This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0622 A14-0970
Gale Allen Rachuy, Appellant,
vs.
Duluth Police Department Property Room, et al., Respondents.
Filed February 2, 2015 Affirmed Smith, Judge
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CV-13-2818
Gale Allen Rachuy, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Gunnar B. Johnson, Duluth City Attorney, M. Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SMITH, Judge
We affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition for return of property
held by law enforcement because the district court did not clearly err when it found that
the requested items were never possessed by law enforcement and because the district court did not err by ordering the destruction of items used to commit appellant’s criminal
offense. We also affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for costs because
appellant is not a prevailing party.
FACTS
In November 2013, appellant Gale Allen Rachuy petitioned the district court to
order respondent Duluth Police Department Property Room to return various items of
personal property. Law enforcement seized the property as part of a 2010 investigation
into Rachuy’s issuance of worthless checks drawn on a closed account. Rachuy has an
extensive criminal record, including convictions for issuing worthless checks.
The district court denied Rachuy’s petition on March 5, 2014. It found that most
of the items listed in Rachuy’s petition had already been returned to him. The district
court also found that Rachuy had failed to present any evidence that two items—a laptop
power cord and a vehicle title—had ever been possessed by law enforcement agents. The
district court ruled that the four remaining items—two books of blank checks, check
stock,1 and a suspended Minnesota driver’s license—were “derivative contraband” under
Minn. Stat. § 626.04(a)(3), (4) (2012), and it ordered them to be destroyed. Complying
with the district court’s order, the Duluth Police Department Property Room destroyed
the items on March 7, 2014.
On March 20, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to order the Duluth Police
Department to search its records for evidence of additional items it had seized from
1 Although neither Rachuy nor the state specifies what “check stock” refers to, it appears to refer to blank paper of the type used for checks, but lacking address, account, or other information normally printed on blank checks.
2 Rachuy but failed to include in its inventory. On March 24, Rachuy moved the district
court for amended findings, again alleging that police officers had failed to inventory
seized items. The district court denied both motions, ruling that they were untimely and
submitted in violation of district court rules.
On April 7, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to order the police department
to return a power cord and additional check stock that he alleged it was holding.
Although the district court scheduled a hearing, the record does not contain any
indication that the district court considered or decided this motion.
On April 14, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to award him costs he
incurred in his petition. The district court denied his motion, ruling that Rachuy was not
a “prevailing party” and was therefore not entitled to receive costs.
Rachuy appealed the district court’s March 6 order in April 2014. By order on
May 2, 2014, this court directed the parties to submit additional briefing addressing
whether Rachuy’s appeal should be dismissed as moot. After receiving memoranda from
both parties, a special term panel of this court allowed Rachuy’s appeal to proceed but
invited this panel to “assess whether the issues appellant raises . . . are moot.”
Rachuy appealed the district court’s denial of his costs motion on June 9, 2014.
This court consolidated his appeals, directing Rachuy to file a statement of the case and
brief addressing the issues in his June 9 appeal. On August 29, Rachuy filed a
supplemental brief, but the brief addressed issues related to both the district court’s
March 6 order and its denial of his motion for costs. On December 4, 2014, this court
granted the department’s motion to strike the portions of Rachuy’s supplemental brief
3 that address issues other than his motion for costs and proffer documents not contained in
the district court record, but it denied the department’s motion to dismiss Rachuy’s June
9 appeal.
DECISION
I.
We first consider whether Rachuy’s appeal is moot. The department argues that
those portions of Rachuy’s appeal that relate to the items that the district court ordered
destroyed should be dismissed because the only relief available—return of the seized
items—is no longer possible. See Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (authorizing no remedy other than
return of seized property). “We generally dismiss a matter as moot when an event occurs
that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief
impossible.” Limmer v. Swanson, 806 N.W.2d 838, 839 (Minn. 2011) (quotation
omitted). But we may consider a moot issue when “the issue is capable of repetition yet
evading review,” In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted),
“because the challenged actions were too short in duration to be fully litigated before they
were rendered moot,” Limmer, 806 N.W.2d at 839.
