The Supreme Court placed some limits on governmental forfeiture power in Aus-tin v. United States,1993. In that case, a South Dakota man had his mobile home and auto body shop seized after being convicted of selling two grams of cocaine. The Court unani-mously ruled that the amount seizedalmost $43,000was disproportionate to the crime. But the Court has nonetheless upheld the seizure of property from innocent owners over due process challenges (Bennis v. Michigan,1996; United States v. Ursery, 1996).After years of debate, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Act of 2000. Prior to the Acts passage, property owners had been required to prove that their property was not subject to forfeiture. Today, however, the government must proveby a preponderance of the evidencethat property is subject to forfeiture. The Act also awards attorneys fees to those who successfully challenge confiscation of property. Research concludes that there is no clear answer to whether asset forfeiture encourages policing for profit. How-ever, one study found that local law enforcement agencies circumvent restrictive state laws (those placing limits on the proceeds they can receive) by teaming up with federal officials to receive equitable sharing payments (Worrall & Kovandzic, 2008).The debate over asset forfeiture crosses traditional ideological lines. Due process advocates want limits on asset forfeiture because they think that innocent people end up being presumed guilty. Similarly, crime control supporters also want strong restrictions on asset forfeiture because they think it improperly gives the government too much authority over important property rights.