Bennis v. Michigan

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine if Tina Bennis's share of the forfeited car had been denied her without due process, as guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment. Due process means that the government may not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property without a fair trial or hearing. The Supreme Court also wanted to determine if the Fifth Amendment had been violated by taking her property for public use without compensation.

On 29 November 1995, the Court heard the arguments in the Bennis case. The Clinton administration argued for the state of Michigan, defending the government's right to seize property used in crimes. The administration's lawyer argued that a property owner's ignorance of illegal activity should not be used as a defense. He added that if a property owner can prove that he or she took "all reasonable steps" to prevent the property from being misused, then the owner should not have the property seized.

Bennis's lawyer, Stefan B. Herpel, argued that in the case of a seized yacht, a passage from the case stated, "It would be difficult to reject the constitutional claim of . . . an owner who proved not only that he was uninvolved in and unaware of the wrongful activity, but also that he had done all that reasonably could be expected to prevent the proscribed use of his property." Chief Justice Rehnquist, in his decision, rejected this statement because it was obiter dictum (said in passing), rather than in the holdings of the case, which held that the yacht company should forfeit the yacht used for transporting controlled substances, even though the owners had no involvement in or knowledge of the illegal activity.