U.S. Justices Will Review Forfeiture Law : Supreme Court: They will rule whether property of an “innocent owner” can be seized if it is used in commission of a crime.

The Supreme Court, focusing again on government’s aggressive use of forfeiture laws, said Monday it would decide whether an “innocent owner’s” home, car or boat can be seized if it is used in the commission of a crime.

That question has arisen often in recent years as prosecutors have won the forfeiture of huge amounts of property, including airplanes, yachts and luxury cars, that were allegedly used by convicted drug dealers.

All the while, however, it has been unclear whether the Constitution allows the government to seize the property of an owner who did not know it was used in connection with a crime. The answer to that question is particularly important to the owners of apartment buildings, restaurants and yachts, among others, who have faced the prospect of losing their properties should someone else use it for criminal purposes.

While the constitutional issue is considered significant, it came to the high court in a case that looks to be anything but. It involves a prostitute, a 1977 Pontiac and an angry wife.

On the evening of Oct. 3, 1988, Detroit police patrolling in an area where prostitution was rampant shined a flashlight inside a parked Pontiac and saw John Bennis having sex with a known prostitute. Bennis was convicted of “gross indecency.”

Nine days later, Wayne County prosecutors declared Bennis’ Pontiac a “nuisance” and won a court order to seize it.

They relied on the state’s 1925 nuisance abatement law, which applies to “any building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation, prostitution or gambling.”

In the past, prosecutors said, they had used the law to padlock bars, massage parlors or apartments that were used for prostitution. But in 1988, they decided to employ it to seize the cars of men who picked up prostitutes.

Bennis unwittingly became the first target of the new policy.

But his wife Tina Bennis cried foul, complaining that the family car was hers, too. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, she filed a suit contending it violated her right to “due process of law” to have her car confiscated when she had no idea it was being used in connection with a crime.

The federal drug forfeiture law specifically exempts innocent owners but many state laws do not. Michigan prosecutors said the nuisance abatement law includes “no exemption for innocent owners.”

In December, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the seizure of the Pontiac on a 4-3 vote. Tina Bennis then filed a “pauper’s petition” with the U.S. Supreme Court and asserted that her case raises an issue “of vital importance to the nation’s constitutional jurisprudence.”

Apparently, the justices agreed. They will hear arguments in the case (Tina Bennis vs. Michigan, 94-8729) during the fall and issue a decision early next year.

The justices clearly have been concerned about the possible abuse of the government’s forfeiture power. Two years ago, the court ruled that a forfeiture must be proportional to the crime. For example, a person should not lose his or her house and business over a one-time, minor drug sale. Last year, the justices also said that a convicted drug criminal is entitled to a full hearing before his house or other property can be seized.

In other actions, the court:

* Let stand a ruling that struck down a city ordinance banning all residential picketing (Upper Arlington vs. Vittitow, 94-1675).

In a 1988 case, the justices said residential picketing cannot be banned entirely, but they allowed cities to prevent protesters from congregating directly in front of a particular dwelling. Recently, state courts have expanded that rule to keep protesters 300 feet away from an abortion doctor’s home. A New Jersey court went a step further and limited pickets to marching for only one hour every other week near the home of a doctor who performed abortions.

For now, the justices have refused to clarify when and where residential picketing is permitted under the First Amendment.

* Ruled that treatment at a halfway house or similar confinement is not “official detention” that counts as time served under federal sentencing rules (Reno vs. Koray, 94-790). By an 8-1 vote, the court reversed a more liberal policy that had been followed by, among others, the U.S. appeals court in California.

* Agreed to decide whether patent claimants have a right to a jury trial, which they do not now. In 1993, a federal judge in San Diego ruled that American Airlines had not violated the patent of Lawrence Lockwood over its computer reservation system. But a federal court said that Lockwood is entitled to a jury trial on the issue. The case (American Airlines vs. Lockwood, 94-1660) will be heard in the fall.