Ramsey County Attorney, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A21-0627

Ramsey County Attorney,
Respondent,

vs.

$139,630.00,
Appellant.

Filed December 27, 2021
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Dakota County District Court
File No. 19HA-CV-18-284

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, James A. Mogen, Assistant County Attorney,
St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Charles S. Clas , Jr., Caplan & Tamburino Law Firm, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Segal, Chief Judge; and
Bratvold, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
In this forfeiture action, claimant argues that the district court committed legal error
by improperly relieving respondent-county of its burden under Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd.
6a(d) (2020), and, alternatively, that the district court improperly determined that the
county had met its burden. We affirm.
2
FACTS
In September 2017, law-enforcement officers received information of synthetic
marijuana (K2) being sold out of a Dollar Plus store located in a high drug-crime area.
During its investigation, law enforcement discovered that a clerk at the store, claimant Jalal
Mouine, was the individual selling K2 at that location. Law enforcement arrested Mouine,
and he pleaded guilty in Ramsey County district court to selling a synthetic cannabinoid.
Law enforcement executed search warrants at several locations connected to
Mouine and seized items of property connected to his drug activities. While searching the
Dakota County residence belonging to Mouine’s sister, law enforcement discovered
$139,630 in currency hidden away. They seized the currency , and respondent Ramsey
County initiated a forfeiture action based on the currency’s connection to Mouine’s drug
activities.
At trial on the forfeiture , the county entered into evidence investigatory reports
detailing Mouine’s drug activity, including evidence that Mouine made frequent trips to
the Dollar Plus store, a storage locker where law enforcement discovered K2 and drug-
related items, and his sister’s residence. Mouine challenged the county’s right to seize the
currency and testified that the currency represented his life savings and had been innocently
obtained. The distric t court found Mouine’s testimony to be entirely not credible and
concluded that the currency seized from Mouine’s sister’s house w as proceeds from
Mouine’s drug activities. The district court ordered forfeiture of the currency to the county.
This appeal follows.

3
DECISION
I. The district court did not relieve the county of its burden of proof.
Mouine argues that the district court relieved the county of its burden to establish a
nexus between the forfeited property and the underlying illicit activity forming the basis
for Mouine’s conviction. Instead, Mouine argues that the district court improperly required
him to first show that the currency had innocent origins. We are not persuaded.
The county seeking forfeiture of property “bears the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence that the property is an instrument or represents the proceeds of the
underlying offense.” Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 6a(d); see also Minn. Stat. § 609.5311,
subds. 2(a), 4(b) (2020) (allowing for forfei ture of proceeds derived from distribution of
controlled substances). We review the application of a statute to undisputed facts de novo.
Sprinkler Warehouse, Inc. v. Systematic Rain, Inc. , 859 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn. App.
2015), aff’d, 880 N.W.2d 16 (Minn. 2016).
Here, the record reflects that the district court did not relieve the county of its
burden. The district court had the county present its case first and admitted evidence the
county argued connected the currency to Mouine’s drug activitie s. The district court then
asked Mouine if he would be testifying to present a defense, which he did. At the
conclusion of trial, the district court stated on the record that the county “does carry the
burden of proof.”
This understanding is reflected in the district court’s order. The district court cited
the correct legal standard and concluded that the county satisfied its burden. Only then did
the district court analyze Mouine’s argument that the currency had innocent origins.
4
Mouine appears to argue that although the district court cited the correct legal
standard, its reliance on evidence provided by Mouine , and not the county, constituted an
impermissible shifting of the burden to Mouine. But Mouine cites to no caselaw for this
proposition. In fact, caselaw suggests the opposite is true. See Manahan v. Halloran, 69
N.W. 619, 620 (Minn. 1896) (finding evidence introduced after plaintiff rested their case
to be sufficient to sustain verdict in their favor); Danielson v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins.
Co., 98 N.W.2d 72 , 78 (Minn. 1959) (commenting that jury could consider evidence as
adverse against the party who submitted it). Therefore, the district court did not relieve the
county of its burden, even if it also relied on evidence presented by Mouine to make its
determination.
II. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the seized
currency was proceeds of Mouine’s drug activities.

