No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.A Michigan court convicted a man of gross indecency (a misdemeanor offense) for engaging in a sexual act with a prostitute in the automobile jointly owned by he and his wife. The state then successfully sued the couple to have the car declared a public nuisance (because of its supposed instrumentality to the offense) and abated (seized).
In BENNIS v. MICHIGAN, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Michigan court order did not violate the fifth or fourteenth amendment.
In many cases it has been ruled that the governemnt can seize property that is instrumental to the commision of a crime, even if the owner was unaware of the use of the property. However, the court has also held that there are (and must be) limitations on this seizure. For instance, if the man had driven the prostitute to his house, should the house be seized as well?
In addition, it is not at all clear that the car was really instrumental to the crime. It is obvious that the crime could have been committed without the use of the car, and there is no evidence that the car was regularly used for soliciting prostitution.
Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion analyzes these issues in depth.
The following files are available courtesy of Case Western Reserve University:
Back to my home page
Last updated March 11, 1996
Copyright 1996 Eric Smith