## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 28 96

__ __ __ __ __ _

Dav id L. Laase, *

* App el la nt
, *

*

v. *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Co un ty of Is an ti ; J effr ey

R. Edb la d, * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Is an ti Co un ty A tt or ne y , in hi s o ffi ci al * Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

. cap aci ty; Cit y

of C am br id ge , * Mi nn es ot a; Davi d P ajni c, Ch ie f of *
Po li ce, Ca m

br id ge , Min ne so ta , in hi s * of fic ia l ca pa ci ty, * * App el le es

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Marc h 1 6, 2 01 1 Fil ed : Ap ril 20 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _ GRUENDER, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Afte r Dav id Laas e’s Mi nn es ot a st at e-co ur t ch a l l e n g e to th e fo rfei tu re of hi s

ve hi cl e fai le d, he br ou gh t a l a w s u it in fed eral di st ric t co ur t pu rs ua nt to 42 U.S.C. § 19 83

, cl ai mi n g t h a t th e fo rfei tu re of hi s ve hi cl e vi ol at ed th e Uni te d St at es an dMi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on s. The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at
, as a m at te r of Mi nn es ot a 1

la w, Laas e’s su it was re s ju di ca ta an d di sm is se d th e cas e fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m

up on whi ch rel ie f co ul d b e g ran te d. Fo r rea so ns th at fol lo w, we affi rm

.

Und er Mi nn es ot a’s st at ut or y fo rfei tu re sc he m e, a ve hic le is subj ec t to fo rfei tu re

“ if it was us ed in th e co m m is si on of a de si gn at ed of fen se ,” Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.6 3( 6) (a), an d “ [a]ll rig ht

, ti tl e, an d in te res t in a ve hi cl e su bjec t to
fo rfei tu re

. . . ve st s in th e ap pr op ria te ag en cy up on co m mi s si on of th e co nd uc t

res ul ti ng in th e de si gn at ed of fen se ,” § 16 9A.6 3( 3)

. Howev er, up on se iz ur e, th e st at e

ag en cy m us t “ se rv e th e dr iv er or ope rat or of th e ve hi cl e wit h a no ti ce o f th e se iz ur e

an d in te nt to fo rfei t th e ve hi cl e,” § 16 9A.6 3( 8) (b ), an d th e ve hi cl e’s own er m ay “ fil e

a de m an d fo r a jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n of th e fo rfei tu re,” § 16 9A.6 3( 8) (d ). The st at e

ag en cy is pe rm it te d to fil e an an swe r to th i s d e man d, “ in cl ud in g an affi rm at iv e

co un te rcl ai m fo r fo rfei tu re,” § 16 9A.6 3( 9) (c), bu t whe th er or no t it do es so , “ [t]he re is a pr e s u mp t io n th at a ve hi cl e se iz ed

. . . is su bjec t to fo rfei tu re if th e pr os ecu ti ng

au th or it y es ta bl is he s th at th e ve hi cl e was us ed in th e co m m is si on of a d e s ig na te d

of fen se ,” § 16 9A.6 3( 9) (e). The own er m ay rai se a nu m be r of affi rm at iv e de fen se s to
fo rfei tu re, bu t sh e “ be ars th e bu rd en of pr ov in g an y affi rm at iv e de fen se rai se d.” Id

.

In 20 06

, Dav id Laas e’s w i f e was co nv ic te d of se co nd -d eg ree dr iv in g whi le

im pa ire d, se e Mi nn

. St at

. §§ 16 9A.2 0( 2)

, 16 9A.2 5( 1) (b ), a de si gn at ed of fen se un de r

se ct io n 16 9A.6 3( 1) (e)

. The Co un ty of Is an ti

, Mi nn es ot a, se iz ed th e Laas es ’ 20 07

Ch ev ro le t Tah oe , an d Dav id Laas e fil ed a de m an d fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n, rai si ng

m ul ti pl e affi rm at iv e de fen se s, in cl ud in g th e “ in no cen t own e r ” de fen se an d a cl ai m
th at th e fo rfei tu re st at ut e is un co ns ti tu ti on al be cau se “ it vi ol at es th e do ub le jeop ard y

pr ov is io ns of th e Fi fth an d Fo ur te en t h A men dm en ts .” Laas e al so as se rte d th e

un sp eci fie d af

f i rm at iv e de fen se th at “ th e fo rfei tu re st at ut e

. . . is un co ns ti tu ti on al

,

The Hon or ab le Pau l A. Mag nu so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1
Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta

.

