feet were already may please the court counsel my name is they all brown and i represent miss antoinette hopkins in this matter and combing the w this court for a very clear statement of law it said a five day delay in just to find the detention of a private vehicle is too long ms hopkins vehicle after she filed a demand for judicial determination was that the hearing for her vehicle was denied up to five months that is a function of the minnesota forfeiture vehicle statute vehicle forfeiture statu that it didn't have enough evidence of a delay mr booker in that case had not found his demand for judicial determination asked for hearing so from this court's view the delay was all hypothetical in this her five months or so in this regard i know of some point i've got to deal with the booker decision but i want to factually separate those two cases by saying that hopkins did what booker did not and so in that regard booker is not a political but back to the district court's exhaustion of remedies basis for dismissing the caves this court has never required a party to suffer a facially lacking due process  system in state court before they could bring their claim in federal court a multiple occasions when we decided to in our brief of the king decision in our opening briefs indicate that this court of the party has a choice to choose between going through the stake or process or coming into federal court and demonstrating that this decor process is inadequate that is exactly what m hopkins did in this case on to the due process aspects of the case which is booker clearly said that the minnesota statute is constitution pronouncements it's not a five day delay in justifying the detention of a private vehicle is too long misshapen suffered a five month delay this is looking at the matthews the eldridge factors on the due process analysis can see none given that the hearing must be provided in any event the additional administrative financial burden imposed by proper expedition expeditious hearing will be small and this case is even worse because there is no cost to the course because in coleman the hearing was free as i do believe it should be in this case but and in this happens case she's obligated to pay the filing fee so when you look at what coleman said it ran all three hearing and what is not if the court follows the booker decision the law in the circuit will be that a five month delay is ok that is completely contradictory to the columns which unless there's any questions around i'd like to reserve the rest of my time for  evaluated counsel's constitutionality arguments the constitutionality of the statute was challenged in los and rejected the constitutionality was challenged in ashanti and rejected and similarly  booker in booker this court distinguished coleman which was a judge made a determination of the will pick up any sort of seize any vehicle that is violating any  ordinance not having a license tabs properly eliminated or things like that here we're dealing with a statutory forfeiture proceeding that this court frankly the supreme court has determined that statutory forfeiture proceedings constitute due process this court in booker specifically stated that the minnesota statute comports with due process the argument of a five day delay th coleman is advance or that that hopkins is advancing in this case is both lied by the record there claiming hopkins or that booker does not apply because booker didn't ask for a judicial determination on forfeiture mr last asked for the judicial determination and forfeiture ms ashanti asked for a judicial determination on fo request the relief identified in the forfeiture statute here there's no question a demand for judicial determination was made two weeks after the vehicle was four for four if it that's already past the time that they're claiming is somehow unreasonable in in coleman the statute has been amended since this incident to provide for a sixty day time limit to file a notice forfeiture the demand for judicial determination and this is found in the appendix of page fifty nine to sixty i believe which is the court's nops of the various arguments they filed to demand a eleventh it was assigned to a new judge on april twelfth in order first judgment conference on the judicial determination was set on april twenty fifth for a hearing on may nineteen counsel was not available for that hearing it was reset to august sixteen at no point was a request for early or at least the record doesn't indicate that there was a request for an early determination to have the matters heard before the culmination of the criminal process at the time that was an opportunity in our brief any on the the court can look at the seventeen factors for why the forfeiture here was improper and they all pertain to the driving conduct they all pertain to the illegal operation of the motor vehicle with the blood alcohol of point two four and in fact ms hopkins even challenges at one point in the judicial determination which he was even the driver this court in booker concluded that booker's vehicle was lawfully subjected to forfeiture and given booker's conviction for a fourth t w i he was not entitled to get it back in this case ms hopkins pled guilty i believe the date was november eighth two thousand and twelve before pleading guilty to that they requested  continuance in the criminal matters it was their request to comply with the state source code or to follow up with a state source code litigation it was ms hopkins th delayed the process through her own filings at no point did they ever make a request for an accelerated hearing which this court found significant in booker and this court in booker also said even if there hypothetically could have been a prolonged seizure had booker requested a judicial determination within thirty days booker cannot show he suffered any harm from the city's retention of the vehicle because the city was then the rightful owner in this case the city of bloomington is the rightful owner of a vehicle of an individual driving with a blood alcohol of more than zero point for failure to follow the administrative remedies available and in the in the judicial determination they filed a notice one of the affirmative defenses was that the statute is unconstitutional the same defense that they raised in las the same deferment of defense they raised in ashanti and the same affirmative defense that they raised in booker and for these reasons judge to and i'm should be affirmed in this constitutional claim or what does she claims she's entitled to under the constitution that that she did not receive my understanding is she claims that she's somehow entitled to a faster hearing on the all we can ask mr ronin rebuttal of what exactly how many days that's required or limited to very well thank you but i'll follow up with that your honor if i may how mean obviously the united states supreme court in the case i think we're dealing with an eighteen month statutory forfeiture that was deemed appropriate and the united states versus eight thousand dollars was annexed a delay as well that was deemed to not interest and that compelling interest exists under the facts before the court in this case thank you you pohlmann because that was a judge may rule that's not the case when you look at the book or decision it says that that coleman is not a calendaring of it no matter how you slice it your honor the delays by counsel not being available and so forth she sat for five months before any delay she was never allowed and no matter circuit they required within i think forty eight hours to seventy two hours i think that's reasonable but in this statute there is no time period for which the person can expect a hearing you file your demand produce your determination and you wait in the government to during this period or a car certainly is different than money but you have supreme court cases a go up to eighteen months and say that's ok i think that's significantly different and i'm glad the court brought that up the court made those analysis under system the once the person makes a claim the federal government has the obligation to begin the forfeiture proceedings in a speedy process they have to have an excuse as to why they didn't and under the facts of  your statute is not too law how can it be you know you would assume the constitution would limit it before the statute so why oh why is the constitution going to be not violated with an eighteen month delay and would be violated with a five month delay or two day delay i see my time has expired like what i had as a very important question your honor you have there starting from different starting on the when you look at was dragging its feet in fulfilling its obligation to provide due process the courts that under the under those facts given the government's excuses as to why that speedy trial type analysis wasn't followed in the forfeiture case due process was not offended in those cases that analysis does not apply to this case this these this court consistently that matthew eldridge governs due process cases it makes no sense to graft that on that analysis onto these types of cases because the obligation of the parties are different and the federal system the government has an obligation by statute to get going quickly in the state different way in your mind work procedural timeline would it take to satisfy ms hopkins due process rights i believe that if there is a prompt hearing before being worked within in these cases as he cited to the shot he went on for eighteen months before you get a hearing there clearly excess so whatever the outer limits are i was just seventy two hours that's one of the course of use but five months in and eighteen months are certainly hearing before the resolution of the criminal matter we've given the course of the to sticks and an actual person has gone through that match up those statistics in that particular county it takes at least four months to resolve a criminal matter then you get in line for the civil matter to get on the civil docket and that this hearing that is held within seventy two hours what is determined it determines whether there is whether there is a basis for the government to hold the vehicle and why this matters not only for my clients are drunks most of them are that's true but it also matters for innocent owners who have to go through the same process i was i was partly just to the court that the booker decisions that they can get the car back immediately that's not true the only way they can get the