In the case of Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan, 1995, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Michigan's right to seize a vehicle used for illegal activities without compensating its co-owner who was unaware and uninvolved in those activities. The car owned by John and Tina Bennis was seized after Mr. Bennis was arrested for engaging with a prostitute inside it. Mrs.Bennis argued that she had no knowledge or involvement in her husband's illicit activity and therefore should not be penalized through loss of property; however, her claim was rejected by both local courts and eventually by the Supreme Court as well. The court held that Mrs.Bennis' due process rights were not violated because forfeiture laws serve a deterrent purpose against crime involving personal property irrespective of an innocent owner’s complicity or lack thereof in said crime.The ruling reaffirmed states’ authority under common law principles to confiscate properties involved in criminal offenses regardless if their owners are guilty or innocent.

In the dissenting opinion for Tina B. Bennis v. Michigan, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was a significant departure from traditional principles of forfeiture law and due process rights. He contended that Mrs. Bennis' property interest in her car should not be forfeited because she had no knowledge or control over her husband's illicit use of it, thus making her an innocent owner who should be protected under constitutional law. Furthermore, he criticized the Court’s reliance on historical precedents to justify its ruling as they were outdated and irrelevant to modern society where cars are essential items for many families’ livelihoods rather than luxury goods or instruments of crime like pirate ships in old times used by criminals to commit crimes at sea.