-2

-bo th on it s face an d ap pl ie d.” The Mi nn es ot a di st ric t co ur t ru le d fo r Laas e ba se d on 2

th e in no cen t own er de fen se , co nc lu di ng th at Laas e “ di d no t act ua ll y or co ns tru ct iv el y
kn ow th at hi s wife was go in g to us e th e ve hi cl e in a m an ne r co nt rary to th e la w.”

La as e v. 20 07 Ch evr ol et Ta ho e , No. CV-0 6- 38 3, sl ip op

. at 1 (1 0t h Ju d. Dis t. Mi nn

. Ju ne 19

, 20 07 ); se e § 16 9A

. 6 3 ( 7 ) (d ). The co ur t di d no t ad dr es s hi s co ns ti tu ti on al

cl ai m s.

The Co un ty ap pe al ed

, an d th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s affi rm ed

, ho ld in g
th at “ Mi nn

. St at

. § 16 9A.6 3 do es no t au th or iz e fo rfei tu re of a ve hi cl e us ed by on e of

it s joi nt own ers to co m

m it a de si gn at ed o f

f e n s e whe n th e ot he r joi nt own er ha s

pr ov ed by cl ear an d co nv in ci ng ev id en ce th at he di d no t kn ow th e ve hi cl e wou ld be

us ed in a m an ne r co nt rary to la w.” La as e v. 20 07 Ch evr ol et Ta ho e , 75 5 N.W .2d 23

, 2 6 ( M i n n

. Ct

. App

. 20 08 ). The co ur t of ap pe al s di d no t ad dr es s an y cl ai m th at th e
fo rfei tu re sta tu te was un co ns ti tu ti on al

, ei th er facia ll y or as ap pl ie d. The Mi nn es ot a
Su pr em e Co ur t gr an te d th e Co un ty’ s pe ti ti on fo r rev ie w a nd r e v e r s e d , h ol di ng th at

“ [b ]ecaus e Ms

. Laas e i s b o t h a n o w ne r an d th e of fen de r,

. . . th e ‘inn oc en t own er’

de fen se do es no t ap pl y , an d

. . . th e ve hi cl e was pr op erl y fo rfei ta bl e.” La as e v. 20 07

Ch evr ol et Ta ho e , 77 6 N.W .2d 43 1, 43 9- 40 (Mi nn

. 20 09 ). The co ur t rev ers ed wit ho ut

rem an di ng or ad dr es si ng an y of th e ot he r affi rm at iv e de fen se s rai se d by Laas e be fo re
th e Mi nn es ot a d is tri ct co ur t, i nc lu di ng hi s con st it ut io na l clai m s, sp eci fic al ly no ti ng
th at “ Laas e di d no t arg ue th at h i s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wou ld be vi ol at ed in th e ab se nc e o f op erat io n o f th e in no cen t o wne r de fen se .” Id

. at 4 40 n.1 1.

W e are un ab le to di sc ern whe th er Laas e in te nd ed th is cl ai m t o b e d i s ti nc t 2
fro m hi s do ub le -jeo pa rd y cl ai m an d, if so, wha t ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al ba si s he so ug ht

to ass ert

.

-3

-La a s e th en br ou gh t su it in fed eral co ur t, cl ai m in g th at th e fo rfei tu re of hi s

ve hi cl e vi ol at ed th e ta ki ng s cl au se s of b o t h t h e Fi fth Am en dm en t an d Arti cl e I, 3

se ct io n 13 of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns t i t u ti on , an d th e ex ces si ve fin es cl au se s of th e 4 Eig ht h A men dm en t an d Arti cl e I, se ct io n 5 of th e Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti on

. The 5 6

C ou nt y m ov ed to di sm is s fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on , ba se d on th e Roo ker

- Fe l d m a n do ct rin e or , al te rn at iv el y , fo r fai lu re to st at e a cl ai m , ba se d on st at e pr in ci pl es of re s ju di ca ta . Th e fed eral di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Roo ker -Fel dma n di d no t ba r th e

su it bu t th at th e do ct rin e of re s ju di ca ta di d, and co ns eq ue nt ly th e co ur t gran te d th e

m ot io n t o d is m is s fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m . Laase ap pe al s t hi s d is m is sa l.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re

to st at e a cl ai m

ba se d o n re s ju di ca ta

. Y an kt on Si ou x Tr ib e v. U.S. Dep ’t o f Hea lt h

& Huma n Ser vs

. , 53 3 F .3d 63 4, 6 39 (8t h C ir. 2 00 8) . In co nd uc ti ng th is rev ie w, we

acce pt th e pl ai nt iff ’s fact ua l al le ga ti on s as tru e. M.M. Si lt a, In c. v. Cl evel an d Cl if fs

