The amateur whore takes your husband, the professional whore takes your car. Fortunately, the Supreme Court says that this is justice:

================================================================
BENNIS v. MICHIGAN
Docket 94-8729 -- Decided March 4, 1996
================================================================

Petitioner was a joint owner, with her husband, of an automobile
in which her husband engaged in sexual activity with a
prostitute. In declaring the automobile forfeit as a public
nuisance under Michigan's statutory abatement scheme, the trial
court permitted no offset for petitioner's interest,
notwithstanding her lack of knowledge of her husband's activity.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, but was in turn reversed
by the State Supreme Court, which concluded, inter alia, that
Michigan's failure to provide an innocent owner defense was
without federal constitutional consequence under this Court's
decisions.

Held:

The forfeiture order did not offend the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment or the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment. Pp. 4-12.

(a) Michigan's abatement scheme has not deprived petitioner of
her interest in the forfeited car without due process. Her claim
that she was entitled to contest the abatement by showing that
she did not know that her husband would use the car to violate
state law is defeated by a long and unbroken line of cases in
which this Court has held that an owner's interest in property
may be forfeited by reason of the use to which the property is
put even though the owner did not know that it was to be put to
such use. See, e.g., Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U.S. 465, 467-468,
and Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U.S. 663,
668, 683; Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80, and Austin v.
United States, 509 U.S. ___, ___, distinguished. These cases are
too firmly fixed in the country's punitive and remedial
jurisprudence to be now displaced. Cf. J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-
Grant Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 505, 511. Pp. 4-11.

(b) Michigan's abatement scheme has not taken petitioner's
property for public use without compensation. Because the
forfeiture proceeding did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment,
her property in the automobile was transferred by virtue of that
proceeding to the State. The government may not be required to
compensate an owner for property which it has already lawfully
acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than
the power of eminent domain. See, e.g., United States v. Fuller,
409 U.S. 488, 492. P. 11.

447 Mich. 719, 527 N.W.2d 483, affirmed.

Rehnquist, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J.,
and Ginsburg, J., filed concurring opinions. Stevens, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined.
Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion.