This post was updated at 3:45 p.m. with some background on a recent, related Supreme Court case.

A bill that makes modest changes to the ways law enforcers can confiscate property they believe was used in or represents the fruit of criminal proceeds is headed to Gov. Tom Wolf for enactment.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, R-Lebanon County, sailed through the state House Tuesday on a 194-0 vote.

Wolf is expected to sign it.

Some critics have complained the final bill didn't fix any of what they see as the three major problems with the present-day system.

It doesn't, they have noted, require criminal conviction to trigger a forfeiture, guarantee a lawyer to parties involved in forfeiture cases, or put enough distance between seizures and use of the assets by law enforcement.

Supporters countered the bill is a case where the perfect can't become the enemy of the good.

And, combined with the power of a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that requires prosecutors to prove that the owner of a seized property not only was aware of the illegal activity but also had agreed to it, they argued Senate Bill 8 will make real progress that should be welcomed.

That was the prevailing view in the House floor Tuesday, where the bill passed without opposition.

Rep. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia, tried to explain.

"I am one of the folks that think this didn't go far enough. But what I've learned during my time here in the legislature is sometimes you go with what you have at this moment. And then you go back and get more.

"For me, I see this as an opportunity to get something on the books, get something to the governor's desk and get something done, and then continue to work... to see what else we can get done on the issue," Harris said.

The bill does:

Raise the burden of proof for prosecutors seeking to complete the seizure of a person's assets.

Under existing law, property seizures can turn into forfeitures if prosecutors show a preponderance of evidence that there was a tie to criminal activity - the slightest tip of the scale.

The new law would require a showing that the property is tied to criminal activity by "clear and convincing evidence," just one notch below beyond reasonable doubt.

Gives parties to seizures a chance to retain the seized property during the pendency of criminal cases if they can show a hardship.

A person whose car is seized, for example, could petition to keep the vehicle if they can show that someone in the household needs the vehicle to be able to get back and forth from work.

Criminal defendants can also seek stays until their case is resolved.

Prevents law enforcement from evicting people from a home before a forfeiture hearing unless they can demonstrate to a judge that alleged criminal activity is likely to continue there, or the property will be sold or destroyed if police don't get it earlier.

All of that comes on top of last month's court decision, in which the court ruled unanimously that while authorities have a right to seize property used in criminal enterprises, they must prove the owner not only was aware of the illegal activity, but also agreed to it.

The court's May 26 ruling came in the case of Elizabeth Young, a 72-year-old grandmother from West Philadelphia. Young's house and minivan were seized by the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office in 2013 after her son was arrested for selling small amounts of marijuana there.

That forfeiture was sent back to the Philadelphia court for further review.

Supporters conclude that those are worthwhile changes for the better in a system that one clearinghouse has graded at D-minus in Pennsylvania.

County and state law enforcement officials collectively seized $18.8 million in cash, vehicles and other property in fiscal 2014-15, according to data gathered by the Senate Appropriations Committee.

As it stands, Senate Bill 8 is the product of careful negotiation between Folmer, Pennsylvania prosecutors and the U.S. Justice Action Network, which includes groups as varied as the American Civil Liberties Union and FreedomWorks.

The state chapter of the ACLU, however, has withdrawn its support for the bill.

Holly Harris, executive director of the Justice Action Network called the bill a "first step in reforming civil asset forfeiture laws, protecting property rights, and reinvigorating the presumption of innocence in Pennsylvania.

"Senate Bill 8 is not a complete solution," she added, "but it is a significant step forward supported by Republicans, Democrats, and the law enforcement community to begin restoring Pennsylvanians' constitutional rights."