, In c. , 61 6 F.3 d 87 2, 87 6. ( 8 t h C i r

. 2 0 10 ). By en act in g th e Fu ll Fai th an d Cred it

St at ut e, 28 U.S.C. § 17 38

, “ Co ng res s ha s sp eci fic al ly req ui red al l fed eral co ur ts to gi ve pr ecl us iv e effe ct to st at e-co ur t jud gm en ts whe ne ve r th e co ur ts of th e St at e fro m whi ch th e jud gm en ts em erg ed wou ld do s o

. ” Al l e n v. McCu rr y , 44 9 U.S. 90

, 96 (1 98 0)

. “ The la w of th e fo ru m th at ren de red th e fir st jud gm en t co nt r ol s th e res jud ic at a an al y si s.” St

. Pau l Fir e & Mar in e In s. Co

. v. Co mpa q Co mpu te r Co rp

. , 53 9

F.3 d 8 09 , 82 1 (8 th Cir . 20 08 ).

“ [N]or sh al l pr iv at e pr op ert y be ta ke n f or pu bl ic us e, wit ho ut jus t 3

co m pe ns at io n.” U.S. Con st . am en d. V.

“ Pri va te pr op ert y sh al l no t be ta ke n, de st ro y ed o r d a mag ed fo r pu bl ic us e 4
wit ho ut jus t co m

pe ns at io n th eref

or , fir st pa id or se cu red .” Mi nn

. Co ns t. art

. I, § 13

.

“ Exc es si ve ba il sh al l no t be req ui red

, no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, no r cru el 5

an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en ts in fli ct ed .” U.S. Con st . am en d. VIII

.

“ Exc es si ve ba il sh al l no t be req ui red

, no r ex ces si ve fin es im po se d, no r cru el 6

or un us ua l p un is hm en ts in fli ct ed .” Mi nn . Con st . art . I, § 5

.

-4

-Und er Mi nn es ot a la w, th e di sp os it io n of an earl ie r c l a i m c on st it ut es a re s

ju di ca ta ba r ag ai ns t th e li ti ga ti on of a su bs eq ue nt cl ai m whe re “ (1 ) th e earl ie r cl ai m
in vo lv ed th e s a me se t of fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces ; (2 ) th e earl ie r cl ai m in vo lv ed th e

sa m e pa rti es or t he ir p riv ie s; (3) th ere was a fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts ; [an d] ( 4)

th e es to pp ed pa rty ha d a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te th e m at te r.” Hau sc hi ld t

v. Becki ng ha m , 68 6 N.W .2d 82 9, 84 0 (Mi nn

. 20 04 ). “ Res jud ic at a ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to
cl ai m s act ua ll y li ti ga te d an d to cl ai m s t h a t c o u l d ha ve be en li ti ga te d in th e earl ie r

act io n.” Bro wn -W

il be rt

, In c. v. Co

pe la nd Buh l & Co

. , 73 2 N.W .2d 20 9, 22 0 (Mi nn

. 20 07 ). W he re a p l a in ti ff’s cl ai m s co m e to a fin al jud gm en t, th at jud gm en t

“ co ns ti tu te s an ab so lu te ba r to a se co nd su it fo r th e sa m e ca u s e of act io n, an d is

co nc lu si ve be twee n p art ie s an d pr iv i[]es

, no t on ly as to ev ery m at te r whi ch was

act ua ll y li ti ga te d, bu t al so as to ev ery m at te r whi ch m ig ht ha ve be en l i t i g at ed

, th erei n.” Beu tz v. A. O. Smi th Har ves to re Pro ds

., In c. , 43 1 N.W .2d 52 8, 53 1 (Mi nn

. 19 88 ) (q uo ti ng Y

ou ng st ow n Min es Co rp

. v. Pro ut
, 12 4 N.W.2 d 3 2 8

, 34 0 (Mi nn

. 19 63 )). The pa rti es in th is la wsu it an d in th e fo rm er st at e pr oc eed in gs are pl ai nl y th e

sa m e, an d Laas e do es no t co nt en d ot he rwis e on ap pe al

. He do es ch al le ng e, ho wev er, each of t he ot he r th ree e le m en ts

.

