Bennis v. Michigan
516 U.S. 442, 1996 U.S. LEXIS 1565, 134 L. Ed. 2d 68 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The forfeiture of an owner's interest in property used for illegal activity does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, even if the owner was unaware of and uninvolved in the illicit use.
Facts:
- Tina B. Bennis and her husband, John Bennis, jointly owned an 11-year-old Pontiac sedan which they had purchased for $600.
- Tina Bennis consented to her husband's use of the car.
- John Bennis drove the car to a city street in Detroit.
- While the car was parked, John Bennis engaged in a sexual act with a prostitute inside the vehicle.
- Tina Bennis was not aware that her husband would use the car for this illegal activity.
- The couple owned another automobile for transportation.
Procedural Posture:
- Detroit police arrested John Bennis, who was subsequently convicted of gross indecency.
- The State of Michigan filed a lawsuit against both John and Tina Bennis in the Wayne County Circuit Court, a state trial court, seeking forfeiture of the car as a public nuisance.
- The trial court declared the car a public nuisance and ordered it forfeited, declining to award Tina Bennis any proceeds from its sale.
- Tina Bennis, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision.
- The State of Michigan, as appellant, appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and reinstated the forfeiture order.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the forfeiture of property belonging to an innocent co-owner, who was unaware that the property would be used for a criminal purpose by the other co-owner, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The forfeiture of an innocent co-owner's property does not violate the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause. A long and unbroken line of cases holds that an owner's interest in property may be forfeited because of the use to which the property is put, even if the owner did not know about the illegal use. This principle, originating in admiralty law, treats the property itself as the 'offender.' Citing precedents like Van Oster v. Kansas and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., the court affirmed that the 'innocent owner' defense has been consistently rejected as a constitutional requirement. Forfeiture serves a deterrent purpose by preventing further illicit use of property and making illegal behavior unprofitable. The Takings Clause claim fails because the government is not required to compensate an owner for property it has already lawfully acquired through a valid forfeiture proceeding.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While the forfeiture of property from an innocent owner may seem unfair, it is a practice with a long history in English and American jurisprudence that predates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This Court's precedent, particularly Van Oster v. Kansas, has established that such forfeitures are constitutionally permissible to prevent evasion of laws and to avoid difficult judicial inquiries into collusion. The Constitution does not prohibit all undesirable actions. In this case, the forfeiture can be characterized as a remedial action to abate a public nuisance, which lessens the due process concerns associated with punishment. The historical acceptance of this practice is too 'firmly fixed' to be displaced.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. This holding is narrow and fact-specific. It is critical that John Bennis was a co-owner with consent to use the car, and Michigan's nuisance abatement statute is an 'equitable action,' allowing courts to police exorbitant applications. The trial judge's decision not to award Tina Bennis a portion of the sale proceeds was a practical one based on the car's extremely low value and the fact that the couple owned another vehicle. Michigan is not punishing innocent third parties but rather creating a deterrent for individuals using their own or co-owned vehicles to engage in illegal activities that contribute to neighborhood blight.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The forfeiture of an innocent owner's property under these circumstances violates due process because fundamental fairness prohibits punishing innocent people. This case represents a dramatic and unsupported expansion of forfeiture law. Historical forfeiture cases involved property that was either contraband itself or an instrumentality where the principal use was illegal, such as a smuggling ship. Here, the car was merely the stationary location for an isolated misdemeanor, a nexus too tenuous to justify forfeiture. Citing Austin v. United States, the dissent argues that forfeiture is a punishment subject to constitutional limits and that punishing a completely blameless person who took all reasonable steps to prevent illegal use of her property is unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Justice Kennedy
Yes. The forfeiture in this case does not meet the requirements of due process. The historical rationale for admiralty forfeiture—the inability to exercise jurisdiction over a ship's distant owners—does not apply to automobiles, which are a practical necessity in modern life. The court should not extend these harsh, traditional rules without a stronger justification. The seizure here goes beyond established cases involving the transportation of contraband, and the Michigan court's decision was not based on any finding of negligence or complicity by Tina Bennis. Her property interest, however modest, is entitled to constitutional protection.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirmed the controversial 'guilty property' legal fiction, holding that an 'innocent owner' defense is not constitutionally required in civil forfeiture cases. It solidifies the principle that an owner who entrusts their property to another assumes the risk of its illegal use. The ruling places the responsibility on legislatures, not the courts, to create statutory protections for innocent owners. The case has a significant impact on co-owners, lienholders, and lessors, limiting their constitutional avenues to challenge the seizure of their property when it is used in a crime without their knowledge or consent.
