Bennis v. Michigan

Herpel also proposed that a criminal defendant may not be punished for a crime if he is found to be not guilty. Rehnquist noted in his decision that this line of reasoning would require Michigan to show that it was trying to be punitive in denying Bennis her share of the forfeited car.

Herpel argued that seizing the car without paying Bennis for her share violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by taking private property for public use without payment. Rehnquist wrote, "The property in the automobile was transferred . . . 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."

Bennis's claim ultimately rested on the premise that the Michigan forfeiture law was unfair because it did not require a distinction between co-owners who participate in the misuse of property and innocent co-owners. Rehnquist held that this argument did not stand up because the Michigan State Court confirmed the trial court judge's authority to order the payment of half the proceeds after costs, if he saw fit.