Why isn't Olmsted County or RPD getting rich off criminals' goodies?
Feb. 16—Dear Answer Man: What does Olmsted County do with all the property it confiscates when it arrests criminals? Are those items put up for sale? And if, so, where can I buy them? I'm assuming whatever is confiscated comes pretty cheap? — Looking For a Deal.
Dear Deal,
If your goal is to get a great deal on a McLaren 750S, you might want to check the police auction in Miami. Around these parts, the best you'll find — we're working off 2023 data here — is the 2003 Mercury Sable sold by Olmsted County for $1,575. Yep, RPD and Olmsted County are fresh out of supercars, cigar boats and yachts.
Now, if a cool turn-of-the-century Mercury is your jam (and why wouldn't it be?), let's go through the process of getting one for the low, low price of $1,575.
First, in Minnesota, a piece of property can be confiscated — the process is called asset forfeiture — if it meets one of the following conditions. A property is subject to forfeiture if it was either personal property used or intended for use to commit or facilitate the commission of a designated offense; or real or personal property representing the proceeds of a designated offense.
So, say you're going to use a 2003 Mercury Sable to transport drugs (retail value of the drugs must be more than $25), then that car can be seized and sold. Or, say you sell a lot of drugs, and the money you made off your illicit enterprise is used to buy a sweet 2003 Mercury Sable, then law enforcement can confiscate that car and sell it to someone at auction. The asset in question does not have to be a Mercury Sable. In 2023, Olmsted County also sold a Saturn SL, a Honda Accord and a Dodge Ram.
None of this represented a get-rich-quick scheme for the county. All told, Olmsted County netted $4,227 from asset forfeiture in 2023.
Rochester Police did somewhat better, but only because RPD ignored the forfeiture of assets that weren't cash money. RPD sold a couple of cars back to the owners, and the agency simply did away with a confiscated firearm. But when a drug crime was committed and there was cash on hand, RPD took the money to the tune of $22,372 and a total asset forfeiture net profit of $23,496.
And, without going too far into the law, there are rules for what can and cannot be seized. In 2021, the Legislature put some further guardrails on administrative forfeiture. Not-so-coincidentally, the number of forfeitures statewide has been falling over the last few years, from nearly 8,000 in 2019 to less than 4,000 in 2023.
Does RPD — or Olmsted County for that matter — just apply that money to its general fund?
Not exactly. First, proceeds from a property sale must be first applied to satisfy any valid liens, forfeiture sales expenses or to pay court-ordered restitution. Remaining proceeds from a sale then get distributed with 70% going to the law enforcement agency, 20% going to the prosecuting agency and 10% going to the state general fund.
All that is to say, asset forfeiture isn't a big deal in Olmsted County or in Minnesota in general. Statewide, the net proceeds in 2023 were $4,392,712 from 3,873 completed forfeitures across 243 law enforcement agencies: federal, state and local.
Still, keep an eye out for any 2003 Mercury Sables. The LS version has a 200-horsepower engine (the non-LS engine produces 157 hp). Sure, it's not the 710 hp of a McLaren, but you also don't have to go all the way to Miami.
Send questions to Answer Man at answerman@postbulletin.com .