Laas e ur ge s th at th e f

i r s t el em en t is no t m et be cau se hi s fed eral cl ai m s ari se
fro m di ffer en t fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces th an th e cl ai m s adju di cat ed in st at e co ur t. The

un de rlyin g fact s— th e arre st an d co nv ic ti on of Ms

. Laas e an d th e se iz ur e of th e

ve hi cl e—a re th e sa m e. Howev er, Laas e su gg es ts th at al th ou gh in s t at e co ur t he

ch al le ng ed th e se iz ur e an d fo rf ei ta bi li ty of

th e v eh ic le

, he no w ch al le ng es it s actu al fo rf ei tu re

. The st at e-co ur t de te rm in at io n th at hi s ve hi cl e is fo rfei ta bl e, he cl ai m s,

co ns ti tu te s a cru ci al ad di ti on al fact

. I n d e ed

, Laas e op in es th at hi s co ns ti tu ti on al

cl ai m s co u l d n o t ha ve be en br ou gh t un ti l th e st at e jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs co nc lu de d,

res ul ti ng in th e de te rm in at io n of fo rfei ta bi li ty, an d un ti l th e Co un ty ta ke s th e ad di ti on al st ep of pr oc u rin g a jud gm en t of fo rfei tu re. Alt ern at iv el y , be cau se th e
Co un ty ha s po in te d to n o su ch jud gm en t of fo rfei tu re, Laas e cl ai m s th at th e th ird

el em en t al so is no t m et be cau se th ere was no fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts

. Mo reo ve r,

-5

-be cau se he co ul d no t ha ve li ti ga te d hi s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e to fo rfei tu re un ti l th e

st at e l i ti ga ti on de te rm in ed fo rfei ta bi li ty, he arg ue s th at he ha d no fu ll an d fai r

op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te hi s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s in th e st at e la wsu it an d th at th e fo ur th

re s j ud ic at a el em en t t he refo re al so is no t s at is fie d.

La a se ’s ch al le ng e to th es e th ree el em en ts of th e re s ju di ca ta do c t r i n e

m is ap pr eh en ds th e na tu re of Mi nn es ot a’s st at ut or y fo rfei tu re sc he m e. Und er Mi nn

. St at

. se ct io n 16 9A.6 3( 8)

, (1 0)

, if th e own er of a se iz ed ve hi cl e fai ls to fil e a de m an d

fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n wit hi n 30 da y s aft er rece ip t of th e st at e ag en cy ’s no ti ce of

in te nt to se ek fo rfei tu re, th e ve hi cl e is au to m at ic al ly fo rfei te d. Und er

se ct io n 16 9A.6 3( 9)

, (1 0)

, if th e own er do es fil e a de m an d fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n

an d th e co ur t de te rm in es th at a ve hi cl e is su b je c t t o f or fei tu re, th e st at e ag en cy is

im m ed ia te ly au th or iz ed to “ se ll th e ve hi cl e an d di st rib ut e th e pr oc eed s” or “ ke ep th e

ve hi cl e fo r o f

f i c i a l us e.” § 16 9A.6 3( 10 )(a)

. Acco rd in gl y , ev en if a de m an d fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n is fil ed , for fei tu re i s au to m at ic up on a de te rm in at io n th at th e

own er co m

m it te d a de si gn at ed of

fen se an d ha s fai le d to pr ov e an affi rm at iv e de fen se

.

Bec au se of th is au to m at ic na tu re of fo rfei tu re un de r th e st at ut e, th e fact th at

st at e li ti ga ti on ov er fo rfei ta bi li ty ha s co nc lu de d ad ds no th in g to t h e “gro up of

op erat iv e fact s” th at gi ve s ris e to Laas e’s st at e an d fed eral ex ces si ve fin es an d ta ki ng s cl ai m s. Se e Hau sc hi ld t
, 68 6 N.W .2d at 84 0 (q uo ti ng Mar ti n ex re l. Hof f v. Ci ty of

Roc he st er , 64 2 N.W .2d 1

, 9 (Mi nn

. 20 02 )). Laas e’s ne wly as se rte d co ns ti tu ti on al

cl ai m s are ba se d on th e sa m e se t of fact s as th e affi rm at iv e de fen se s to fo rfei tu re th at

