Skip to main content
Michigan Supreme Court Decision on Vehicle Forfeitures

Vehicle Forfeitures Before the Michigan Supreme Court

Vehicle Forfeiture Denied: Legal Analysis of Drug Transportation Case

On July 22, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in In re FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN ION that the government may pursue civil forfeiture under the Michigan’s forfeiture laws only if it can prove that a vehicle was used to transport drugs specifically for drug trafficking purposes. The case involved Stephanie Wilson, whose car was seized by sheriff’s deputies in Wayne County, Michigan. Despite the seizure, Wilson was not arrested, accused of any wrongdoing, or even issued a citation. No drugs were found in her car or on her passenger, though officers speculated that the passenger, Smith, might have possessed drugs in the vehicle at some point before the search. 

The Court determined that a vehicle implicated in a drug-related incident was not subject to forfeiture under Michigan law. The decision centered on whether the vehicle's use met all the legal elements required for forfeiture under MCL 333.7521(1)(d), which governs the transportation of drugs for sale or receipt.

The facts presented revealed that an individual, Smith, purchased drugs through a hand-to-hand transaction while seated in the defendant vehicle. However, the court found that this act did not constitute transportation for the purpose of sale or receipt of the drugs. The alleged transaction was concluded outside a residence when Smith received the drugs. Afterward, the claimant drove away, but the evidence showed that the drugs were intended solely for Smith’s personal use, with no further purpose tied to their sale or receipt.

The court emphasized that transportation of the drugs occurred only in a limited sense—when the vehicle moved away from the transaction site. Crucially, this transportation was not for the purpose of facilitating the sale or receipt of drugs, as required under the statute. Since the statutory elements were not met, the court ruled that the vehicle could not be forfeited.

This decision underscores the importance of scrutinizing the specific purposes and contexts of alleged drug-related activities in forfeiture cases. The ruling reaffirms that asset forfeiture laws cannot be applied in instances where all statutory requirements are not clearly fulfilled.

This is yet another epic victory by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit public interest law firm, and attorney Kirby West

Add new comment

Restricted HTML

  • You can align images (data-align="center"), but also videos, blockquotes, and so on.
  • You can caption images (data-caption="Text"), but also videos, blockquotes, and so on.

About

I am one of Michigan's leading criminal defense attorneys, and I frequently cross over into the realm of civil litigation when my clients face civil asset forfeiture claims. Cash and US currency seizures, car seizures, and even homes and real estate may be subject to Michigan's civil asset forfeiture laws, and I have successfully fought the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, the FBI, the DEA, and US Customs on civil asset forfeiture cases.

Featured Posts

Contact info

Maze Legal PLC is committed to aggressive ethical representation, excellence, and professionalism.

  • 15233 Farmington Rd., Livonia, Michigan 48154
  • (734) 591-0100
  • 37211 Goddard Rd., Romulus, Michigan 48174
  • (734) 941-8800