3 ms·
This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense. Bennis v. Michigan, 517
by rgbrenner 12y ago
This kind of hearing wouldn't be extremely expensive unless it involved some complexities like an "innocent owner" affirmative defense.
Bennis v. Michigan, 517 U.S. 1163 (1996).
There is no "innocent owner" defense for civil forfeiture.
- rhino369 12y agoI skimmed it, but it appears the Court is saying that Michigan is not required to have an innocent owner defense. That isn't the same as saying there can never be an innocent owner defense. But many jurisdictions do allow such a defense. US federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d)
- rgbrenner 12y agoUS federal civil forfeiture does: 18 USC § 983(d) Thanks for that.. that was part of the reform passed in 2000.
- rhino369 12y agoIt is my understanding that all the federal civil forfeiture statues included their own innocent owner defense since the 1970s when civil forfeiture was applied to drugs. The new statute removed ambiguities and created a uniform defense for all federal civil forfeitures.