Laas e as se rte d in st at e co ur t— th e arre st an d co nv ic ti on of Ms

. Laas e, th e se iz ur e of

th ei r ve hi cl e, an d th e Co un ty’ s no ti ce of in te nt to fo rfei t. Bec au se bo th se ts of cl ai m s

are ba se d on th e sa m e fact s, th ey are su pp or te d by th e sa m e ev id en ce. Se e id

. at 84 0-

41 (“ The ‘com

m on te st fo r de te rm in in g whe th er a fo rm er jud g men t i s a ba r to a

su bs eq ue nt act io n is to in qu ire whe th er th e sa m e ev id en ce wil l su st ai n bo th act io ns .’ ” (q uo ti ng McMen omy v. Ryd en , 14 8 N.W .2d 80 4, 80 7 (Mi nn

. 19 67 ))). Acco rd in gl y ,

-6

-Laas e’s earl ie r st at e-l aw an d do ub le -jeo pa rd y cl ai m s an d th e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s he

no w ass ert s “ in vo lv e[] th e sa m e se t o f fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces .” See id

. at 8 40

.

Mo reo ve r, be cau se se ct io n 16 9A.6 3( 9)

, (1 0) m ak es fo rfei tu re au to m at ic up on a jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n th at a ve hi cl e is su bjec t t o fo rfei tu re, n o s ep arat e jud gm en t

su bs eq ue nt to a de te rm in at io n of fo rfei ta bi li ty is ne ces sa ry to effe ct th e fo rfei tu re of

a ve hi cl e. Onc e th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ru le d th at th e in no cen t own er de fen se

was no t av ai la bl e to Laas e, th e fo rfei tu re of hi s ve hi cl e was co m pl et e. To be su re, th e

co ur t’s op in io n sa y s “ th e ve hi cl e was pr op erl y fo rfei t a b le .” La as e , 77 6 N.W .2d at

43 9- 40

. Howev er, si nc e th e co ur t di d no t rem an d fo r an y ad di ti on al pr oc eed in gs aft er

rev ers in g th e ap pl ic at io n of th e in no cen t own er de fen se , it is ev id en t th at no fu rth er jud ic ia l st ep s were ne ces sa ry to e f fect th e fo rfei tu re. The refo re, th e Mi nn es ot a
Su pr em e Co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at th e in no cen t own er de fen se di d no t ap pl y

pr op erl y ser ve s as a fi na l ju dg m en t fo r re s j ud ic at a pu rp os es

.

Our co nc lu si on th at no ad di ti on al st ep s were ne ces sa ry to effe ct th e fo rfei tu re
of th e ve hi cl e al s o is fat al to Laas e’s su gg es ti on th at he ha d no fu ll an d fai r

op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te hi s co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s in th e st at e-co ur t pr oc eed in gs

. To th e

ex te nt Laas e arg ue s th at hi s co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es to fo rfei tu re were no t rip e un ti l

st at e-co ur t li ti ga ti on o v e r se iz ur e an d fo rfei ta bi li ty co nc lu de d, hi s arg um en t fai ls

be cau se fo rfei tu re is au to m at ic up on th e de te rm in at io n of fo rfei ta bi li ty. As a res ul t,

Laas e’s co ns ti tu ti on al cl a im s were rip e an d co ul d ha ve be en as se rte d in th e

un de rlyin g st at e li ti ga ti on

. Mi nn es ot a co ur ts ro ut in el y he ar co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es
in for fei tu re p ro ceed in gs

. Se e, e.g

. , Mil le r v. On e 2 00 1 Po nt ia c Azt ek , 66 9 N.W.2d

89 3 (Mi nn

. 20 03 ); Bor

gq ui st v. 20 02 For d F35 0

, No. A10 -7 33

, 20 10 W L 34 63 71 3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. Sep t. 7, 20 10 ) (u np ub li sh ed ); Ci ty of New Bri gh t o n v. 20 00 For d

Excu rs io n , 62 2 N.W .2d 36 4 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 01 ). In de ed

, in th e st at e di st ric t co ur t,

Laas e as se rte d th e affi rm at iv e de f e n se th at th e se iz ur e of hi s ve hi cl e vi ol at ed th e
Co ns ti tu ti on ’s D o u b l e Je op ard y Cl au se

. Not hi ng pr ev en te d hi m fro m rai si ng hi s fed eral an d st at e ex ces si ve fin es an d tak in gs cl ai m s at t ha t t im e. In fact

