ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, March 5, 1996 TAG: 9603050070
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-3 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
The Supreme Court, in a surprising victory for the broad use of a state's forfeiture power, ruled Monday prosecutors can seize the property of an ``innocent owner'' if it was used in a crime.
The court upheld, 5-4, a Michigan prosecutor's seizure of a woman's 1977 Pontiac on the grounds that her steelworker husband had used it to meet with a prostitute on a Detroit street.
Officials not only fined the husband for an act of ``gross indecency'' but seized the family car as a ``public nuisance.''
Tina Bennis, the man's wife, appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, contending that her half-share of the car could not be taken away because she had done nothing wrong. The Constitution protects an innocent person from the punishment of losing her property, she maintained.
But the high court disagreed. ``The Bennis automobile was used in criminal activity,'' said Chief Justice William Rehnquist. ``A long and unbroken line of cases holds that an owner's interest in property may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is put, even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to such use.''
The ruling sends a word of warning to the owners of boats, airplanes, apartments, cars and other property. If others use the items in an illegal way - such as to sell or ship drugs - the owners could lose their property in a forfeiture action.
Monday's ruling allows officials ``to exercise virtually unbridled power to confiscate vast amounts of property,'' said Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking for the dissenters.
It is not clear, however, that the ruling will have such a wide impact.
Congress exempted innocent owners from the federal forfeiture laws so long as they can show they did not know their property was being used for illegal purposes.
Many states do not allow forfeitures from innocent parties. Even in those states where it is allowed, prosecutors may choose not to seek a seizure if it is clear that an owner of a boat or a condominium did not know how it was being used.
Nonetheless, the ruling leaves the matter in the hands of local prosecutors and state lawmakers, many of whom have supported aggressive efforts to seize property that is linked to criminal activity. The ruling surprised many lawyers because the high court itself has moved recently to limit forfeitures.
In 1993, the court said all persons, including convicted criminals, are entitled to a full hearing before their property is seized. The justices also said seizures cannot be excessive. For example, the government cannot seize a person's house and business because he sold a few marijuana cigarettes there.
But this time, the court sided with prosecutors, thanks to a key vote cast by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Clinton's first appointee, who sided with Rehnquist.
On the campaign trail, Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has derided Ginsburg as a liberal activist, but she has compiled a rather conservative record in crime cases. In a concurring opinion, she praised Michigan authorities for ``deterring johns [prostitutes' customers] from using cars they own to contribute to neighborhood blight.''
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined in the majority.
``This decision gives the green light to police and prosecutors to not be particularly concerned about whether the property they confiscate belongs to the innocent or the guilty,'' said Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute of Justice, a libertarian group.
Rehnquist pointed to the long line of maritime cases dating to 18th century England. If a ship tried to smuggle goods without paying customs taxes, officials could seize the vessel and its cargo, regardless of whether its owner knew of this illegal activity.
Rehnquist noted a piracy case from 1827 that said the vessel is ``considered as the offender,'' not the owner.
LENGTH: Medium: 76 linesby CNB