Fogelnest, a prominent New York City defense attorney, said he was "incredulous" that the Court would let stand the forfeiture of Tina Bennis' car. The State of Michigan seized the car because Bennis' husband used it to pick up a prostitute. All parties in the case agreed that Mrs. Bennis neither knew of nor consented to her husband's use of the family car for that purpose.
"The main practical effect of this decision will be to encourage legislative reform of state and federal forfeiture laws," Fogelnest predicted. "If the Court can tell the American people that it's O.K., under the Constitution, for the government to take property from innocent owners," he explained, "we're going to see a stampede to the legislatures to rein in forfeiture laws."
Fogelnest also criticized the Court's reasoning.
"This five-justice majority ignored the evolving law that underlies its own recent decisions in forfeiture cases," he said. "It took a sharp step backward by refusing to acknowledge that Mrs. Bennis met the test described in the 1974 case (Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.); she did all she could reasonably have been expected to do to prevent the misuse of her property. The majority rationalizes this by claiming that it is bound by older decisions -- decisions which themselves complained of being forced to reach unfair results based on adherence to earlier precedents."
"The Court utterly shirked its responsibility to continue the necessary work of bringing forfeiture law, with its ancient origins, into conformity with modern notions of fairness and constitutional liberty," Fogelnest observed.
Through its Forfeiture Abuse Task Force, NACDL has filed amicus curiae briefs in several of the Court's recent forfeiture cases.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL)