Justice Richard Bernstein, leading the majority, emphasized that the car seizure went beyond the Act’s intended reach. Backed by Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement and Justices Brian Zahra, Megan Cavanagh, Elizabeth Welch, and Kyra Harris Bolden, the court’s decision reversed a split Court of Appeals panel ruling and reinstated the trial court’s judgment favoring the vehicle’s owner.

Dissenting opinion: a different gear.

MORE NEWS: State Budget Grows 15.5% Over a Decade, Adjusted for Inflation

Justice David Viviano, the lone dissenter, believed the majority’s interpretation of the law was too narrow. In his view, the term “receipt” in the statute could be broadly construed to justify the vehicle’s forfeiture. Viviano argued that under MCL 333.7521(1)(f), the car was still fair game, and he would have upheld a previous Court of Appeals’ ruling.

Steering the law: Bernstein’s opinion.

Justice Bernstein’s written opinion, however, highlighted that for a vehicle to be seized under civil forfeiture laws, it must play a more active role in the drug trade than simply being present at the scene. The Saturn Ion, in this case, was more of a passive observer in the drug deal than an active participant.

Bernstein said that the statute demands the vehicle be used or intended to be used for transporting drugs. Without evidence of such use, the forfeiture fell outside the law’s bounds, marking a significant win for the vehicle owner and setting a precedent that prevents law enforcement from crossing the line too far.

The road ahead: implications for future cases.

This ruling puts the brakes on a broad interpretation of vehicle forfeiture laws in drug cases, ensuring that law enforcement can’t seize vehicles unless there’s clear evidence of their use in transporting narcotics. It’s a landmark decision that will likely influence similar cases down the road, steering them toward more stringent adherence to statutory requirements.