Jon Peter Smith, Appellant,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A23-1638

Jon Peter Smith,
Appellant,

vs.

$17,554.00 in U.S. Currency and
All Physical Property Listed on PropertyReceipt
(Vizio Flat Screen TV, Vizio FlatScreen TV, Nightowl DVR,
Six VideoSurveillance Cameras and Associated Cords,
and Cassida Tiger Money Counter),
Respondent.

Filed September 3, 2024
Affirmed
Larson, Judge

Isanti County District Court
File No. 30-CV-20-318

Jon Peter Smith, Faribault, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Jeffrey R. Edblad, Isanti County Attorney, Nicholas J. Colombo, Assistant County
Attorney, Cambridge, Minnesota (for respondent)

Considered and decided by Larson, Presiding Judge; Segal , Chief Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.∗

∗ Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARSON, Judge
Appellant Jon Peter Smith challenges a district court decision ordering forfeiture of
$17,554 and certain items of personal property1 to the Isanti County Sheriff’s Office on the
ground that he presented evidence that he earned the money through legitimate means.
Because we conclude the district court did not clearly err when it found the forfeited money
was not legitimately gained, we affirm.
FACTS
The State of Minnesota charged Smith with first-degree sale of a controlled
substance, first- degree possession of a controlled substance, and first-degree storage of
methamphetamine paraphernalia in the presence of a child. Following Smith’s arrest,
$17,554 and certain items of personal property were seized and forfeited. Smith pleaded
guilty to first-degree possession, and the state dismissed the other two charges. On July 2,
2020, Smith filed a demand for judicial determination of forfeiture. The following facts
are taken from the evidence submitted during the forfeiture trial.
“[S]ometime before noon” on May 12, 2020, a drug task force conducted a
controlled buy of $2,800 worth of methamphetamine from Smith. Around 4:00 p.m., the
task force executed a search warrant on Smith’s residence. When the task force executed
the search warrant, Smith was alone in the detached garage.

1 In a civil-forfeiture action, “[t]he property seized becomes the defendant based on the
legal fiction that it is the inanimate object itself, not its possessor or owner, that is guilty of
wrongdoing.” Riley v. 1987 Station Wagon, 650 N.W.2d 441, 443 (Minn. 2002). Thus,
the seized property is the respondent in this matter.
3
Upon searching the property, the task force recovered around a pound and a half of
methamphetamine from the garage. They also seized two televisions, six surveillance
cameras, a digital-video recorder (DVR), and a money -counting machine. The task force
found the televisions, DVR, and money-counting machine in the garage, and the
surveillance cameras around the property. The televisions were connected to the DVR,
which recorded video footage from the surveillance cameras. The Isanti County sheriff
testified that the electronics “provide . . . safety and security for an individual who could
potentially be selling drugs.”
Task-force officers arrested Smith and searched his person. The officers found more
than $17,000 in cash on Smith’s person. The money was arranged in rubber-banded
bundles, and the sheriff testified that, in his experience, this was consistent with the sale of
controlled substances. The officers found the $2,800 from the controlled buy among the
money confiscated from Smith’s person.2
Following Smith’s arrest, an officer tested samples swabbed from the money for the
presence of methamphetamine. The testing officer took three samples, which contained
41%, 57%, and 73% methamphetamine, with two samples also testing positive for high
amounts of cocaine. The testing officer testified that, in his experience, most samples from
seized currency contain less than 20% of a particular drug, so these results were “more than
usual.” By comparison, the testing officer stated that money in regular circulation normally

