OPINION
RANDALL, Judge.
Appellant argues that the district court erred when it concluded that it had jurisdiction over money seized from respondent at the time of his arrest (money subject to a possible future forfeiture under Minn.Stat. § 609.762 (1996)). Appellant also argues that the district court further erred when it ruled that respondent could pay his criminal fine with a portion of the seized money. We affirm.
FACTS
On April...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
