| Bennis v. Michigan | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued November 29, 1995 Decided March 4, 1996 |
||||||
| Full case name | Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan | |||||
| Citations | 516 U.S. 442 (more) 116 S. Ct. 994 |
|||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg | |||||
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter, Breyer | |||||
| Dissent | Kennedy | |||||
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.
Tina B. Bennis 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.
Contents |
Text of Bennis v. Michigan is available from: Justia · Findlaw · Cornell