U.S. Supreme Court 

     BENNIS v. MICHIGAN, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) 

       TINA B. BENNIS, PETITIONER v. MICHIGAN 
  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN 

                      No. 94-8729. 

                Argued November 29, 1995 
                  Decided March 4, 1996 

Petitioner was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in
which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. In
declaring the automobile forfeit as a public nuisance under Michigan's
statutory abatement scheme, the trial court permitted no offset for
petitioner's interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of her
husband's activity. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, but was
in turn reversed by the State Supreme Court, which concluded, inter
alia, that Michigan's failure to provide an innocent-owner defense was
without federal constitutional consequence under this Court's decisions.

Held: 

The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Pp. 4-12. 

     (a) Michigan's abatement scheme has not deprived
     petitioner of her interest in the forfeited car without due
     process. Her claim that she was entitled to contest the
     abatement by showing that she did not know that her
     husband would use the car to violate state law is defeated
     by a long and unbroken line of cases in which this Court
     has held that an owner's interest in property may be
     forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put
     even though the owner did not know that it was to be put
     to such use. See, e.g., Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S.
     465, 467-468, and Calero-Toledo v.Pearson Yacht
     Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663, 668, 683; Foucha v.
     Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80, and Austin v. United States,
     509 U.S. ___, ___, distinguished. These cases are too
     firmly fixed in the country's punitive and remedial
     jurisprudence to be now displaced. Cf. J. W. Goldsmith,
     Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 511. Pp.
     4-11. 

     (b) Michigan's abatement scheme has not taken
     petitioner's property for Page II public use without
     compensation. Because the forfeiture proceeding did not
     violate the Fourteenth Amendment, her property in the
     automobile was transferred by virtue of that proceeding to
     the State. The government may not be required to
     compensate an owner for property which it has already
     lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental
     authority other than the power of eminent domain. See,
     e.g., United States v. Fuller, 409 U.S. 488, 492. P. 11. 

447 Mich. 719, 527 N. W. 2d 483, affirmed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.
THOMAS, J., and GINSBURG, J., filed concurring opinions.
STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER and
BREYER, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion. [
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) , 1]

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile in
which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a prostitute. A
Michigan court ordered the automobile forfeited as a public nuisance,
with no offset for her interest, notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of
her husband's activity. We hold that the Michigan court order did not
offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Detroit police arrested John Bennis after observing him engaged in a
sexual act with a prostitute in the automobile while it was parked on a
Detroit city street. Bennis was convicted of gross indecency. 1 The
State then sued both Bennis and his wife, petitioner Tina B. Bennis, to
have the car declared a public nuisance and abated as such under
600.3801 2 and 600.3825 3 of [ Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) ,
2] Michigan's Compiled Laws.

Petitioner defended against the abatement of her interest in the car on
the ground that, when she entrusted her husband to use the car, she did
not know that he would use it to violate Michigan's indecency law. The
Wayne County Circuit Court rejected this argument, declared the car a
public nuisance, and ordered the car's abatement. In reaching this
disposition, the trial court judge recognized the remedial discretion he
had under Michigan's case law. App. 21. He took into account the
couple's ownership of "another automobile," so they would not be left
"without transportation." Id., at 25. He also mentioned his authority to
order the payment of one-half of the sale proceeds, after the deduction
of costs, to "the innocent co-title holder." Id., at 21. He [ Bennis v.
Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996) , 3] declined to order such a division of sale
proceeds in this case because of the age and value of the car (an
11-year-old Pontiac sedan recently purchased by John and Tina
Bennis for $600); he commented in this regard: "[T]here's practically
nothing left minus costs in a situation such as this." Id., at 25.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that regardless of the
language of Michigan Compiled Law 600.3815(2), 4 Michigan
Supreme Court precedent interpreting this section prevented the State
from abating petitioner's interest absent proof that she knew to what
end the car would be used. Alternatively, the intermediate appellate
court ruled that the conduct in question did not qualify as a public
nuisance because only one occurrence was shown and there was no
evidence of payment for the sexual act. 200 Mich. App. 670, 504 N.
W. 2d 731 (1993).

The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and
reinstated the abatement in its entirety. 447 Mich. 719, 527 N. W. 2d
483 (1994). It concluded as a matter of state law that the episode in
the Bennis vehicle was an abatable nuisance. Rejecting the Court of
Appeals' interpretation of 600.3815(2), the court then announced that,
in order to abate an owner's interest in a vehicle, Michigan does not
need to prove that the owner knew or agreed that her vehicle would be
used in a manner proscribed by 600.3801 when she entrusted it to
another user. Id., at 737, 527 N. W. 2d, at 492. The court next
addressed petitioner's federal constitutional challenges to the State's
abatement scheme: The court assumed that petitioner did not know of
or consent to the misuse of the Bennis car, and concluded in light of our
decisions in Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465 [ Bennis v. Michigan,
517 U.S. 1163 (1996) , 4] (1926), and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht
Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663 (1974), that Michigan's failure to provide
an innocent-owner defense was "without constitutional consequence."
447 Mich., at 740-741, 527 