Wayne County, Michigan, appears to have a serious vehicle theft problem. Except in this case, the culprits are local law enforcement agencies, not civilians.
Wayne County has employed a civil asset forfeiture scheme that has ensnared numerous victims whose vehicles were stolen by the local government. Now, the county is facing a legal reckoning over its program.
Under the guise of “nuisance abatement” and public safety, the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office has allegedly stolen thousands of vehicles under its vehicle forfeiture program—often without filing charges against the owners.
The Institute for Justice (IJ) is spearheading the class-action lawsuit. The organization is representing plaintiffs Robert Reeves, Melisa Bell, and Stephanie Wilson, whose experiences reveal a law enforcement scheme built on intimidation, secrecy, and profit.
Civil asset forfeiture empowers law enforcement to seize property they suspect of being connected to criminal activity, regardless of whether there are charges or even a conviction. The practice, known as “Policing for Profit,” was initially intended to dismantle criminal enterprises. But for many law enforcement agencies, it has become little more than a revenue-generation tactic.
Robert Reeves, a construction worker and father, encountered civil asset forfeiture in 2019 while meeting with a friend to discuss a job opportunity. His friend needed someone who could operate a skid steer for a construction job.
After Reeves finished with his friend, he headed home. On the way, he stopped at a gas station. While inside the facility, a group of police officers accosted him. “So I drive into the gas station, I go on the inside, and the police swore me while I’m inside the gas station,” Reeves told Townhall. “They handcuffed me in the gas station, toook me outside, and put me in one of the state police cars.”
The officers claimed that Reeves’ friend had been dealing with stolen property, which led them to suspect Reeves might have been involved. They seized his 1991 Camaro and $2,000 in cash. They did not charge him with a crime.
This incident sparked a ten-month battle for Reeves to retrieve his property. He showed up at Wayne County on a routine basis to see about getting his car and cash back.
Eventually, Reeves contacted the Institute for Justice about his case. He participated in an interview with a local news outlet, which appeared to trigger a change of heart in Wayne County. “The police called me the next day and told me, ‘Mr. Reeves, you come pick up all your stuff.’”
Reeves was finally reunited with his property—but he wasn’t through with the county yet. He later joined IJ’s class-action lawsuit, which prompted even more action from the county.
Wayne County prosecutors filed charges against Reeves after he joined the lawsuit. They sought to charge him for receiving and concealing stolen property even though there was no evidence he had been involved in any theft. “Those initial criminal charges were ultimately dismissed for insufficient evidence in Michigan State Court,” said Kirby Thomas West, a lawyer with IJ who is representing the plaintiffs.
However, the process for getting the charges dismissed took about a year due to COVID-related court delays. During this time period, local law enforcement arrested and jailed Reeves after pulling him over. He had not even been aware that a warrant for his arrest existed. He spent two days in jail before being released.
Reeves and West indicated that the charges were retaliatory in nature. “They just kept bringing it back up on me because I was the only one suing them,” Reeves said.
West noted that the county’s actions were “totally transparent” and that “it was very clear to us that this was just naked retaliation against Robert for participating in this federal lawsuit.” She further pointed out that the authorities had dropped charges against Reeves’ friend, who asked him about the skid steer. “We just cannot allow our clients to be bullied like this,” she said.
In a surprising turn of events, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the assistant prosecutor involved with Reeves’ case could not claim absolute immunity due to the retaliation. This is a rare move as prosecutors rarely lose their absolute immunity. “In our complaint…we alleged that the prosecutor had reached out to the investigator and essentially instructed him to do this investigation and to come up with a warrant request so that he could then later file these criminal charges,” she explained.
Melisa Bell went through a similar ordeal. The county seized her vehicle twice in less than a year after he ex-boyfriend used it. The first time, he was allegedly in an area known for drug activity. “My boyfriend at the time had used my car to go look for a job… When he came back… he gave me the yellow paper, which was the nuisance and abatement form,” she told Townhall.
The second time officers seized the vehicle, they claimed Bell’s ex-boyfriend used it while soliciting a prostitute. The officers did not arrest him, nor did they ever file charges against him.
After the first seizure, Bell paid $900 to retrieve her vehicle. However, the fee rises with each subsequent seizure. The second time, they wanted to charge $1,800, a price she could not afford. The company that owned her vehicle contacted her upon learning that the car was seized.
“I called them, I begged them, I wrote them... I could never get it back,” Bell told Townhall. “I ended up having to file bankruptcy in order to eventually get the car back to Ford Motor Credit.”
Bell was forced to rely on public transportation for two years before she was able to purchase another vehicle — all for a supposed crime that she did not commit. “It affected me getting to and from work… My mental [health] suffered… I’m still dealing with it right now. I’m in therapy right now,” she said.
For West, Bell’s and Reeves’ stories illustrate the widespread abuse in Wayne County’s program. “Often the cars aren't worth that much, and people will just abandon their car and just call it lost,” she noted. “And the case is often innocent owners get wrapped up in this all the time.”
IJ’s lawsuit challenges Wayne County’s entire forfeiture scheme on multiple constitutional grounds. The organization alleges that the program violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The excessive fines constitute a violation of the Eight Amendment while the 14th Amendment violated the plaintiffs’ right to due process.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor on one issue: The County’s refusal to provide prompt post-seizure hearings. It acknowledged that the wait times were unconstitutional and forced the victims to go without a vehicle.
Wayne County’s program has come under scrutiny before. Between 2017 and 2019, county officials seized over 2,600 vehicles, raking in over $1.2 million in revenue. A Mackinac Center investigation revealed that in more than 500 of these cases, there was no criminal conviction.
For Reeves, this case is about more than just compensation. He wants to see the program dismantled. “That whole forfeiture thing [needs] to be shut down,” he said. He said officials should be “held accountable for doing the wrong thing and having some type of incentive to basically steal people’s stuff.”