Vehicle use contrary to law" includes, but is not limited to, violations of the following statutes:
(1) section 171.24 (violations; driving without valid license);
(2) section 169.791 (criminal penalty for failure to produce proof of insurance);
(3) section 171.09 (driving restrictions; authority, violations);
(4) section 169A.20 (driving while impaired);
(5) section 169A.33 (underage drinking and driving); and
(6) section 169A.35 (open bottle law).
Presented to the governor March 30, 2017
Signed by the governor April 3, 2017, 11:08 a.m.