If two Minnesotans own something together, and one of them commits a crime that causes that property to be seized, the innocent co-owner is not entitled to get it back, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled this week.

The 4-3 decision reversed a state Court of Appeals ruling in a lawsuit by David Laase, 66, of Cambridge. In 2006, his wife, Jean Laase, then 52, was arrested in Isanti County for drunken driving, and authorities seized the couple's new Chevrolet Tahoe.

David Laase argued he was an "innocent owner" because he was not with his wife and was unaware of her condition when they met earlier in the evening at a golf club. The District and Appeals courts agreed with him, saying he shouldn't have to forfeit the vehicle to the government

In a decision released Thursday, the high court disagreed, in a ruling that lawyers say serves as a warning to the thousands of Minnesota drivers who share ownership of a vehicle.

In the 16-page ruling, Justice Lorie Gildea dwelt heavily on the definition of "owner" and whether lawmakers intended for multiple owners to be treated differently under forfeiture law. She decided they did not.

"Because interests cannot be apportioned, the Legislature seemingly intended that what happens to one owner should happen to all owners," Gildea wrote.

Isanti County Attorney Jeffrey Edblad, whose office sought and defended the forfeiture, said "This decision is going to have a significant major statewide impact in reducing the number of drunk drivers."

He said that before, it was too easy for co-owners to use the "innocent owner defense" to get the vehicle back into the hands of a dangerous driver.

St. Paul attorney Brian Karalus, who represented Laase, called the ruling "mind boggling," and accused the government of pursuing the forfeiture so aggressively because the recently retired couple had paid $40,000 cash for the Tahoe -- making it a valuable windfall, with no lender to pay off.

"The idea that someone who is completely, utterly innocent -- and the state never disputed that Mr. Laase was innocent -- can have their property taken away by the government is a scary thing," Karalus said.

Edblad countered that forfeitures are not a revenue-generator for the county and are pursued as a matter of principle.

"The purpose I see behind the forfeiture law is to keep the instruments used in the commission of criminal offenses out of the hands of those who commit the offenses," he said. "We have applied the forfeiture law from clunkers to Tahoes."

Edblad added the forfeiture law is not aimed at first offenders but rather particularly dangerous or repeat offenders -- those with two convictions in 10 years, a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.20 or more while driving with a child under the age of 16, or a previous DWI conviction and a blood-alcohol concentration over 0.20.

Previous forfeitures in such cases didn't stand up when an innocent co-owner went to court. Last October, a Hennepin County judge ordered that Edina police return the keys of a Jeep Grand Cherokee to Kristin Brown, 57. They had seized the vehicle after arresting Brown's son at the wheel and charging him with drunken driving. Brown and her attorney persuaded a judge that she was an innocent owner.

In a dissent to Thursday's ruling, Justice Paul Anderson wrote that he doesn't believe the Legislature intended for an innocent owner to lose their protection from forfeiture. He wrote that the government's seizure power is "awesome and disfavored" and should be used with great discretion.

Gildea countered that, "...While Mr. Laase may be an innocent owner, Ms. Laase is not," and she said the Legislature intended "owner" in forfeiture laws to mean all owners of the property.

"In the absence of a constitutional challenge, which we do not have in this case, it is the role of the Legislature, not the courts, to rewrite the statute to provide greater protection for private property," she wrote.

That rationale baffles Karalus, who said, "To me, that argument should be the other way: 'If they're not clear here, we're staying out of this.' Don't try to find legislative intent somewhere where it's not clear."

Karalus said he and his clients are mulling over what the next step may be.

Edblad said it's a good ruling for many reasons, including this: "If this saves one family the misery of losing a loved one or being maimed at the hands of a drunken driver, it's worth it."

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921