David L. Laase v. County of Isanti, et al, No. 10-2896 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff challenged the forfeiture of his vehicle claiming that the forfeiture violated the United States and Minnesota Constitutions when the vehicle was seized by county officials after his wife was convicted of second-degree driving while impaired. At issue was whether the district courted properly granted the county's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on res judicata. The court affirmed the motion to dismiss based on res judicata and held that the vehicle was properly forfeitable under Minn. Stat. 169A.63 and that the innocent owner defense was not available to defendant.
Court Description: Civil Case - civil rights. After state seized automobile pursuant to state forfeiture statute and state appellate court upheld forfeiture, civil rights action alleging forfeiture violated Federal and State constitutions was properly dismissed based on res judicata. State law claims and constitutional claims involve the same set of factual circumstances, final judgment was effected by Supreme Court's determination that the innocent owner defense did not apply, and constitutional claims could have been asserted in the state litigation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.