Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521 (2026)

Property subject to forfeiture; burden of proof; "imitation controlled substance" defined.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PUBLIC HEALTH CODE

Act 368 of 1978

333.7521 Property subject to forfeiture; burden of proof; "imitation controlled substance" defined.

Sec. 7521.

(1) The following property is subject to forfeiture:

(a) A prescription form, controlled substance, an imitation controlled substance, a controlled substance analogue, or other drug that has been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, used, possessed, or acquired in violation of this article.

(b) A raw material, product, or equipment of any kind that is used, or intended for use, in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting a controlled substance, a controlled substance analogue, or other drug in violation of this article; or a raw material, product, or equipment of any kind that is intended for use in manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting an imitation controlled substance in violation of section 7341.

(d) Except as provided in subparagraphs (i) to (iv), a conveyance, including an aircraft, vehicle, or vessel used or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, for the purpose of sale or receipt of property described in subdivision (a) or (b):

(i) A conveyance used by a person as a common carrier in the transaction of business as a common carrier is not subject to forfeiture unless it appears that the owner or other person in charge of the conveyance is a consenting party or privy to a violation of this article.

(ii) A conveyance is not subject to forfeiture by reason of any act or omission established by the owner of that conveyance to have been committed or omitted without the owner's knowledge or consent.

(iii) A conveyance is not subject to forfeiture for a violation of section 7403(2)(c) or (d), section 7404, or section 7341(4).

(iv) A forfeiture of a conveyance encumbered by a bona fide security interest is subject to the interest of the secured party who neither had knowledge of nor consented to the act or omission.

(e) Books, records, and research products and materials, including formulas, microfilm, tapes, and data used, or intended for use, in violation of this article.

(f) Any thing of value that is furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for a controlled substance, an imitation controlled substance, or other drug in violation of this article that is traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance, an imitation controlled substance, or other drug in violation of this article or that is used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of this article including, but not limited to, money, negotiable instruments, or securities. To the extent of the interest of an owner, a thing of value is not subject to forfeiture under this subdivision by reason of any act or omission that is established by the owner of the item to have been committed or omitted without the owner's knowledge or consent. Any money that is found in close proximity to any property that is subject to forfeiture under subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) is presumed to be subject to forfeiture under this subdivision. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

(g) Any other drug paraphernalia not described in subdivision (b) or (c).

(2) The plaintiff in a forfeiture action under this article has the burden of proving a violation of this article by clear and convincing evidence. This subsection applies to forfeiture proceedings commenced under this article on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection.

(3) As used in this section, "imitation controlled substance" means that term as defined in section 7341.

History: 1978, Act 368, Eff. Sept. 30, 1978 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 251, Imd. Eff. Sept. 29, 1982 ;-- Am. 1984, Act 347, Eff. Mar. 29, 1985 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 60, Eff. Aug. 1, 1989 ;-- Am. 1988, Act 139, Imd. Eff. June 3, 1988 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 30, Eff. Mar. 28, 1991 ;-- Am. 2000, Act 302, Eff. Jan. 1, 2001 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 236, Eff. Jan. 6, 2003 ;-- Am. 2015, Act 154, Eff. Jan. 18, 2016

Compiler's Notes:

Enacting section 2 of Act 236 of 2001 provides:

“Enacting section 2. Sections 7401, 7403, 7407, and 7521 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401, 333.7403, 333.7407, and 333.7521, as amended by this amendatory act, take effect upon promulgation of the rules required under section 7333a of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7333a, and receipt by the secretary of state of written notice from the director of the department of consumer and industry services that the electronic monitoring system required by section 7333a of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7333a, is operational. The notice to the secretary of state shall include a statement that the department of consumer and industry services is able to receive data from at least 80% of those required to report under section 7333a of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7333a, and is able to respond to requests for data from persons authorized to make such requests and to review and utilize the data.”