The mootness exception applies here. The department states that both the check
stock and blank checks are “considered contraband” that “would be destroyed under
normal procedures” “because they cannot be legally used.” Relying on this reasoning,
the district court found that the items were “derivative contraband” and ordered that they
be destroyed. Because the district court did not stay this aspect of its order to allow
appellate review, the department destroyed the items almost immediately after the district
4 court’s order. Since the department has stated that its routine procedure would require
destruction of similar items in future cases, the issue Rachuy presents is likely to recur in
some form in the future. And since this case demonstrates that destruction can occur
before any meaningful opportunity to seek appellate review, it is clear that the actions he
challenges can occur too quickly to be fully litigated. Accordingly, we consider the
merits of Rachuy’s challenge to the destruction of items notwithstanding its mootness.
II.
Rachuy challenges the district court’s determination that various items, including a
laptop power cord and a vehicle title,2 were never in the possession of the department.
We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, reversing “only if, upon
review of the entire evidence, [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made.” Gjovik v. Strope, 401 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Minn. 1987); see also
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A14-0622 A14-0970
Gale Allen Rachuy, Appellant,
vs.
Duluth Police Department Property Room, et al., Respondents.
Filed February 2, 2015 Affirmed Smith, Judge
St. Louis County District Court File No. 69DU-CV-13-2818
Gale Allen Rachuy, Duluth, Minnesota (pro se appellant)
Gunnar B. Johnson, Duluth City Attorney, M. Alison Lutterman, Deputy City Attorney, Duluth, Minnesota (for respondents)
Considered and decided by Smith, Presiding Judge; Schellhas, Judge; and Hooten,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SMITH, Judge
We affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s petition for return of property
held by law enforcement because the district court did not clearly err when it found that
the requested items were never possessed by law enforcement and because the district court did not err by ordering the destruction of items used to commit appellant’s criminal
offense. We also affirm the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for costs because
appellant is not a prevailing party.
FACTS
In November 2013, appellant Gale Allen Rachuy petitioned the district court to
order respondent Duluth Police Department Property Room to return various items of
personal property. Law enforcement seized the property as part of a 2010 investigation
into Rachuy’s issuance of worthless checks drawn on a closed account. Rachuy has an
extensive criminal record, including convictions for issuing worthless checks.
The district court denied Rachuy’s petition on March 5, 2014. It found that most
of the items listed in Rachuy’s petition had already been returned to him. The district
court also found that Rachuy had failed to present any evidence that two items—a laptop
power cord and a vehicle title—had ever been possessed by law enforcement agents. The
district court ruled that the four remaining items—two books of blank checks, check
stock,1 and a suspended Minnesota driver’s license—were “derivative contraband” under
Minn. Stat. § 626.04(a)(3), (4) (2012), and it ordered them to be destroyed. Complying
with the district court’s order, the Duluth Police Department Property Room destroyed
the items on March 7, 2014.
On March 20, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to order the Duluth Police
Department to search its records for evidence of additional items it had seized from
1 Although neither Rachuy nor the state specifies what “check stock” refers to, it appears to refer to blank paper of the type used for checks, but lacking address, account, or other information normally printed on blank checks.
2 Rachuy but failed to include in its inventory. On March 24, Rachuy moved the district
court for amended findings, again alleging that police officers had failed to inventory
seized items. The district court denied both motions, ruling that they were untimely and
submitted in violation of district court rules.
On April 7, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to order the police department
to return a power cord and additional check stock that he alleged it was holding.
Although the district court scheduled a hearing, the record does not contain any
indication that the district court considered or decided this motion.
On April 14, 2014, Rachuy moved the district court to award him costs he
incurred in his petition. The district court denied his motion, ruling that Rachuy was not
a “prevailing party” and was therefore not entitled to receive costs.
