The Court resolved the concern over double jeopardy in favor of law enforcement in its 1996 decision in United States v. Ursery. The court consolidated two lower court cases and ruled eight-to-one that civil forfeiture is remedial rather than punitive. The Court ruled that the government could use, in combination, the criminal law to prosecute someone and the civil forfeiture laws to confiscate that person's property, even where both actions were based on the same underlying criminal offense. The second case addressed the perception that civil forfeiture can be unfair. This perception is based partly on the reality that a civil forfeiture of property can be obtained against an owner who was not involved in or aware of the criminal activity in which the property was involved. The Court examined such a forfeiture action in Bennis v. Michigan and upheld the confiscation. The Court balanced the increased responsibility for property owners against the need to deter criminal conduct and decided in favor of law enforcement. However, this decision is not an unqualified justification for forfeiture where the owner is known to be innocent of any wrongdoing; Congress has provided an innocent owner exception to most Federal civil forfeiture laws. Nevertheless, these decisions enable law enforcement agencies to use civil forfeiture to take the profit out of crime and deter future criminal conduct motivated by greed. 33 references