(dissenting). The nuisance abatement statute, as originally enacted in 1915, declared that a "building or place” used for the purpose of prostitution was an abatable nuisance.1
Ten years later, during the Prohibition era, "building or place” was amended to add "vehicle,” so that it read "building, vehicle or place.” For the purpose of "prostitution” was changed to read for the purpose of "prostitution or gambling,” and to include such a building, vehicle, or place "used by, or kept for the use of prostitutes or other disor*760derly persons,” or used for the manufacture of, or trafficking in, intoxicating beverages.2
i
In the seventy years since the 1925 enactment adding the word "vehicle,” there has been no prior reported prosecution of a person for the use of a vehicle for the purpose of prostitution. It thus appears that no automobile used by a man to visit a house of prostitution, or to visit a hotel or apartment house frequented by prostitutes, was abated as a nuisance.3
*761The statute has not heretofore been employed to abate the use of property by someone who was not himself engaged in the illicit activity as a business.4
I would hold that a vehicle is not subject to a nuisance abatement action unless the person owning or in lawful possession of the vehicle is engaged in and uses the vehicle in the conduct of illicit activity, described in the statute, as a business.
ii
The lead opinion states: "Where testimony surrounding proof of an incident of prostitution unequivocally establishes that the neighborhood has a reputation for prostitution, the property contributing to the continuance of the nuisance may be abated pursuant to the statute.”5 The lead opinion concludes that "the act of prostitution occurring in the Bennis vehicle in a neighborhood known for prostitution” was an abatable nuisance.6
The lead opinion thus would hold that a vehicle used by a customer of a prostitute becomes an abatable nuisance when such use contributes to a preexisting prostitution nuisance in a neighborhood, and that a vehicle may be found to so contribute when it is driven to a neighborhood *762where prostitutes congregate and is used in the commission of an act of prostitution in such a neighborhood.
The lead opinion thus appears to recognize that ordinarily the occasional use by a person, not himself engaged in an illicit activity as a business, of his vehicle to participate in illicit conduct, was not intended by the Legislature to permit the declaration of the vehicle as an abatable nuisance even though the customer’s conduct might be punishable as a criminal offense.
The reasoning of the lead opinion would mean that a customer’s vehicle used for prostitution may be abated as a nuisance when driven to and so used on Eight Mile Road in Detroit, but not when so used in Northville or Charlevoix. Some prosecutors and judges may think that way, but legislators do not.
I suggest that compliance with the admonishment, quoted approvingly by the lead opinion, that "[w]e have no other duty to perform than to construe the legislative will as we find it,”7 requires that we not attribute to the Legislature an intent to permit the seizure of a customer’s vehicle, only occasionally used in illicit activity, when the customer is not himself engaged in the illicit activity as a business.
The Legislature may, of course, amend the statute to provide for the seizure of customer vehicles, but, if the Legislature does so, it will surely so provide without regard to the neighborhood in which the customer of a prostitute uses his vehicle, whether in Northville, Charlevoix, or Detroit.
hi
Among the least persuasive arguments advanced *763by the lead opinion is the contention that "place” means the neighborhood, and that it must be so construed to give meaning to all the words in the statute.8 The word "place” was part of the original enactment, "building or place.”9 The Legislature had in mind that there might be a place that was not a building that might be used for prostitution that should be subject to an abatement action.
The general reputation of the place was admissible under the statute for the purpose of showing that the place is a nuisance.10 An automobile was not such a place when this legislation was first enacted in 1915. Vehicles were not added until 1925, at which time the Legislature distinguished between the general reputation of a building, and of a vehicle, and of a place. 11 The general reputation of a place may be considered for the purpose of showing that the place is a nuisance, and of a vehicle for the purpose of showing that the vehicle is a nuisance.12 But the general reputation of a place where the vehicle is driven or used may not, under the statutory provision for use of general reputation evidence, be relied on for the purpose of showing that the vehicle is a nuisance.
Unless a vehicle is itself a nuisance, it is not subject to abatement, and it is not within the intendment of the statute.
Unless a place is itself a nuisance, i.e., a place used for the purpose of prostitution, or used by or *764kept for the use of prostitutes, it is not subject to abatement, and it is not within the intendment of the statute. The Legislature clearly did not intend that an entire residential neighborhood where prostitutes roam was, as a place, subject to abatement.
