516 U.S. 442 (1996)
Detroit police officers arrested John Bennis after they observed him engaged in a sexual act with a prostitute in an automobile parked on a Detroit city street.1 Bennis was subsequently convicted of gross indecency.2 The State of Michigan then filed suit against both Bennis and his wife, petitioner Tina B. Bennis, who jointly owned the automobile, seeking to have the vehicle declared a public nuisance and abated under Michigan Compiled Laws sections 600.3801 and 600.3825.3
Petitioner defended the action on the ground that she had entrusted the car to her husband without knowledge that he would use it to violate Michigan's indecency law.4 The Wayne County Circuit Court rejected this defense, declared the car a public nuisance, and ordered its abatement in full.5 The trial court noted that the couple owned another automobile and that the forfeited Pontiac sedan, which they had purchased for six hundred dollars, had little value remaining after costs, so it declined to divide any sale proceeds with petitioner.6
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment.7 The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the abatement order in its entirety.8 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider petitioner's federal constitutional challenges to the abatement.9
Whether Michigan's abatement of a jointly owned automobile used in the commission of a crime, without proof that the co-owner knew of or consented to the illegal use, deprives the co-owner of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment?10
The Due Process Clause does not require an innocent-owner defense before property used in a crime may be forfeited.11 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.12
No. Detroit police officers arrested John Bennis after they observed him engaged in a sexual act with a prostitute in an automobile parked on a Detroit city street. Bennis was subsequently convicted of gross indecency. The State of Michigan then filed suit against both Bennis and his wife, petitioner Tina B. Bennis, who jointly owned the automobile, seeking to have the vehicle declared a public nuisance and abated under Michigan Compiled Laws sections 600.3801 and 600.3825.
Petitioner defended the action on the ground that she had entrusted the car to her husband without knowledge that he would use it to violate Michigan's indecency law. The Wayne County Circuit Court rejected this defense, declared the car a public nuisance, and ordered its abatement in full. The trial court noted that the couple owned another automobile and that the forfeited Pontiac sedan, which they had purchased for six hundred dollars, had little value remaining after costs, so it declined to divide any sale proceeds with petitioner.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the abatement order in its entirety. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider petitioner's federal constitutional challenges to the abatement. The gravamen of petitioner's due process claim is not that she was denied notice or an opportunity to contest the abatement of her car; she was accorded both.13 Rather, she claims she was entitled to contest the abatement by showing she did not know her husband would use it to violate Michigan's indecency law.14 The Court applied precedents such as The Palmyra, Van Oster v. Kansas, and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. to conclude that the Due Process Clause does not protect her interest against forfeiture.15
The abatement does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.16
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas joined the opinion of the Court.17 He observed that the State seeks to punish or deter without proving collusion, acquiescence, or negligence by the owner.18 He noted that forfeiture without proof of wrongdoing has been permitted in England and this country both before and after adoption of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.19
The Constitution does not prohibit everything intensely undesirable. He stated that limits on what property may be forfeited should be applied strictly according to historical standards for determining whether property is an instrumentality of crime. The facts here are not obviously distinguishable from Van Oster, and petitioner did not assert that the car was not an instrumentality of the crime.20
Justice Ginsburg joined the opinion of the Court.21 She emphasized that the car belonged to John Bennis as much as to Tina Bennis and that each spouse had consent to use the vehicle.22 Michigan may forfeit the vehicle itself.23
The sole question is whether Tina Bennis is entitled to a portion of any sale proceeds as a matter of constitutional right.24 She stressed that the Michigan Supreme Court treats the nuisance abatement proceeding as an equitable action in which the trial judge has discretion to avoid inequitable results. The trial court declined to divide proceeds because the couple owned another automobile and the forfeited car had little value after costs.25
Michigan has not embarked on an experiment to punish innocent third parties.26
Joined by Justices Souter And Breyer (as To Parts I And Ii)
Justice Stevens dissented.27 He argued that the forfeiture violates due process because petitioner is an innocent owner with no knowledge that her husband would use the car for illegal activity.28 The car bore no necessary connection to the offense because its principal use was legitimate commuting to work.29
Historical precedents involved ships whose entire mission was unlawful or vehicles used to transport contraband.30 An isolated misuse of a stationary vehicle should not justify forfeiture of an innocent owner's property. He further contended that Austin v. United States requires reversal because the forfeiture is punitive and excessive.31
Petitioner took all reasonable steps to prevent illegal use and cannot be punished for her husband's conduct.32
Justice Kennedy dissented.33 He noted that admiralty forfeiture tradition arose from practical necessity when owners were beyond reach and liability was limited to the vessel's value.34 That tradition does not readily extend to the automobile, a practical necessity in modern life.35
The car here was used only in a tangential way for the offense. Nothing in the rationale of the Michigan Supreme Court indicates that the forfeiture turned on negligence or complicity of petitioner or any presumption thereof.36 Nothing supports treating the value of her co-ownership as insignificant and beneath the law's protection.
The forfeiture therefore cannot meet due process requirements.37
Whether such an abatement constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment?38
If the forfeiture proceeding did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the property was transferred by virtue of that proceeding from the owner to the State.39 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.40
No. The due process challenge fails under the established facts showing lawful abatement of the jointly owned automobile.41 The takings claim therefore also fails because the property passed to the State through the valid forfeiture proceeding.42 Michigan lawfully acquired the vehicle by operation of its nuisance abatement statute rather than through eminent domain.43
The abatement does not constitute a taking of private property for public use without just compensation.44