Mouine argues that even if the district court did not impermissibly shift the burden,
it erred by determining and applying the facts under the applicable legal standard. We
disagree.
When reviewing mixed questions of law and fact, we correct erroneous applications
of the law and review the district court’s ultimate conclusions for an abuse of discretion .
In re Estate of Sullivan, 868 N.W.2d 750, 754 (Minn. App. 2015). We review findings of
fact for clear error and give due regard to the district court’s credi bility determinations.
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “If there is reasonable evidence to support the [district] court’s
findings of fact, a reviewing court should not disturb those findings.” Fletcher v. St. Paul
Pioneer Press, 589 N.W.2d 96, 101 (Minn. 1999).
5
The county had the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the
currency seized by law enforcement was proceeds of Mouine’s drug activity. See Minn.
Stat. § 609.531, subd. 6a(d). Clear and convincing evidence is shown when the “truth of
the facts asserted is highly probable.” Christie v. Estate of Christie, 911 N.W.2d 833, 839
(Minn. 2018) (quotation omitted) . Clear and convincing evidence may include
circumstantial evidence which “is entitled to as much weight as any other evide nce.”
Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650, 657 (Minn. 1999).
Here, the county presented circumstantial evidence connecting the currency seized
by law enforcement to Mouine. As part of their investigation, law enforcement put a
tracking device onto Mouine’s vehicle. The tracking data revealed that Mouine would
make daily trips between the Dollar Plus stor e, where law enforcement had conducted
several controlled buys, and a storage locker where law enforcement discovered K2, cash,
marijuana, a handgun, and documents belonging to Mouine. The tracking data also
revealed that Mouine would routinely travel from the storage locker to his sister’s residence
where law enforcement seized the currency. He would often then return to the storage
locker. Mouine’s sister also told law enforcement that Mouine had been storing cash at
her house for around a year. This correlated with the same time that law enforcement first
became aware that drugs were being sold out of the Dollar Plus store and is consistent with
Mouine’s testimony that he had been selling K2 for around a year before his arrest.
The county presented clear and convincing evidence that the currency seized by law
enforcement at Mouine’s sister’s residence was proceeds of Mouine’s drug activity. The
tracking data showed a habitual pattern of Mouine traveling between the location where he
6
sold K2, the storage locker where they found K2, and the residence where law enforcement
seized the currency . Mouine’s depositing of cash at his sister’s residence also began
approximately at the same time he began selling K2. The district court also relied on
Mouine’s testimony to conclude that the county had met this burden. As noted previously,
this is permissible. See Manahan, 69 N.W. at 620. Therefore, the record supports the
district court’s determination that the state met its burden of establishing a nexus between
the seized funds and the underlying illicit activity.
Mouine argues that his testimony tends to show that the seized currency had
innocent origins 1 and that it would have been logistically impossible for Mouine to sell
enough K2 in a one-year span to acquire the amount of money seized, $139,630. Mouine
specifically points to his testimony regarding the sale of several businesses and the small
amount of K2 he sold for profit to support this argument. We are not persuaded.

1 Both appellant and the county seem to believe that the “innocent-owner defense” applies
to the seized currency. Minn. Stat. § 609.5311, subd. 3(d) (2020) (restricting forfeiture of
property “only if its owner was privy to the use or intended use described in subdivision 2, or
the unlawful use or intended use of the property otherwise occurred with the owner ’s
knowledge or consent”); see also Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency , 728 N.W.2d 510,
520-21 (Minn. 2007) (explaining innocent-owner defense). However, the innocent-owner
defense only applies to the uses described in subdivision 2, not the proceeds derived from
or traceable to those uses. The legislature recently amended subdivision 3 to clarify in
which situations money can be subject to forfeiture. 2021 Minn. Laws 1st Spec. Sess. ch.
11, art. 5, § 12, at 121-22 (to be codified at Minn. Stat. § 609.5311, subd. 3(h). The addition
of this provision to subdivision 3 , without modifying the innocent -owner defense in
subdivision 3(d) , suggests that the legislature intended to limit the situations in which
money can be forfeited . See Washington County v. Am. Fed ’n of State, C nty. & Mun.
Emps., Council No. 91 , 262 N.W.2d 16 3, 168 (Minn. 1978) (“When
the legislature amends a statute, it is usually presumed that it intends some change in the
law.”). In any case, appellant’s innocent -owner defense would have failed even if it did
apply to this case.
7
Mouine’s argument relies nearly entirely on his own testimony. But the district
court explicitly found Mouine not to be credible and discounted a majority of his testimony.
We must give due regard to the district court’s ability to judge the credibility of the
witnesses. Novack v. Nw. Airlines, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 592, 598 (Minn. App. 1995).
Mouine claimed to have owned several businesses that he sold for large amounts of
cash but struggled to provide details related to the finances of those businesses. Mouine
also provided testimony that the district court rejected related to his personal expenses,
including testimony regarding his lack of knowledge as to how much he paid in taxes
because he was always paid in cas h. Mouine also did not provide any financial
documentation to corroborate his testimony.
The district court also did not find credible Mouine’s testimony related to the sale
of K2, including the number of bags Mouine would sell and the amount for which he would
sell each bag. Although the county did provide evidence that Mouine sold one bag of K2
for $25 and at one time had no K2 to sell, these isolated instances , without more, are not
enough to overturn the district court’s credibility determination.
We defer to the district court ’s credibility determinations rejecting Mouine’s
testimony regarding his financial history and his sales of K2. The record contains enough
evidence to support the district court’s determinations that the seized currency were the
proceeds of Mouine’s drug activit ies, and it was within the district court’s discretion to
order the currency forfeited to the county.
Affirmed.