MANAHAN, MICHAELA THERESE R.
1-E Appeals and reinstated the ruling of
TINA BENNIS V MICHIGAN SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NO. 94-
8729
FACTS:
- Petitioner Tina Bennis, was a joint
owner with her husband of an
automobile.
- The Michigan court forfeited said
automobile as a public nuisance
since John Bennis (Tinas husband)
was caught engaging in sexual acts
with a prostitute inside the
automobile while it was parked on a
Detroit city street.
- John Bennis was arrested by the
Detroit city police and was thereafter
convicted of a violation of Michigans
indecency law.
- Tina Bennis defended against the
abatement of her interest of the
automobile and claimed that when
she allowed her husband to use the
car, she didnt know that he would
use it to violate an indecency law in
Michigan.
- The Wayne County City Court
dismissed Tinas argument and
declared said automobile as a public
nuisance.
- The case was referred to the
Intermediate Appellate Court which
then ruled that the said car couldnt
be considered as a public nuisance
since the sexual act only happened
once and since there was no proof
that payment was made after the
performance of the sexual act to
classify it as prostitution.
- The Michigan Court however,
reversed the decision of the Court of
the Trial Court stating that in order
to abate an owners interest in a
vehicle, Michigan does not need to
prove that the owner knew or agreed
that her vehicle would be used in a
manner that would violate a law
when she entrusted it to another
user.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner was deprived of her
interest in the forfeited car without due
th
process (in violation of the 14
Amendment)?
HELD: No.
- The essence of petitioners claim is not
that she was denied notice or that she was
denied of an opportunity to contest the
abatement of her interest.
- Petitioner claims that she was entitled to
contest the abatement since she didnt
know that her husband would use it to
violate Michigan law.
- However, jurisprudence suggests that an
owners interest may be forfeited by reason
of the use to which the property is put even
though the owner didnt know that it was to
be put to such use.
- In the case at bar, the court says that the
offence here is primarily attached to the
thing and it has always been held that the
acts of the possessors bind the interest of
the owner whether the latter be innocent or
not.
- The court rejects the innocent owner
doctrine used by the petitioner.
- The state just wants to prevent illegal
activity that contributes to the deterioration
of the neighborhood/community.
- It is of no doubt that the Bennis automobile
was used in a criminal activity.