Last week, a divided U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Ruling 5-4, the justices said the wife’s status as “an innocent owner” was irrelevant. Even if she had no idea what her husband was up to – he was convicted of gross indecency – Tina Bennis still had no constitutional right to be compensated for her financial interest in the car, let alone get it back. In recent years, forfeiture laws have became a favorite of prosecutors, primarily against drug dealers. The theory: don’t just incarcerate the miscreants – take away their houses, their vehicles, their very ability to do business. Some states make an exception to protect innocent property owners, but Michigan does not. The Clinton administration supported Michigan’s position.
Last week’s decision surprised many court watchers, who thought the justices would narrow the wide reach of forfeiture provisions, which have been criticized by civil libertarians and even some of the justices. During oral argument in November, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked a government lawyer, “What was Tina Bennis supposed to do?” But Ginsburg, who usually lines up on the court’s liberal wing, ultimately ruled against her and cast the deciding vote with the conservatives, justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as well as Chief Justice William Rehnquist. “Michigan has decided to deter Johns from using cars they own (or co-own) to contribute to neighborhood blight, and that abatement endeavor hardly warrants this court’s disapprobation,” she wrote. The U.S. Constitution, Ginsburg decided, does not shield a spouse from a wandering John.
