Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can show that the car was used for trafficking drugs, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court held that Detroit resident Stephanie Wilson's 2006 Saturn Ion was not subject to the state's forfeiture laws because there was no evidence when police seized it in 2019—most notably no drugs—indicating she was using it to move and sell narcotics. It is not enough to merely claim that a car was near a suspected drug crime or that a passenger possessed drugs for personal use.
"To permit forfeiture on the basis of only some of the elements—for example, using a vehicle to transport an individual to a location to sell or receive illicit property without transportation of or an intent to transport that property, or transportation of property without an intent that it be sold or received—would fail to give meaning to the entirety of the statute and its plain language," the court wrote.
The ruling is the second recent court decision limiting the asset forfeiture powers of Wayne County, which encompasses Detroit, and the second one specifically involving Wilson's Saturn Ion.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit unanimously ruled that Detroit's practice of seizing people's cars for months at a time before giving them a chance to contest the seizure violated vehicle owners' 14th Amendment right to due process. Wilson was also a plaintiff in that case—a 2020 class-action lawsuit filed by the Institute for Justice, a libertarian-leaning public-interest law firm that has challenged asset forfeiture laws in multiple states.
"I've done nothing wrong, but I've had to fight for years to get my car back and then to keep it," Wilson said in an Institute for Justice press release. "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."
Wayne County sheriff's deputies seized two of Wilson's cars over a six-month period in 2019 because she gave rides to her daughter's father to or from a residence under police surveillance for drug activity. In one of those instances, officers said they witnessed a hand-to-hand drug transaction outside the house, but when they pulled Wilson over, no drugs were found either time. Wilson was never cited, arrested, or charged with a crime.
Under civil asset forfeiture laws, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity, even if the owner is not charged with a crime. Law enforcement says civil asset forfeiture is a vital tool for disrupting drug trafficking and other organized crime by targeting illicit revenue.
However, civil liberties groups like the Institute for Justice say police often target innocent owners or petty offenders—not cartel lords—and force them to bear the cost of challenging the seizure in court.
Wayne County has a particularly aggressive vehicle forfeiture program targeting illicit drugs, prostitution, drag racing, and other public disorder and nuisance offenses. It typically offers to settle cases and return cars for $900, plus towing and storage fees. (An example of such a forfeiture notice can be seen here.)
Another plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit against Wayne County's asset forfeiture program, Melisa Ingram, had her car seized twice by police while her boyfriend was borrowing it—once for allegedly picking up a prostitute and another time for leaving a house connected to drug activity. Her boyfriend was never charged with a crime, nor was Ingram, but the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office demanded payments from Ingram to get her car back. The first time she paid. The second time she didn't have the money and relinquished her car to the county.
Wayne County seized over 2,600 vehicles between 2017 and 2019 and raked in over $1.2 million in asset forfeiture revenues, according to public records obtained by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free market think tank based in Michigan. Of those seizures, 473 were not accompanied by a criminal conviction, and in 10 cases, the cars were seized under suspicion of a drug violation, even though the records say police didn't find any drugs.
All of this creates the appearance that profit incentive, not public safety, is driving Wayne County's vehicle forfeiture program, which the 6th Circuit noted in its ruling last year against the county:
"Although Wayne County ostensibly seized the vehicles because of reasons related to health, safety, and/or drugs, the record suggests otherwise—that the county seized the vehicles in order to obtain proceeds from fees," the 6th Circuit panel wrote. "If Wilson's vehicle had a dangerous connection with drugs, it is unclear why the county promptly released the vehicle after a payment of $1,355."
The Institute for Justice was not alone in challenging the program. In 2018, Stephen Nichols filed a class-action lawsuit after waiting over three years for a court hearing to challenge the seizure of his car. That same year, Crystal Sisson filed a civil rights lawsuit after Wayne County sheriff's deputies seized her 2015 Kia Soul because she allegedly possessed $10 worth of marijuana.
The Michigan Supreme Court decision "will help curb Wayne County's prolific forfeiture machine and protect car owners throughout Michigan," Institute for Justice attorney Kirby Thomas West said in a press release. "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."
The post Michigan Supreme Court Rules Against Detroit's Asset Forfeiture Racket appeared first on Reason.com.
