THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT SEIZURE FOR PURPOSES OF FORFEITURE CONSTITUTES AN 'EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION' WHICH JUSTIFIES POSTPONING NOTICE AND AN ADVERSARY HEARING. THE DECISION OVERTURNED A LOWER COURT RULING WHICH HELD THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON TWO DISTINCT GROUNDS: AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY FOR GOVERNMENT USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND AS A TAKING OF PROPERTY WITHOUT ADEQUATE NOTICE AND HEARING. THIS NOTE ARGUES THAT SUCH SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF BENEFICIAL PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS SERVES NO LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE AND SHOULD INDEED BE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AFTER A REVIEW OF THE BACKGROUND OF FORFEITURES AND OF THE PERTINENT CASE LAW, THE AUTHOR CRITICIZES THE REASON COURT'S RULING THAT A MERE SHOWING OF CONSENT TO USE (AS OPPOSED TO KNOWING CONSENT FOR ILLEGAL USE) IS CONSTITUTIONALLY SUFFICIENT FOR FORFEITURE. CITED ARE PROBLEMS INVOLVED WITH UNDERSTANDING HOW THE OBJECTIVE OF CURBING ILLICIT NARCOTICS TRAFFIC CAN BE ACHIEVED BY FORFEITING THE PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS AND WITH THE COURT'S IRREBUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF THE OWNER'S COLLUSION IN THE CRIME. THE AUTHOR RECOMMENDS THAT FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY OF INNOCENT OWNERS SHOULD BE ABANDONED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)