|
|
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996)
Bennis v. Michigan No. 94-8729 Argued November 29, 1995 Decided March 4, 1996 516 U.S. 442
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN
Syllabus
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. 446-453.
(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. 602, 617-618, 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. 446-452.
(b) Michigan’s abatement scheme has not taken petitioner’s property for 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. 452-453.
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, post, p. 458. KENNEDY, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 472.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996) in 516 U.S. 442 516 U.S. 443. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AT5EPFM947FP6RS.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), in 516 U.S. 442, page 516 U.S. 443. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AT5EPFM947FP6RS.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996). cited in 1996, 516 U.S. 442, pp.516 U.S. 443. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=AT5EPFM947FP6RS.
|