## Facts

- Tina Bennis and her husband, John Bennis, jointly owned an automobile.
- Detroit police observed John Bennis using the car to engage in a sexual act with a prostitute on a city street, and he was arrested.
- Michigan sought forfeiture of the car as a public nuisance under a nuisance-abatement statute authorizing forfeiture of property used in certain prostitution-related conduct.
- The trial court ordered forfeiture of the vehicle and provided no compensation or carve-out for Tina Bennis’s ownership interest despite her lack of knowledge of the illegal use.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, but the Michigan Supreme Court reinstated the forfeiture, concluding the absence of an innocent-owner defense had no federal constitutional consequence.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires a state to recognize an “innocent-owner” defense before forfeiting a co-owner’s interest in property used for illegal conduct by another owner.
2. Whether forfeiture of an innocent co-owner’s interest constitutes a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Michigan Supreme Court and upheld the forfeiture.
- The Court held that due process does not require an innocent-owner defense in this type of in rem civil forfeiture.
- The Court held that the Takings Clause does not require compensation when the State acquires property through a lawful forfeiture proceeding rather than eminent domain.

## Legal Principles

- An owner’s interest in property may be forfeited because of the property’s unlawful use even if the owner lacked knowledge of that use, consistent with longstanding in rem forfeiture doctrine.
- A state’s decision not to provide an innocent-owner defense in civil forfeiture does not, by itself, violate the Fourteenth Amendment when the forfeiture rests on historically recognized nuisance/forfeiture authority.
- When property is transferred to the State through valid forfeiture proceedings, the acquisition is not treated as a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Michigan’s forfeiture of a jointly owned automobile used for prostitution-related conduct, ruling that the federal Constitution neither requires an innocent-owner defense nor mandates just compensation for an innocent co-owner when the State lawfully obtains the property through civil forfeiture.


Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996)