The Court readily dismissed Tina Bennis' Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim as a non-issue once the Due Process Clause had been satisfied. 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. Justices Sandra Day O'Conner, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Ginsburg joined in the Chief Justice's majority opinion. Justices Thomas and Ginsburg also filed concurring opinions. Justice John Paul Stevens, in a powerfully worded dissenting opinion joined in by Justices David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer, said that he was convinced that the seizure of Tina Bennis' car was both blatantly unfair and unconstitutional.
Fundamental fairness prohibits the punishment of innocent people.
Justice Stevens said that the seizure was also an excessive punishment, subject to the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause and inconsistent with the Courts holding in Austin . The State surely may impose strict obligations on . . . Writing separately, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a relatively brief dissenting opinion, distinguished the precedent on which the Court relied and said that because Tina Bennis was an apparently innocent owner and the value of her ownership was not insignificant the forfeiture was an unconstitutional violation of due process. While defense attorneys and property rights advocates denounced the Court's ruling, prosecutors and law enforcement officials applauded the ruling and welcomed the strengthening of a powerful weapon in the war against crime. Meyers, supra .