IV
The reliance of the lead opinion on the statutory language stating that the prosecutor is not required to provide "[pjroof of knowledge of the existence of the nuisance on the part of the defendants or any of them,”13 to justify its conclusion that an innocent owner’s share of the property is subject to forfeiture, is misplaced. This, statutory provision only relieves the prosecutor of the burden of showing such knowledge as part of his prima facie case that there is a nuisance subject to abatement.14
This statutory provision does not make an owner’s lack of knowledge immaterial or irrelevant regarding whether property that is subject to abatement as a nuisance should be forfeited. As a matter of statutory construction, I would hold that an innocent co-owner’s share of the vehicle is not subject to forfeiture. Such a construction is especially called for where the Court by construction today enlarges the application of the nuisance abatement statute beyond its letter and beyond any prior application in its seventy-year history.
1915 PA 272 reading in part as follows:
Section 1. Whoever shall conduct, maintain, own or lease any building or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution is guilty of a nuisance, and the building or place in or upon which such lewdness, assignation or prostitution is conducted, permitted or carried on, and the furniture, fixtures, and contents are also declared a nuisance, and shall be enjoined and abated as hereinafter provided.
1925 PA 389 reading in part as follows:
Section 1. Any building, vehicle or place used for the purpose of lewdness, assignation or prostitution or gambling, or used by, or kept for the use of prostitutes or other disorderly persons, or used for the unlawful manufacture, storing, possessing, transporting, sale, keeping for sale, giving away, bartering, furnishing or otherwise disposing of any vinous, malt, brewed, fermented, spirituous or intoxicating liquors or any mixed liquors or beverages, any part of which is intoxicating, is hereby declared a nuisance and the furniture, fixtures and contents of any such building, vehicle or place, and all such intoxicating liquors therein are also declared a nuisance, and all such nuisances shall be enjoined and abated as hereinafter provided. Any person, or his servant, agent or employe who shall own, lease, conduct or maintain any building, vehicle or place used for any of the purposes or by any of the persons above set forth or where any of the acts above enumerated are conducted, permitted or carried on, is guilty of a nuisance.
The foregoing statutory provision was amended by 1951 PA 80 to add "boat” and "aircraft” as property subject to abatement and forfeiture, and to add trafficking in "narcotic and/or hypnotic drugs” as illicit businesses.
1988 PA 2 substituted "controlled substance” for "narcotic and/or hypnotic drugs.”
The current statute, MCL 600.3801; MSA 27A.3801, is set forth in the majority opinion, n 1.
No taxicab, even a taxicab that had been waiting outside a bar frequented by prostitutes, was abated as a nuisance.
No automobile Used by a prostitute who hailed men from the vehicle, or who used the vehicle to make a house call, was abated as a nuisance.
*761I do not wish to be understood as saying that a taxicab so used, or an automobile so used by a prostitute, might not be subject to abatement.
In the following cases, vehicles were found to be nuisances on evidence tending to show that they were used in gambling enterprises. See People ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Bitonti, 306 Mich 115; 10 NW2d 329 (1943); People ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Tate, 306 Mich 667; 11 NW2d 282 (1943); People ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Sill, 310 Mich 570; 17 NW2d 756 (1945); State ex rel Wayne Prosecuting Attorney v Martin, 314 Mich 317; 22 NW2d 381 (1946).
Ante, p 737.
Id.
McKibbin v Corp & Securities Comm, 369 Mich 69, 81; 119 NW2d 557 (1963), quoted approvingly, ante, p 739, n 30.
Ante, p 733.
See n 1.
1915 PA 272, § 3.
1925 PA 389, § 9. See n 12.
In any action brought under this chapter, evidence of the general reputation of the building, vehicle, boat, aircraft or place is admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of the nuisance. [MCL 600.3815(1); MSA 27A.3815(1).]
MCL 600.3815(2); MSA 27A.3815(2).
See 2 McCormick, Evidence (4th ed), § 342, Presumptions in General, pp 449 ÍF; § 343, Reasons for the Creation of Presumptions: Illustrative Presumptions, pp 454 if; § 344, The Effect of Presumptions in Civil Cases, pp 460 if.
See also LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed), § 213, Constitutional Limitations—Due Process and Statutory Presumptions, Defenses, and Exceptions, pp 158 if.