Bennis v. Michigan

Background

A woman who co-owned a car with her husband challenged a Michigan court order that seized the vehicle after police caught her husband having sex with a prostitute in the car. Michigan sued to declare the car a public nuisance under state law. The trial judge ordered the car sold and noted there would be little or nothing left after costs; the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the forfeiture without requiring proof that the wife knew of the misuse.

Reasoning

The central question was whether Michigan’s abatement and forfeiture of the car violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process protections or the Takings Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court relied on a long line of forfeiture precedents, including early admiralty cases and later decisions, and concluded an owner’s innocent lack of knowledge does not bar forfeiture. The Court emphasized historical practice and the State’s remedial and deterrent interests, and it rejected the claim that the seizure required compensation under the Takings Clause.

Real world impact

The decision means states can use nuisance-abatement laws to seize vehicles used in criminal activity even when a co-owner claims to be unaware. Co-owners who share title face the risk of losing their interest after a local abatement proceeding, and proceeds may be consumed by costs. The ruling affirms a broad historical approach to forfeiture and leaves limits on such seizures to future cases or legislative change.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Thomas and Ginsburg concurred. Justices Stevens, Souter, Breyer, and Kennedy dissented, arguing the forfeiture was novel, unfair to an innocent owner, and raised Eighth Amendment and fairness concerns.