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gov. McMaster again vetoes bill dismissing gun charge that hasn't been a crime for 15 months
A law passed in March 2024 made it legal for adults to carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. Legislation dismissing pending cases for unlawful carry was again vetoed by Gov. Henry McMaster on May 22, 2025. (Stock photo illustration by Getty Images) COLUMBIA — South Carolinians will continue to face sentencing for a gun charge that's no longer a crime after Gov. Henry McMaster again vetoed a bill erasing the pending cases. A law signed by McMaster 15 months ago made it legal for adults to carry handguns without a permit and allowed past convictions for unlawful carry to be expunged. It set a five-year deadline — until March 2029 — for expungement applications. One conviction per person can be expunged. But the law didn't address pending cases. Last year, McMaster vetoed legislation to dismiss those charges. The Legislature tried again this year with another version of the bill, which both chambers passed unanimously. But the governor vetoed that too. In his May 22 veto letter, the governor made clear his 'fundamental objections to the legislation remain unchanged.' As the state's former U.S. attorney and two-term attorney general, McMaster said he's wary of limiting prosecutors' authority and discretion to resolve those cases. 'Every case is unique and the prosecutors in our state should be permitted to evaluate each case based on law and the facts and then proceed as they deem appropriate,' McMaster wrote. The bill 'would universally strip prosecutors of the ability' to determine whether a case warrants dismissal or prosecution. Besides that, he wrote, it was a crime when they were charged. 'Their alleged actions were, in fact, unlawful,' he wrote. 'To be sure, those actions might not be illegal today, but that distinction misses the critical point that such actions were illegal at the time they were committed.' The question is whether the House will vote this time to override the governor's veto. Last year, the Senate voted unanimously to override the governor's veto, but it takes a supermajority vote in both chambers for a bill to become law despite a veto. And the House never took it up. So, the bill died. Last week, the Senate again voted unanimously to overrule the latest veto. The House never brought it up during the Legislature's one-day special session to adopt the budget. But this time, an override is still possible next year. House Judiciary Chairman Weston Newton said the chamber will likely take a vote when they return in January. The chamber's unanimous approval of the bill May 8 suggests an override won't be a problem, he said. 'It's dismissing charges that are no longer illegal for the purposes of consistency,' said the Bluffton Republican. Following passage in March 2024 of the law allowing any adult who can legally buy a handgun to carry it with or without a concealed carry permit, some solicitors dismissed older charges of unlawful possession on their own. But it wasn't automatic. Some solicitors didn't. As of February, 206 people in 11 of South Carolina's 16 judicial districts had charges pending for that crime alone, according to Lisa Catalanotto, the executive director for the state Commission on Prosecution Coordination. She didn't have numbers from the other five judicial districts. More cases have been dropped since she last collected the numbers in February, said Catalanotto, who didn't yet have an update. But a decline isn't good enough. No one should face conviction for something that's no longer a crime, said Sen. Deon Tedder, who was again the chief sponsor. This time, three Republicans joined him in co-sponsoring the legislation. 'We had to act as a Legislature. It's simply not fair,' said Tedder, D-Charleston. He voted against the bill that legalized carrying a handgun without a permit, which supporters dubbed 'constitutional carry.' But anyone charged with a crime the Legislature has determined is unconstitutional certainly shouldn't be convicted now, Tedder said. 'This fixes something that we missed,' he said. During legislative hearings, opponents of the bill argued some people charged with the crime were known violent offenders, and unlawful carry was just the crime they could be arrested for at the time to build a case. Catalanotto, with the prosecution commission, gave the example of a person who went to a former workplace with a gun, intending to shoot someone, but was chased away at the door. An officer arrested the person for unlawfully carrying a weapon with the intent to add additional charges later, she said. But Tedder pointed to a sentence in the law specifying that an 'immediate dismissal' isn't mandated if the charge was made 'in conjunction with any other criminal offense arising out of the same facts and circumstances. The bill also specifies that a dismissed charge can't be the basis of an unlawful arrest lawsuit — another concern of law enforcement that McMaster said in his veto letter he appreciated legislators addressing. 'We tightened this bill to do what it's supposed to do,' he said.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Man killed, woman seriously injured in two-vehicle crash in Fresno County, CHP says
One person was killed Thursday morning, another seriously injured in a Fresno County crash. The California Highway Patrol said the crash happened at 6:50 a.m. at the intersection of Buttonwillow and American avenues, near Reedley, in the CHP Kings River Resident Port area. A 64-year-old woman from Reedley was driving a Toyota Prius northbound on American when she entered the intersection to make a left turn onto southbound Buttonwillow. A 28-year-old man from Exeter was driving a Honda Accord westbound on Buttonwillow, which has no traffic controls at the intersection. CHP spokesperson Mike Salas said the Toyota entered the intersection in front of the Honda. In an attempt to avoid the collision, the driver of the Honda braked and steered left, but the front of the Toyota collided with the front of the Honda, causing major damage to both vehicles. Both vehicles came to rest on the northwest side of the intersection. The driver of the Honda Accord was pronounced dead. Officers determined the driver was not wearing a seat belt. The driver of the Toyota sustained major injuries and was airlifted to Community Regional Medical Center. Drugs or alcohol do not appear to be contributing factors in the collision, Salas said. The investigation is ongoing.
