Laserfiche WebLink
such as a bank account or yacht) when it is proved that these items are <br />property actually used in, or derived from, a pattern of violations of the state's <br />obscenity laws. <br />Id. at 4135. The Working Group believes that a RICO statute which provided for seizure <br />of the contents of a sexually oriented business upon proof of RICO violations would <br />have the potential to significantly curtail the distribution of obscene materials. <br />Although Minnesota does not have a RICO statute, it does have a forfeiture statute <br />permitting the seizure of money and property which are the proceeds of designated <br />felony offenses. Minn. Stat. § 609.5312 (1988). But, this statute does not permit seizure <br />of property related to commission of the offenses most likely to be associated with <br />sexually oriented businesses. Obscenity cnmes are not among the offenses which <br />justify forfeiture. Although solicitation or inducement of a person under age 13 (Minn. <br />Stat S 609.322, subd. 1) or between the ages of 16 and 18 to practice prostitution <br />(Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 2) are included among the offenses which could Justify <br />seizure of property, many crimes Involving prostitution are outside the reach of the <br />present Minnesota forfeiture law. <br />• The followiiTg crimes are not included among the crimes which can justify seizure <br />of property and profits: solicitation, inducement or promotion of a person between the <br />ages of 13 and 16 to practice prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 1A); solicitation, <br />irfoucement or promotion of a person 18 years of ago or older to practice prostitution <br />(Minn. Stat § 609.322, subd. 3); receiving profit derived from prostitution (Minn. Stat <br />§ 609.323); owning, operating or managing a ''disorderly house,* in which conduct/' <br />habitually occurs in violation of laws pertaining to liquor, gambling, controlled -* <br />substances or prostitution (Minn. Stat § 609.33). <br />Although its reach would be rriuch more limited, the legislature should also <br />consider providing for forfeiture of property used to commit an obscenity offense or <br />which represents the proceeds of obscenity offenses. Under the holding in Fort Wavne *. <br />Books. Inc. V. Indiana, such forfeiture could not take place, if at all, until it was proved . <br />that the underlying obscenity crimes had been committed. <br />•27-