Appellant contends the district court erred in not ordering the return of his vehicle because the police did not furnish proper notice of forfeiture, thus violating his statutory rights under Minn. Stat. But this section also provides, Notice mailed by certified mail to the address shown in department of public safety records is sufficient notice to the registered owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, we conclude that appellant was lawfully arrested, his vehicle was seized, and the state provided him with notice of forfeiture within a reasonable time. The district court did not err in denying appellant the return of his vehicle. Due Process Appellant also argues that seizure of his property violates his due process rights under the state and federal constitutions.
Due process requires that notice and an opportunity for a hearing precede deprivation of property.
Minnesota Bd. of Med. Finally, appellant argues the district court erred in denying his motion for fees, costs and disbursements. Because the forfeiture was proper, appellant is not entitled to fees, costs, or disbursements.