The rules required under section 7333a of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7333a, pertaining to the operation of the electronic monitoring system, were promulgated on December 30, 2002. In addition, a written notice from the director of the department of consumer and industry services that the electronic monitoring system required by section 7333a of the public health code is operational was filed with, and received by, the secretary of state on January 6, 2003.

PopularName Notes:

Act 368

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 87 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: In Re Forfeiture of $180,975, 734 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Forfeiture of $180,975, 734 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 34× “Because we find that the exclusionary rule was never meant to preclude illegally seized property from a subsequent civil forfeiture proceeding involving that property, we hold that, in accord with In re Forfeiture of United States Currency and MCL 333.7521, as long as the order…”

In Re Forfeiture of $5,264, 439 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. 1989). · cites it 16× “" [3] On June 22, 1988, we *248 granted leave to appeal, limited to the issue whether the store building was subject to forfeiture under MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521). [4] II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION The issue before the Court is one of statutory construction.”

in Re Forfeiture of 2000 Gmc Denali & Contents, 892 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “MCL 333.7521(2) and MCL 333.7523(l)(c). And when a claimant is unable to post the bond, the seized property is administratively forfeited.”

In re Forfeiture of a Quantity of Marijuana, 805 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 9× “FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 13, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint for forfeiture and to quiet title to real property, naming claimants as defendants, together with their son, Steven Ostipow, as well as the various items of personal property for which plaintiff sought an order of…”

In Re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 486 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “Claimants appeal as of right from an August 2, 1990, judgment of forfeiture of property seized under a controlled substances provision of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521), entered by Wayne Circuit Judge Michael J.”

In Re Forfeiture of $53, 444 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “[MCL 333.7521(1)(d)(ii); MSA 14.15(7521)(l)(d)(ii).”

In Re Forfeiture of One 1983 Cadillac, 439 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “Wood for a purpose prohibited by MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521) and that the delay in bringing the forfeiture proceedings was not unreasonable under MCL 333.”

People v. United States Currency, 404 N.W.2d 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “MCL 333.7521(1); MSA 14.15(7521)(1) provides in part: *129 The following property is subject to forfeiture: (a) A controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance which has been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, used, possessed, or acquired in violation of this…”

In Re Forfeiture of 719 N Main, 437 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “A petition for forfeiture of the real property had been filed by the prosecuting attorney pursuant to MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521). The petition alleged that an undercover law enforcement officer had purchased cocaine from William Sharon at the *109 residence located on the…”

People v. 2850 Ewing Road, 409 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 5× “The people filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the property was subject to forfeiture pursuant to MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521). Two affidavits were filed by the people and relied upon by the trial judge in granting the people’s motion.”

Noll v. Ritzer, 895 N.W.2d 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “(March 19, 2009), p 1. 5 We note that this Court has recently held that the requirement that a bond be posted for a claimant to contest the seizure of property under Michigan’s civil asset forfeiture scheme, MCL 333.”

In Re Forfeiture of 45649 Maben Road, 434 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521) contains the forfeiture provisions for violations of the controlled substances act.”

Show all 87 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1) — 10 cases

Curry v. Meijer, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).

People v. United States Currency, 404 N.W.2d 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “MCL 333.7521(1); MSA 14.15(7521)(1) provides in part: *129 The following property is subject to forfeiture: (a) A controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance which has been manufactured, distributed, dispensed, used, possessed, or acquired in violation of this…”

In Re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 420 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

People v. Jacques, 572 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 1998).

In re Forfeiture of 19203 Albany, 532 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(a) — 2 cases

In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. 2024).

D in Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(b) — 2 cases

In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. 2024).

in Re Forfeiture of $11,377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(c) — 2 cases

In Re Forfeiture of 30800 Grandview, 444 N.W.2d 547 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).

In Re Forfeiture of 5118 Indian Garden Road, 654 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(d) — 7 cases

In Re Forfeiture of One 1983 Cadillac, 439 N.W.2d 346 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “Wood for a purpose prohibited by MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521) and that the delay in bringing the forfeiture proceedings was not unreasonable under MCL 333.”

