in Re Forfeiture of 2000 Gmc Denali and Contents
892 N.W.2d 388
Mich. Ct. App.2016Background
- Police arrested Quinton Kinnon for a drug transaction; search of home revealed marijuana plants and drug paraphernalia; officers seized multiple vehicles (including a 2000 GMC Denali and a 2006 Cadillac), a motorcycle, two laptops/tablets, and $398 from claimant Shantrese Kinnon’s purse.
- Quinton failed to post any bond; administrative forfeiture occurred for his interests after 20 days. Claimant attempted to contest but could not afford the full statutorily required bond to challenge all seized items and was told she had to select items she could afford to contest.
- Plaintiff (City) filed a forfeiture complaint for the Denali, El Camino, motorcycle, electronics, and cash; trial court found only the Denali and motorcycle subject to forfeiture and denied the innocent-owner defense based on claimant’s knowledge of the drug activity.
- Claimant moved to intervene to add the Cadillac, arguing the bond requirement denied her due process and equal protection by effectively barring indigent persons from court to contest forfeiture.
- Trial court denied the motion relying on precedent; on appeal the Court of Appeals held that Michigan’s statutory bond requirement, as applied to this indigent claimant, denied procedural due process by foreclosing her opportunity for a hearing, but affirmed forfeiture of the Denali and motorcycle based on evidence and claimant’s actual knowledge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statutory bond requirement (MCL 333.7523) as applied violates procedural due process by denying an indigent claimant a hearing | Bond requirement is constitutional; claimant could seek waiver via court rule or file suit | Bond operates to bar indigent claimants from the only available judicial remedy, denying opportunity to be heard | As-applied due process violation: bond requirement denied claimant a hearing; statute not facially invalid but unconstitutional as applied here |
| Whether claimant’s motion to intervene should have been granted to add the Cadillac because of indigency | Forfeiture statute and court rules provide adequate procedures; Any and All Monies supports constitutionality | Denial of intervention deprived claimant of due process because bond requirement prevented access to court | Denial of intervention constituted abuse of discretion as it perpetuated the due process violation |
| Whether the Denali and motorcycle were subject to forfeiture (clear and convincing evidence and substantial connection) | Evidence showed substantial nexus between Quinton’s drug activity and vehicles | Claimant argued lack of sufficient connection and asserted ownership/innocent-owner defense | Affirmed: substantial connection proved; vehicles forfeitable |
| Whether claimant was an innocent owner of the Denali and motorcycle (ownership, knowledge, consent) | Claimant asserted title/ownership and denied knowledge/consent | City pointed to testimony showing claimant’s admissions of knowledge and conduct implying consent | Mixed: Court erred in finding no ownership (claimant held title), but correctly found claimant had actual knowledge, so innocent-owner defense fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) (costs/fees may violate due process when they foreclose access to courts needed to vindicate a fundamental interest)
- United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 (1993) (notice and opportunity to be heard required before deprivation of property)
- Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972) (purpose of pre-deprivation hearing is to prevent erroneous deprivations of property)
- Wiren v. Eide, 542 F.2d 757 (9th Cir. 1976) (bond requirement in forfeiture that bars indigents from a judicial hearing violates due process)
- In re Return of Forfeited Goods, 452 Mich. 659 (1996) (posting bond is the statutory trigger for circuit court jurisdiction in Michigan forfeiture scheme)
- Whitman v. City of Burton, 493 Mich. 303 (2013) (court must enforce clear statutory language to effect legislative intent)