Other jurisdictions interpret the phrase disjunctively by allowing the owner to prove either lack of knowledge or lack of consent to defeat a forfeiture action. The question in the case was whether a property owner can assert the innocent owner defense on the basis of lack of consent even if he admits to having knowledge of the drug-related use of his property.
In various jurisdictions, the phrase is interpreted disjunctively, enabling the property owner to demonstrate either a lack of knowledge or a lack of agreement in order to successfully challenge a forfeiture action. The key question in this case was whether an individual can claim the innocent owner defense based on lack of consent, even if they admit to being aware of the illicit activities taking place on their property.