In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. 2024).

D in Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

in Re Forfeiture of 2007 Ford Focus (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(d)(i) — 1 case

In Re Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn Ion (Mich. 2024).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(d)(ii) — 3 cases

In Re Forfeiture of $53, 444 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “[MCL 333.7521(1)(d)(ii); MSA 14.15(7521)(l)(d)(ii).”

In Re Forfeiture of $1,159,420, 486 N.W.2d 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “Claimants appeal as of right from an August 2, 1990, judgment of forfeiture of property seized under a controlled substances provision of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521), entered by Wayne Circuit Judge Michael J.”

in Re Forfeiture of 1999 Ford Contour (Mich. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(d)(iii) — 3 cases

In Re Forfeiture of $2,124 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

in Re Forfeiture of 2007 Ford Focus (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

in Re Forfeiture of 1999 Ford Contour (Mich. 2012).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(1)(f) — 22 cases

In Re Forfeiture of $180,975, 734 N.W.2d 489 (Mich. 2007). “Because we find that the exclusionary rule was never meant to preclude illegally seized property from a subsequent civil forfeiture proceeding involving that property, we hold that, in accord with In re Forfeiture of United States Currency and MCL 333.7521, as long as the order…”

In Re Forfeiture of $5,264, 439 N.W.2d 246 (Mich. 1989). “" [3] On June 22, 1988, we *248 granted leave to appeal, limited to the issue whether the store building was subject to forfeiture under MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521). [4] II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION The issue before the Court is one of statutory construction.”

In re Forfeiture of a Quantity of Marijuana, 805 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “FACTUAL BACKGROUND On June 13, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint for forfeiture and to quiet title to real property, naming claimants as defendants, together with their son, Steven Ostipow, as well as the various items of personal property for which plaintiff sought an order of…”

People v. Gallego, 424 N.W.2d 470 (Mich. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(2) — 2 cases

in Re Forfeiture of 2000 Gmc Denali & Contents, 892 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “MCL 333.7521(2) and MCL 333.7523(l)(c). And when a claimant is unable to post the bond, the seized property is administratively forfeited.”

In Re Forfeiture of $2,124 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(c) — 1 case

People v. 2850 Ewing Road, 409 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The people filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the property was subject to forfeiture pursuant to MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521). Two affidavits were filed by the people and relied upon by the trial judge in granting the people’s motion.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(d) — 1 case

In re Forfeiture of 1987 Mercury, 652 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(d)(ii) — 1 case

People v. One 1979 Honda Auto., 362 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(d)(iii) — 2 cases

People v. One 1979 Honda Auto., 362 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

In re Forfeiture of 1987 Mercury, 652 N.W.2d 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(f) — 6 cases

In Re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street, 487 N.W.2d 795 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

People v. Gallego, 372 N.W.2d 640 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).

in Re Forfeiture of $11,377 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(l)(a) — 1 case

In re Forfeiture of $111,144, 478 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(l)(c) — 3 cases

In re Forfeiture of 19203 Albany, 532 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

In Re Forfeiture of 45649 Maben Road, 434 N.W.2d 238 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 333.7521; MSA 14.15(7521) contains the forfeiture provisions for violations of the controlled substances act.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(l)(d) — 4 cases

In Re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 416 N.W.2d 700 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987).

Lenawee Prosecutor v. One 1981 Buick Two-Door Riviera, 419 N.W.2d 458 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(l)(d)(ii) — 3 cases

In Re Forfeiture of $53, 444 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “[MCL 333.7521(1)(d)(ii); MSA 14.15(7521)(l)(d)(ii).”

In re Forfeiture of $109,901, 533 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 333.7521(l)(f) — 12 cases

In Re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 420 N.W.2d 131 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).

In re Forfeiture of $18,000, 471 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).

In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 465 Mich. 382 (Mich. 2001).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.