Federal drug laws authorize two types of forfeiture, criminal and civil. Criminal proceedings are brought against individuals, whereas civil proceedings are brought against the property sought to be forfeited. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Company illustrates the impact of forfeiture laws on third party interests. This case raised two constitutional issues: (1) the propriety of seizure without prior notice or hearing; and (2) the constitutionality of taking an innocent party's property without just compensation. Both issues were decided adversely to the innocent party. Seizure without prior notice or hearing was justified by the government's interest in preventing the continued illicit use of the property and in avoiding the possibility that the vessel would be hidden or removed from the jurisdiction with forewarning. The Pearson case established the principles that due process does not require preseizure forfeiture hearings and that innocence is not a constitutionally mandated defense in civil forfeiture cases. Issues associated with the defense of third party claimants who take all reasonable precautions to prevent the illegal use of their property are discussed, and Federal legislation enacted in 1988 to protect third party claimants is noted.