(a) When any officer seizes, with or without warrant, any property or thing, it shall be safely kept by direction of the court as long as necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial. If the owner of the property makes a written request to the seizing officer's agency for return of the property, and the property has not been returned within 48 hours of the request, excluding Saturday, Sunday, or legal holidays, the person whose property has been seized may file a petition for the return of the property in the district court in the district in which the property was seized. The court administrator shall provide a form for use as a petition under this section. A filing fee, equal to the civil motion filing fee, shall be required for filing the petition. The district court shall send a copy of the petition to the agency acting as custodian of the property with at least ten days' notice of a hearing date. A hearing on the petition shall be held within 30 days of filing unless good cause is shown for an extension of time. The determination of the petition must be without jury trial and by a simple and informal procedure. At the hearing, the court may receive relevant evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision on the petition without regard to whether the evidence would be admissible under the Minnesota Rules of Evidence. The court shall allow if requested, or on its own motion may require, the custodian or the custodian's designee to summarize the status and progress of an ongoing investigation that led to the seizure. Any such summary shall be done ex parte and only the custodian, the custodian's designee, and their attorneys may be present with the court and court staff. The court shall seal the ex parte record. After a hearing, the court shall not order the return if it finds that:
(1) the property is being held in good faith as potential evidence in any matter, charged or uncharged;
(2) the property may be subject to forfeiture proceedings;
(3) the property is contraband or may contain contraband; or
(4) the property is subject to other lawful retention.
(b) The court shall make findings on each of these issues as part of its order. If the property is ordered returned, the petitioner shall not be liable for any storage costs incurred from the date the petition was filed. If the petition is denied, the court may award reasonable costs and attorney fees. After the trial for which the property was being held as potential evidence, and the expiration date for all associated appeals, the property or thing shall, unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, be returned to its owner or any other person entitled to possess it. Any property or thing seized may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of under the direction of the court. Any money found in gambling devices when seized shall be paid into the county treasury. If the gambling devices are seized by a police officer of a municipality, the money shall be paid into the treasury of the municipality.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case:
State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2001).
State v. Ture, 632 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Retaining the Seized Items Ture argues that the district court erred in holding that, under Minn.Stat. § 626.04 (1978), the state had the authority to retain his property after he was released without charges following his December 19,1978, arrest.”
State v. Shriner, 739 N.W.2d 432 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “2b(4) (2004), the question becomes whether a warrant could reasonably have been obtained within a timeframe that would not have compromised the test results.”
State v. Mike, 919 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “This statute requires that "[a]t the time a blood or urine test is directed pursuant to a search warrant under sections 626.04 to 626.18, the person must be informed that refusal to submit to a blood or urine test is a crime.”
State of Minnesota v. Kristi Dannette Mcneilly, 6 N.W.3d 161 (Minn. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Following an ex parte hearing pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (a) (2022), the court denied McNeilly’s motion, holding that “the seized property is being held in good faith as potential evidence in a matter that is uncharged at this time.”
Kampsen v. Cnty. of Kandiyohi, 441 N.W.2d 103 (Minn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The question, then, becomes: when, if ever, did these acts cease to be covered by the mantle of original justification so as to impose liability upon these detainers? The premise which appears to underlie the contention of appellants, as well as the decision of the trial court,…”
Commonwealth v. Rufo, 429 Mass. 380 (Mass. 1999).
“§ 35-33-5-5 (Michie 1998) (pursuant to arrest, search warrant, or warrantless search); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 626.04 (West 1983 & Supp.”
Arvidson v. City of Mankato, 635 F. Supp. 112 (D. Minnesota 1986).
· cites it 2× “§ 626.04. They seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the return of property and costs.”
State v. Sutterfield, 347 N.W.2d 295 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 626.04 (1983) provides that non-contraband property seized for use as evidence at trial shall be returned at the end of its need by the court “to the owner or any other person entitled to it.”
Armendariz v. Rovney (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 9× “” Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (a). It also describes the process by which the owner of seized property can request its return: If the owner of the property makes a written request to the seizing officer’s agency for return of the property, and the property has not been returned within…”
State, Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. $6,276 in United States Currency, 478 N.W.2d 333 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Under Minn.Stat. § 626.04 (1990): When any officer seizes * * * any property or thing, it shall be safely kept by direction of the court as long as necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial.”
Gale Allen Rachuy v. Duluth Police Dep't Prop. Room (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 8× “The district court ruled that the four remaining items—two books of blank checks, check stock,1 and a suspended Minnesota driver’s license—were “derivative contraband” under Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (a)(3), (4) (2012), and it ordered them to be destroyed.”
— Minn. Stat. § 626.04(a) — 2 cases
Armendariz v. Rovney (D. Minnesota 2021).
“” Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (a). It also describes the process by which the owner of seized property can request its return: If the owner of the property makes a written request to the seizing officer’s agency for return of the property, and the property has not been returned within…”
Gale Allen Rachuy v. Duluth Police Dep't Prop. Room (Minn. Ct. App. 2015).
“The district court ruled that the four remaining items—two books of blank checks, check stock,1 and a suspended Minnesota driver’s license—were “derivative contraband” under Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (a)(3), (4) (2012), and it ordered them to be destroyed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.