| Litigants: | Bennis v. Michigan |
| Arguedate: | November 29 |
| Argueyear: | 1995 |
| Decidedate: | March 4 |
| Decideyear: | 1996 |
| Fullname: | Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan |
| Usvol: | 516 |
| Uspage: | 442 |
| Parallelcitations: | 116 S. Ct. 994; 134 L. Ed. 2d 68 |
| Prior: | Mich ex rel. Prosecutor v. Bennis, 447 Mich. 719, 527 N.W.2d 483 (1994) |
| Holding: | The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. |
| Majority: | Rehnquist |
| Joinmajority: | O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Ginsburg |
| Concurrence: | Thomas |
| Concurrence2: | Ginsburg |
| Dissent: | Stevens |
| Joindissent: | Souter, Breyer |
| Dissent2: | Kennedy |
Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (1996), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the innocent owner defense is not constitutionally mandated by Fourteenth Amendment Due Process in cases of civil forfeiture.
Tina B. Bennis was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile. Detroit police arrested her husband, John Bennis, after observing him engaged in a sexual act with a prostitute in the automobile while it was parked on a Detroit city street. In declaring the automobile forfeit as a public nuisance under Michigan's statutory abatement scheme, the trial court permitted no offset for petitioner's interest despite her lack of knowledge of her husband's activity. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed but was, in turn, reversed by the Michigan Supreme Court, which concluded, among other things, that Michigan's failure to provide an innocent owner defense was without federal constitutional consequence under this Court's decisions.