, Mi nn es ot a

-7

-pr in ci pl es of re s ju di ca ta req ui red hi m to do so

. Se e Bro wn -W il be rt
, 73 2 N.W .2d at

22 0 (“ Res jud ic at a ap pl ie s eq ua ll y to cl ai m s act ua ll y li ti ga te d an d to cl ai m s th at co ul d

ha ve be en li ti ga te d i n t he earl ie r act io n.” ). 7

We a l s o reject Laas e’s arg um en t th at re s ju di ca ta do es no t ap pl y be cau s e a

st at e ag en cy ’s cl ai m fo r fo rfei tu r e i s a pe rm is si ve co un te rcl ai m un de r Mi nn

. St at

.

se ct io n 16 9A.6 3( 9 ) ( c ) a n d “ [t]he re is no res jud ic at a sa nc ti on fo r no t rai si ng a

pe rm is si ve co un te rcl ai m .” G.A.W

. v. D.M.W

. , 59 6 N.W .2d 28 4, 28 8 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 19 99 ). The Co un ty’ s as se rti on of re s ju di ca ta is ba se d on Laas e’s fai lu re to rai se hi s

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s as an affi rm at iv e de fen se , no t on an y fai lu re by t he Co un t y t o
rai se a co un te rcl ai m f

o r f o r f ei tu re. W hi le th e as se rti on of a co un te rcl ai m fo r
fo rfei tu re m ay be pe rm is si ve , the as se rti on of an affi rm at iv e de fen se ag ai ns t fo rfei tu re is no t. Onc e a st at e ag en cy se rv es a no ti ce of in te nt to fo rfei t, th e own er m us t ei th er

m ak e a de m an d fo r jud ic ia l de te rm in at io n wit hi n 30 da y s or be su bjec t to au to m at ic

fo rfei tu re. Se e § 16 9A.6 3( 8)

, (1 0)

. If t h e o w n e r m ak es a de m an d fo r jud ic ia l

de te rm in at io n, “[t ]here is a pr es um pt io n th at a ve hi cl e se iz ed un de r th is se ct io n is

su bjec t to fo rfei tu re if th e pr os ecu ti ng au th or it y es ta bl is he s th at th e ve hi cl e was us ed

in th e co m

m is si on of a de si gn at ed of fen se ,” an d un le ss th e own er carr ie s hi s bu rd en
of pr ov in g an affi rm at iv e d e f e n s e , th e ve hi cl e wil l be fo rfei te d. § 16 9A.6 3( 9) (e).

Thi s is tru e reg ard le ss of whe th er th e st at e ag en cy br in gs a se pa rat e co un te rcl ai m fo r
fo rfei tu re. Laas e was req ui red to rai se an d pr ov e an y affi rm at iv e de fen se up on whi ch

Lass e’s su gg es ti on th at he was de ni ed a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te th e 7

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s he no w a ss ert s be cau se th e c o n st it ut io na l cl ai m s he ad va nc ed in st a t e c o u r t w ere m oo te d by th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on in hi s fav or on ot he r gr ou nd s m is se s th e m ark

. The ta ki ng s and ex ces si ve fin es cl ai m s Laas e at te m pt s to br in g no w are di st in ct fro m th e do ub le -jeo pa rd y affi rm at iv e d e f e n s e r a is ed in st at e

c o u r t

. Fu rth er, we do no t read th e un sp eci fie d co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng e La a s e ad va nc ed in st at e co ur t, to th e ex te nt it di ffer s fro m th e do ub le -jeo pa rd y cl ai m , as

en co m pa ss in g th e two co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s he no w rai se s. Acco rd in gl y , th es e earl ie r

co ns ti tu ti on al ch al le ng es are rel ev an t on ly in so far as th ey sh ow th at Laas e at th at ti m e al so co ul d h av e b ro ug ht th e ad di ti on al co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s h e n ow as se rts

. -8

-he ho pe d to be gr an te d rel ie f, a n d u n d e r Mi nn es ot a la w th ere is no reas on no t to

at ta ch a re s j ud ic at a san ct io n t o h is fai lu re t o d o s o.