2 Although the sheriff testified that the $2,800 was “commingled” with the other money,
on cross-examination he admitted that the first time he saw the money was when it was
being counted on the hood of a squad car. The sheriff further testified that the officers
commingled money from different bundles as it was counted.
4
will not “alarm” for any controlled substance, although they will occasionally set off a
“lower alarm[]” at 2-5% cocaine. The sheriff similarly testified that the test results were
the highest he had seen in his career.
At trial, Smith did not dispute that he was selling drugs in his home but claimed the
seized money “was different money” from the money related to his drug sales. Smith
presented evidence to support his argument that he obtained the money through legitimate
means.
First, Smith entered two purchase agreements into evidence showing that he had
sold two cars for a combined total of $8,250 on May 8, 2020. Smith testified that he was
paid cash for both cars, he kept the money on his person, and the money was in his pocket
when he was arrested on May 12, 2020. Smith further testified that he did not put the
money in the bank because, per the social-security rules, his bank account must not exceed
$2,000, or he must return the money he receives from social security.
Second, Smith entered into evidence several W-2G tax forms from 2019 and 2020,
showing gambling winnings he received from various casinos. The W-2G winnings totaled
$43,920.69. Smith testified that he received these winnings in cash. Smith explained that
he would typically use these winnings to continue gambling, but that he stopped doing so
because the pandemic made it difficult to go to the casinos. Smith testified that he won
around $17,200 in December 2019, and he kept essentially all of that money in his jacket
pocket because, due to the social-security rules, he did not want to bring it to a bank. Smith
also said he did not put the money in a safe or other secure location because it “made [him]
feel good,” to have the money in his pocket.
5
At the conclusion of trial, the district court ordered the property forfeited to the
Isanti County Sheriff’s Office. The district court found that the seized money “tested
positive for high levels of methamphetamine and cocaine,” and that the controlled- buy
money was comingled with the other money confiscated from Smith’s pockets. The district
court further noted that Smith “admitted to drug-related offenses, including the sale of
drugs.” Given these facts, the district court found that it was “highly probable . . . that the
currency was involved in drug transactions and was representative of proceeds of illegal
drug activity.” The district court also addressed Smith’s evidence that he obtained the
money legitimately. The district court explicitly found that “it [was] not credible that
[Smith] would keep over $17,000.00 on his person into mid-2020 from gambling in 2019
and the sale of the vehicles, particularly when the money was tainted with high levels of
methamphetamine and cocaine and was mixed in with the drug buy money.” Based on
these findings, the district court determined the state had proven “by clear and convincing
evidence” that the money and other seized assets were proceeds or “instrumentalities of a
controlled substance offense.”
Smith appeals.
DECISION
Smith challenges the district court’s decision that the money was subject to
forfeiture after he pleaded guilty to first-degree possession of a controlled substance .
Specifically, Smith argues the district court’s findings regarding the source of the seized
6
money were clearly erroneous because he presented evidence at trial establishing that the
money was legitimately gained.3
We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error. Woodruff v. 2008
Mercedes, 831 N.W.2d 9, 13 (Minn. App. 2013); Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. “A district court’s
findings of fact are not to be disturbed if they are supported by reasonable evidence. ”
Woodruff, 831 N.W.2d at 13. When reviewing factual findings for clear error, we defer to
the district court’s credibility determinations and will not “reweigh the evidence,” “engage
in fact-finding anew,” or “reconcile conflicting evidence.” In re Civil Commitment of
Kenney, 963 N.W.2d 214, 221-23 (Minn. 2021) (quotations omitted). We will only reverse
for clear error when, “on the entire evidence, we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Id. at 221 (quotation omitted).
Forfeiture “is a civil in rem action, generally independent of any criminal
prosecution.” Jacobson v. $55,900 in U.S. Currency, 728 N.W.2d 510, 519 (Minn. 2007).
Under Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 1(a)(1) (2018), 4 all money found in proximity to a
controlled substance is “presumed to be subject to administrative forfeiture.” Under Minn.
Stat. § 609.5311, subd. 2(a) (2018), personal property “that has been used, . . . or has in

3 Smith also argues that the legislature amended the forfeiture statutes in 2021 to “elevate[]
the burden of proof” required in forfeiture cases. We agree that the 2021 amendments
modified the statutory framework for civil forfeitures, but the applicable amendments only
apply to seizures that took place “on or after” January 1, 2022. See 2021 Minn. Laws 1st
Spec. Sess. ch. 11, art. 5, §§ 11, at 2072-73 (amending Minn. Stat. 609.5311, subd. 2(a)
(2020)); 14, at 2074-75 (amending Minn. Stat. 609.5314, subd. 1(a)) (2020)). Here, the
seizures took place on May 12, 2020.
4 The legislature also amended Minn. Stat. § 609.5314, subd. 1, in 2023. See 2023 Minn.
Laws, ch. 63, art. 4, § 46 at 2847-48. Like the 2021 amendments, these changes are not
applicable to the seizure at issue in this case.
7
any way facilitated, . . . exchanging of . . . a controlled substance . . . is subject to
forfeiture.” “Certain law enforcement agencies may seize such property without judicial
process if the seizure is incident to a lawful search. A person claiming an interest in the
property may then demand a judicial determination as to whether the property is connected
to drug trafficking and therefore subject to forfeiture.” Jacobson, 728 N.W.2d at 519
(citations omitted). “The appropriate agency handling the judicial forfeiture 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)
(2018).
Here, the district court found that: Smith admitted to “drug-related offenses,
including the sale of drugs”; the money was seized “in Smith’s garage, in close proximity
to the methamphetamine”; samples from the money “tested positive for high levels of
methamphetamine and cocaine”; and the money from the controlled buy was commingled
with the other money on Smith’s person. With respect to Smith’s claim that he obtained
the money through legitimate means, the district court explicitly found “that it [was] not
credible that [Smith] would keep over $17,000.00 on his person” for noncriminal purposes
“when the [money] was tainted with high levels of methamphetamine and cocaine and was
mixed in with the drug buy money.” Given these facts, the district court determined, “by
clear and convincing evidence,” that the money and other assets seized were proceeds or
“instrumentalities of a controlled substance offense.”
We conclude that the record amply supports the district court’s finding that Smith
did not obtain the money through legitimate means . The district court’s finding is
8
supported by testimony from the sheriff and testing officer, Smith’s admission that he
engaged in the sale of methamphetamine, and the high positive test results for
methamphetamine and cocaine on the money. Further, the district court explicitly found
Smith’s testimony that he kept the money from his gambling winnings and the sale of the
vehicles on his person “not credible.” See Rife v. One 1987 Chevrolet Cavalier, 485
N.W.2d 318, 321 (Minn. App. 1992) (noting that we give due regard to a district court’s
credibility determinations), rev. denied (Minn. June 30, 1992). Because we are not left
with a definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake when it found
Smith did not obtain the money through legitimate means, the district court’s finding that
the forfeited money was involved in drug transactions or represented the proceeds of illegal
drug activity was not clearly erroneous. We, therefore, affirm the district court’s forfeiture
order.
Affirmed.