Victory!

Police abuse of forfeiture laws are legend. For years, police in Michigan were able to confiscate cars for suspected “vice” activity based on only a “preponderance of the evidence” that a crime was committed. After intense lobbying efforts, the legislature strengthened due process protections by elevating the government’s burden of proof to “clear and convincing evidence.” However, in Wayne County, car forfeitures continued to be prosecuted under the more relaxed standard. The ACLU of Michigan provided direct representation on appeal to John Knoelk, a lifelong resident of Detroit, whose car was confiscated based on the accusation that he used it to pick up a prostitute. Mr. Knoelk was never arrested or charged with a crime, and at his forfeiture trial the primary evidence against him was the testimony of a police officer who saw a woman she “believed” to be a prostitute get into his car. At the end of the trial the judge said the government had proved its case by a preponderance, even though the law had been changed to require proof by clear and convincing evidence. In November 2018 the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial using the correct legal standard. When the correct legal standard was applied, the government failed to prove its case and was ordered to return Mr. Knoelk’s car.

(In re Forfeiture of 2006 Dodge Charger; ACLU Attorney Dan Korobkin.)

Flint residents filed class action lawsuits in both federal and state court for damages caused by the water crisis. In federal court, they brought claims that the malfeasance of government officials violated their rights under the United States Constitution. The district judge dismissed the federal lawsuit, ruling that the residents’ constitutional claims were preempted by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). On appeal, the ACLU of Michigan and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Sixth Circuit arguing that Congress never intended to strip citizens of the right to seek a remedy under the Constitution when it enacted the SDWA. In 2017 the Sixth Circuit agreed and reinstated the federal damages claims. Meanwhile, in state court, the plaintiffs brought claims arguing that the state violated their right to bodily integrity in violation of the Michigan Constitution by switching the city’s water source to the Flint River and deceiving the public about its toxicity. The state sought dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that there is no constitutional right to bodily integrity, that the state was immune from suit, and that damages were not available for violations of the state constitution. When the case reached the Michigan Supreme Court, we again joined NRDC in filing a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the plaintiffs. In July 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs’ claims could go forward. In 2021 the parties reached a $600 million settlement. (Mays v. Snyder; Mays v. Governor; ACLU Attorneys Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio and Dan Korobkin; co-counsel Dimple Chaudhary, Kaitlin Morrison, Sarah Tallman, Jared Knicley, and Jared Orr of NRDC, and Nicholas Leonard of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center.)

In May 2018 Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new “zero tolerance” immigration policy that resulted in the forced separation of thousands of young children from their families when they crossed the border. The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit to stop family separation, and in June 2018 a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction, ordering the government to reunite all children with their parents.  

Three fathers from Central America who were separated from their toddlers at the Texas border after seeking asylum in the United States were transferred to Michigan to reunite with their children. One of the fathers had been sleeping on the floor of a cell alongside his three-year-old son in a Texas detention center when he was awakened and told to leave the cell for processing; he did not see his son again for three months. 

In July 2018, the ACLU of Michigan represented two of the fathers in the reunification process and immigration court proceedings. They were reunited with their respective three-year-old sons and are now living with relatives in other states.  

(ACLU of Michigan Attorney Abril Valdes).