For each relevant case, this report presents the holding, the facts of the case, and the court's analysis. Cases involving due process requirements, "relation back" of property used for illegal purposes, the "innocent owner" defense, the "substantial connection" requirement, self-incrimination, double jeopardy and collateral estoppel, and the Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution are included. With regard to cases in which there are no emergency circumstances, the U.S. Supreme Court requires different levels of due process, depending upon the type of property seized. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have provided property owners with more protections against forfeiture of property allegedly connected to illegal activities. There also are a number of unresolved issues that have not been addressed yet by the U.S. Supreme Court. One such issue centers upon requirements for establishing an innocent-owner defense. Another area of litigation has involved discerning the property's relationship to the alleged crime. Before the government can forfeit property, it must prove that there is probable cause to believe that the property has a "substantial connection" to the alleged illegal activity. Another fertile area for litigation has involved the claimant's Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination. A number of courts have considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits second prosecutions or punishments for the same offense, is violated when an individual is subjected to both a civil penalty and criminal prosecution for the same alleged conduct. A second double jeopardy issue involved the "dual sovereignty doctrine," under which no double jeopardy violation occurs if different governments prosecute an individual for the same offense. Some courts have, therefore, ruled that no double jeopardy violation occurs when criminal proceedings are prosecuted in State court followed by civil forfeiture proceedings in Federal court. 118 footnotes