Fi na ll y , Laas e no te s th at re s ju di ca ta is a fle xi bl e do ct rin e th at “ sh ou ld no t be rig id ly ap pl ie d wit ho ut an an al y si s of whe th er th e ap pl ic at io n of th e do ct rin e wou ld

wor k an in

jus ti ce on th e pa rty ag ai ns t who m it is ur ge d.” Ru c k er v. Sc hmi dt

, 76 8

N.W .2d 40 8, 41 7 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. 20 09 ), af f’d

, 79 4 N.W .2d 11 4 (Mi nn

. 20 11 ).

Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t m ad e no ex pl ic it de te rm in at io n th at ap pl ic at io n of r es ju di ca ta wou ld be jus t an d eq ui ta bl e in th is cas e, Laas e co nt en ds th at we m us t rem an d

fo r su ch an an al y si s. Thi s a r g u men t fai ls to pe rs ua de fo r two reas on s. Fi rs t, th e di st ric t co ur t’s di sc us si on of th e el em en ts of re s ju di ca ta in di cat es th at th e co ur t was

aware th at th e ap pl ic at io n of the do ct rin e im pl ic at ed qu es ti on s o f jus ti ce and eq ui ty

an d th at th e co ur t was no t ap pl y in g th e do ct rin e in a rig id

, in fle xi bl e m an ne r. Seco nd

,

we are con vi nc ed th at ap pl y in g th e do ct rin e of re s ju di ca ta res ul ts in no in jus ti ce in

th is cas e. The do ct rin e pr om ot es im po rta nt in te res ts in fin al it y an d th e av oi da nc e of pi ecemeal li ti ga ti on , se e Roa ch v. Tea mst er s Lo ca l Uni on No

. 68 8

, 59 5 F.2 d 44 6, 44 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 79 )

, a n d e q u i ty is no t di ss erv ed by pr ecl ud in g th e fu rth er li ti ga ti on of

cl ai m s th at Laas e ha d a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to a s s e rt in st at e co ur t. In th es e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at an y fai lu re by th e di st ric t co ur t to de cl are ex pr es sl y th at re s j ud ic at a was ju st ly app li ed was, at m os t, a h arm le ss erro r. 8

Laas e s u g g e s t s th at Mi nn es ot a em pl oys a pe r se ru le req ui rin g a co ur t to 8
ba la nc e th e eq ui ti es be fo re ap pl y in g re s ju di ca ta an d th at an y fai lu re to do so req ui res

rev ers al

, e v e n i f h a rm le ss

. In su pp or t of th is pr op os it io n, he ci te s th e Mi nn es ot a ap pe ll at e de ci si on in Ruc ker

, 76 8 N.W .2d at 41 7- 18

, whi ch he in te rp ret s as ad op ti ng

su ch a ru le

. W e can fin d no de ci si on s by th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t to th is effe ct

. In de ed

, in rev ie win g th e de ci si on in Ruc ker

, th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ex pl ic it ly refu se d to reac h th e qu es ti on whe th er suc h a pe r se ru le was ap pr op ria te

. Ruc ker v. Sc hmi dt , 7 94 N.W .2d 11 4, 12 1 n.8 (Mi nn . 20 11 ). W e de cl in e Laas e’s in vi ta ti on to
ap pl y su ch a pe r se req ui rem en t be cau se we co nc lu de th at Ruc ker is no t p ers ua si ve

ev id en ce th at th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t w o u l d req ui re su ch fo rm al is m

. Se e Co tt on v. Co mmod

or e Exp re ss , In c. , 45 9 F.3d 86 2, 8 64 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6) (“ Deci si on s fro m in te rm ed ia te st at e co ur ts are ev id en ce of ho w th e st at e su pr em e co ur t m ig ht ru le

, -9

-“ Onc e th ere is an ad jud ic at io n of a di sp ut e be twee n pa rti es , res jud i cat a

pr ev en ts ei th er pa rty fro m rel it ig at in g cl ai m s ari si ng fro m th e or ig in al ci rcu m st an ces ,

ev en un de r ne w le ga l th eo rie s.” Hau sc hi ld t
, 68 6 N.W .2d at 83 7. W e co nc lu de

, ba se d

on Mi nn es ot a’s pr in ci pl es of re s ju di ca ta
, th at th e cl ai m s Laas e as se rts in th is

li ti ga ti on are ba rred by th e earl ie r st at e-co ur t jud gm en t, pr ecl ud in g hi m fro m rai si ng
th em in th is lat er p ro ceed in g. Se e Beu tz , 43 1 N.W.2d a t 5 31

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

bu t t he y are n ot bi nd in g.” ).
-1 0-