Opinion ID: 2234872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Retaining the Seized Items

Text: 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. The version of section 626.04 in effect in 1978 [2] provides, in relevant part: When any officer shall seize, with or without warrant, any property or thing, the same shall be safely kept by direction of the court or magistrate, so long as may be necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial, and then the property or things shall, unless otherwise subject to lawful detention, be returned to the owner thereof, or to such other person as may be entitled to the possession of the same and the other things so seized may be destroyed or otherwise disposed of under the direction of the court or justice of the peace. Ture argues that the statutory language indicating that property seized by an officer shall be safely kept by direction of the court or magistrate so long as may be necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial means that the police must obtain specific permission from a court in order to retain seized property. The state argues that this interpretation is absurd because it would place an enormous burden on law enforcement and on district courts by requir[ing] police to obtain judicial authorization every time evidence is seized and not immediately returned. The state interprets the statutory language as meaning that evidence held by the police is under the direction of the court; [it] is under the court's control, and may be ordered returned by the court. We agree with the state's interpretation of section 626.04 and conclude that retention of the metal bar, the toy car, and the ski mask was not improper. Ture also argues that, after his 1981 trial for the murder of Diane Edwards, see State v. Ture, 353 N.W.2d 502 (Minn.1984), the state was required to return his property unless otherwise subject to lawful detention. The problem with this argument is that it ignores the statutory language that permits the seized property to be retained so long as may be necessary for the purpose of being produced as evidence on any trial. Because Ture continued to be a suspect in the Huling murders, particularly in light of his confessions to Toby Krominga and Randall Ferguson, but had not been tried for any of them, retention of the items for the purpose of introducing them at a future trial was proper.
We next address whether the district court erred when it permitted the state to introduce the toy car seized from Ture's car or when it allowed an expert witness to testify that the leather-wrapped metal bar seized from Ture's car caused the bruise injury found under Alice Huling's right breast.