Rachuy appealed the district court’s March 6 order in April 2014. By order on
May 2, 2014, this court directed the parties to submit additional briefing addressing
whether Rachuy’s appeal should be dismissed as moot. After receiving memoranda from
both parties, a special term panel of this court allowed Rachuy’s appeal to proceed but
invited this panel to “assess whether the issues appellant raises . . . are moot.”
Rachuy appealed the district court’s denial of his costs motion on June 9, 2014.
This court consolidated his appeals, directing Rachuy to file a statement of the case and
brief addressing the issues in his June 9 appeal. On August 29, Rachuy filed a
supplemental brief, but the brief addressed issues related to both the district court’s
March 6 order and its denial of his motion for costs. On December 4, 2014, this court
granted the department’s motion to strike the portions of Rachuy’s supplemental brief
3 that address issues other than his motion for costs and proffer documents not contained in
the district court record, but it denied the department’s motion to dismiss Rachuy’s June
9 appeal.
DECISION
I.
We first consider whether Rachuy’s appeal is moot. The department argues that
those portions of Rachuy’s appeal that relate to the items that the district court ordered
destroyed should be dismissed because the only relief available—return of the seized
items—is no longer possible. See Minn. Stat. § 626.04 (authorizing no remedy other than
return of seized property). “We generally dismiss a matter as moot when an event occurs
that makes a decision on the merits unnecessary or an award of effective relief
impossible.” Limmer v. Swanson, 806 N.W.2d 838, 839 (Minn. 2011) (quotation
omitted). But we may consider a moot issue when “the issue is capable of repetition yet
evading review,” In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989) (quotation omitted),
“because the challenged actions were too short in duration to be fully litigated before they
were rendered moot,” Limmer, 806 N.W.2d at 839.
The mootness exception applies here. The department states that both the check
stock and blank checks are “considered contraband” that “would be destroyed under
normal procedures” “because they cannot be legally used.” Relying on this reasoning,
the district court found that the items were “derivative contraband” and ordered that they
be destroyed. Because the district court did not stay this aspect of its order to allow
appellate review, the department destroyed the items almost immediately after the district
4 court’s order. Since the department has stated that its routine procedure would require
destruction of similar items in future cases, the issue Rachuy presents is likely to recur in
some form in the future. And since this case demonstrates that destruction can occur
before any meaningful opportunity to seek appellate review, it is clear that the actions he
challenges can occur too quickly to be fully litigated. Accordingly, we consider the
merits of Rachuy’s challenge to the destruction of items notwithstanding its mootness.
II.
Rachuy challenges the district court’s determination that various items, including a
laptop power cord and a vehicle title,2 were never in the possession of the department.
We review a district court’s factual findings for clear error, reversing “only if, upon
review of the entire evidence, [we are] left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been made.” Gjovik v. Strope, 401 N.W.2d 664, 667 (Minn. 1987); see also
Minn. R. Civ. P. 52.01. Rachuy points to no evidence in the record 3 establishing that the
department seized or possessed the power cord or the particular vehicle title he identifies.
Rachuy also repeatedly accuses department officials of lying and stealing. But the
district court found that “everyone has worked in good faith to identify what is being
2 Rachuy also alleges that the department failed to return additional computer accessories, but these arguments and related factual assertions have been stricken from the appeal by order of this court dated December 4, 2014. 3 Rachuy proffers several additional documents in his supplemental brief. These documents were stricken by order of this court dated December 4, 2014. Even if we considered these documents, they do not provide clear evidence that the department ever possessed the items he claims. The vehicle title referenced in the stricken documents relates to a different model vehicle with a different manufacturer and year. And no authenticated document separately identifies a laptop power cord among the items seized or held by the department.
5 requested, and what has been returned,” and we defer to its credibility determination. See
Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203, 210 (Minn. 1988). As such, we affirm the district
court’s conclusion that the department never possessed the items.
