Bennis v. Michigan

In Bennis v. Michigan, a married couple, in 1988, purchased a 1977 Pontiac for $600 so the husband could drive to his job at a steel mill. Without Tina Bennis's knowledge, her husband, John Bennis, had oral sex with a prostitute in the front seat of their jointly owned car. Bennis was fined for "gross indecency." A local county prosecutor asked that the car be abated (confiscated) and sold as a public nuisance by the Wayne County Circuit Court under a Michigan "red light abatement" law. The Bennis' car was one of the first confiscated under the Detroit Police Department's policy of cleaning up inner-city prostitution. Tina Bennis, a mother of five, appealed stating she was entitled to half the car's value because she had done nothing wrong and did not know that her husband was committing an illegal act in the family's car.

The judge in the Wayne County Circuit Court, Michael Talbot, who originally ordered the car's abatement, rejected Tina Bennis's arguments. He considered the fact that the couple owned another car and thus had some form of transportation. He also noted that although he had the authority to order that she be paid her half share after costs were deducted, the amount was so small that almost nothing would be left in this situation.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision. The court felt that Bennis's interest in the car should not be abated unless she knew how the car was being used. Also, the court ruled that the husband's act was not a public nuisance because it only happened once, and no proof existed that he had paid for the act.

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed with the appeals court and reinstated the abatement on the grounds that the act was an abatable nuisance. The Michigan Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's description of the nuisance abatement as an "equitable action." The court also decided that the state did not need to prove that the owner knew how her vehicle was being used in order to confiscate the vehicle without payment. The Michigan Supreme Court found that Michigan did not have to provide an innocent-owner defense, according to the Constitution.