Michigan Supreme Court Rules Against Detroit’s Car Forfeiture Machine

LANSING, Mich.—The Michigan Supreme Court today ruled that the government can only pursue civil forfeiture under the State’s forfeiture laws if it can show that a car was used to transport drugs for drug trafficking. Stephanie Wilson had her car seized by sheriff’s deputies in Wayne County, Michigan. She was not arrested, accused of wrongdoing, or issued a citation. The officers did not find any drugs in her car or on her passenger but alleged that the passenger might have had drugs in the car before the search. For two years, Stephanie tried to get in front of a judge to plead her innocence and get her car back. Only after joining a federal class-action lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice (IJ) was Stephanie able to get her car back.

“This decision will help curb Wayne County’s prolific forfeiture machine and protect car owners throughout Michigan,” said IJ Attorney Kirby Thomas West. “Nobody should lose their car because they love someone with a drug problem. This decision makes clear that those innocent people are not the targets of Michigan forfeiture laws.”

Wayne County routinely seizes vehicles on thin pretenses and then holds them until the owner can pay a “redemption fee” starting at $900. If the owner doesn’t pay, the property is forfeited and sold, with the proceeds going to the county. Stephanie’s car was seized for a violation of Michigan’s law against using a vehicle to transport illegal drugs for the purpose of sale or receipt even though no drugs were found in her car.

“I’ve done nothing wrong, but I’ve had to fight for years to get my car back and then to keep it!” said Stephanie. “I have had to face many hardships from not having a vehicle and I hope this great decision will prevent other people from going through this ordeal.”

The opinion released today reasons that the government can only forfeit a vehicle if all the elements of the crime are fulfilled. The court wrote that relying on only one of the elements—transport—would “fail to give meaning to the entirety of the statute and its plain language.”