Rachuy also challenges the district court’s application of section 626.04(a) to
declare the blank checks and check stock to be “derivative contraband” subject to
immediate destruction.4 We review the district court’s interpretation of a statute de novo.
Swenson v. Nickaboine, 793 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Minn. 2011). When interpreting statutes,
we seek “to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Brua v. Minn. Joint
Underwriting Ass’n, 778 N.W.2d 294, 300 (Minn. 2010) (quotation omitted).
When ordering the retention and destruction of the check stock and blank checks,
the district court reasoned that they were “derivative contraband” because, although they
were legal to possess generally, Rachuy’s proven propensity to issue worthless checks on
closed accounts indicates that he would likely use them illegally. See Johnson v. Multiple
Miscellaneous Items Numbered 1-424, 523 N.W.2d 238, 240 (Minn. App. 1994) (holding
that “the legislature intended ‘contraband’ to include property which is illegal for the
particular offender in question to possess”). But although it undoubtedly would be
illegal for Rachuy to use the blank checks or check stock to issue new checks, there is no
indication that the legislature intended to declare property to be contraband that is illegal
to use for a particular purpose, however obvious such purpose may be for a particular
offender. Cf. Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(d) (2014) (defining “contraband” as
4 Rachuy does not challenge the district court’s order as it relates to the suspended driver’s license.
6 “property which is illegal to possess under Minnesota law” (emphasis added)). Such an
extension of the term “contraband” would lead to absurd results. For example, if police
investigating a homicide committed with a golf club seized the entire set, and if the
defendant was later convicted of having used the 9-iron to commit the offense, the
remaining clubs in the set could be “contraband” subject to retention and routine
destruction. We therefore reject the extension of the word “contraband” to include items
where an anticipated use would be illegal in addition to mere possession.
Rachuy’s argument nevertheless fails. “We will not . . . reverse on appeal a
correct decision simply because it is based on incorrect reasons.” Kahn v. State, 289
N.W.2d 737, 745 (Minn. 1980). In addition to authorizing destruction of contraband, the
seized-property-disposal statute authorizes retention and destruction of property that
“may be subject to forfeiture proceedings.” Minn. Stat. § 626.04(a)(2). Property subject
to forfeiture includes items used to commit or facilitate a designated offense. Johnson,
523 N.W.2d at 240 (citing Minn. Stat. § 609.5312, subd. 1). Issuance of worthless
checks is a designated offense. See Minn. Stat. § 609.531, subd. 1(f)(3) (2012) (listing
Minn. Stat. § 609.528 as a designated offense subject to forfeiture statutes). Rachuy used
the supply of seized blank checks and check stock to issue worthless checks. We
therefore conclude that the property was subject to forfeiture 5 and affirm the district
court’s destruction order.
5 The fact that no forfeiture action was before the district court is not relevant because the statute requires only that the property may be subject to forfeiture in order for it to be retained by law enforcement or destroyed by order of the district court.
7 III.
Rachuy argues that he is entitled to receive costs because he is the prevailing party
in litigation, as demonstrated by the fact that the department returned items to him. “The
prevailing party in a civil matter is entitled to recover costs and reasonable
disbursements.” O’Brien v. Dombeck, 823 N.W.2d 895, 901 (Minn. App. 2012) (citing
Minn. Stat. §§ 549.02, subd. 1; .04, subd. 1). We review a district court’s decision
whether to award costs to a prevailing party for an abuse of discretion. Id. But to the
extent that an appellant’s argument requires interpretation of a statute, we review the
district court’s interpretation de novo. Id. “The prevailing party in any action is one in
whose favor the decision or verdict is rendered and judgment entered.” Borchert v.
Maloney, 581 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Minn. 1998).
As the district court noted, Rachuy was not a “prevailing party” in his petition
because the district court denied it. He was therefore not within the scope of the statute
allowing the district court to award costs. The fact that he received most of the items he
claims prior to filing his petition highlights the lack of merit in the petition, it does not
transform him into a prevailing party. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of
his motion for costs.
Affirmed.