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.
Other jurisdictions interpret the phrase disjunctively by allowing the owner to prove either lack of knowledge or lack of agreement, thereby enabling them to counter a forfeiture action. The central issue in the case was whether an individual property owner can assert the innocent owner defense based on lack of consent even if they acknowledge having been aware of the illicit use of their property.