Boston Globe
11 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Mass. lets criminals go, ICE arrests innocent people. They both need to change.
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Cases like Lopez's show that sometimes, federal authorities have a legitimate gripe with the state's progressive policies. Because of a 2017 Supreme Judicial Court decision, there are instances when the state releases dangerous criminals instead of handing them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Advertisement But the Trump administration is also overstating how much Massachusetts' policies, as bad as they can be, are to blame for its mounting arrests of noncriminals. Both sides need to give a little bit: Massachusetts should be willing to help in cases where ICE wants to arrest a convicted criminal like Lopez. The federal government has the right to deport people who are in this country illegally, and the state should help when it comes to violent criminals. Advertisement What the federal government doesn't have the right to do is compel local law enforcement to go after law-abiding, peaceable immigrants — whether they're here illegally or not. And it shouldn't be targeting noncriminals, either — or using local sanctuary policies as a pretext for the recent arrests of people with no criminal records. Over the past month, ICE has arrested 'If sanctuary cities would change their policies and turn these violent criminal aliens over to us into our custody instead of releasing them into the public, we would not have to go out to the communities and do this,' Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said during an ICE The state's policies date to 2017, when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Lunn v. Commonwealth that the Legislature would have to specifically authorize court officers to honor requests from immigration authorities to hold deportable immigrants. So far, the Democratic-led Legislature has not done so, and it passed up different bills that would allow law enforcement to cooperate on detainers for immigrants who are here illegally and have committed heinous crimes. Inaction on Lunn has drawn scrutiny from conservatives and even a member of Healey's Cabinet. For Worcester County Sheriff Lew Evangelidis, for example, law enforcement's inability to coordinate with federal immigration authorities means that some criminal migrants can be released back into the community. 'Right now, there's no ability to notify ICE and hold that person for [ICE] to make a determination whether they wish to take them into custody and then provide them the due process that they get in the federal system,' he told me. Advertisement Meanwhile, Healey's secretary of Public Safety and Security, Terrence Reidy, has In a statement, Healey's office said it does cooperate with ICE to some extent, such as by notifying ICE when a criminal in state custody is scheduled to be released. But that leaves loopholes for cases like Lopez's, which result in ICE having to rearrest a criminal. There were no collateral arrests when ICE tracked down Lopez because they were banned under the Biden administration — but there could be if a similar arrest were made now. Still, the Trump administration is exaggerating the connection between sanctuary policies and collateral arrests. Cases where criminals like Lopez were released in spite of detainers may have fueled some collateral arrests in the past month. But the Department of Homeland Security has failed to give a detailed breakdown so it's hard to know just how many. In a Advertisement Meanwhile, some of ICE's higher profile examples of collateral arrest seem to have nothing to do with Lunn. Like the case of the 18-year-old Milford student, Marcelo Gomes da Silva, who was arrested on his way to volleyball practice in an operation meant for his father. He was But so far there It isn't crazy for the Trump administration to criticize Massachusetts policies that can and have allowed convicted criminal migrants to be released into the community. In fact, most Americans would agree — a recent University of Massachusetts Amherst But that poll also found that most people Carine Hajjar is a Globe Opinion writer. She can be reached at
