Question

1. How has civil asset forfeitures been supporting police departments and drug enforcement units around the country
2. If civil asset forfeitures are supporting drug task forces, what are the possible conflicts of interest that could occur?
3. Do you see this as legal robbery? Explain your response.
4. What did you think of the Investigative report film?
5. Do some research, What are the civil asset forfeiture laws in Massachusetts?
6. Provide a documented case in Massachusetts similar to those described in the Investigative report in Tennessee?
7. Would Civil Asset Forfeitures be used properly if we did not have a War on Drugs? How has the war on drugs precipitated the massive increase civil asset forfeitures on not only criminals but also on innocent people?

Answer 1

How has civil asset forfeitures been supporting police departments and drug enforcement units around the country?
Ans. So according to various different laws, any premise known to have been used for drug relate crimes is forfeited. This means that when lenders are rending out their property, they want to ensure that their tennants
dont inluge in illegal activities in fear of stringent punishment like forfeiture of the said property. Unlike criminal forfeiture, which takes property from convicted criminals, under civil forfeiture,
property owners do not have to be convicted of a crime, or even charged with one, to permanently lose their cash, cars, businesses or even their homes.

If civil asset forfeitures are supporting drug task forces, what are the possible conflicts of interest that could occur?
Ans. As we can see, civil forfeitures are a relly powerful tool in the hands of law enforcement for law implementation when used justly. Now, in cases where there is a personal interest in property involved in the forfeiture
by the investigating officer or anyone related to the investigating team , then unlawfully this law can be used for personal interest to vacate a premise for personal gain and not for the gain of scoety as a whole.
Such conflict of interest is easily posible and needs laws to be addressed.

Do you see this as legal robbery? Explain your response.
Ans. Yes. Its Legal robbery. Civil forfeitures were rarely used before the drug related crimes started getting punished in masse in 1970's . Since drug related crimes have seen unfair proportion of black
population being sent behind the bars due to petty felonies because of white / black bias for centuries, from the police against the black community. This means civil forfeitures too ahve been used
disproprtionately agains black population, making it clear that conflict of interest plays a major role in most civil forfeitures, and as we have already seen, Civil forfeiture with conflict of interest involved is
always bad for the general public.

What did you think of the Investigative report film?
Ans. The report film laid down a bright light on the problem of civil forfeiured being abused by the crime investigatino and law enforcement afgencies throughout states and counties to get unjust punishments for
personal gains. This has also seen a great rice in racial abuse in the form of legal recourse by authorities.

Do some research, What are the civil asset forfeiture laws in Massachusetts?
Ans. From a news artile from Jan 1, 2020
Massachusetts earns an F for its civil forfeiture laws:
Lowest bar to forfeit property and no conviction required. Poor protections for innocent third-party property owners. As much as 100% of forfeiture proceeds go to law enforcement.
Hence we can say that civil forfeiture laws in Massachusetts are really harsh
  
Provide a documented case in Massachusetts similar to those described in the Investigative report in Tennessee?
Ans. The nightmare Russ Caswell and his family faced in Tewksbury, Mass:
Where the the federal government tried to take the family-operated motel they have owned for two generations. Seeking to circumvent state law and cash in on the profits, the Tewksbury Police Department teamed
up with the United States Department of Justice to take and sell the Caswell’s property because a tiny fraction of people staying there during the past 14 years were arrested for drug crimes. Keep in mind,
the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property. And during those 14 years, the government pointed to a mere fifteen arrests—out of
more than 200,000 rooms rented during that time by the Caswells.

Despite all this, the Caswells could have lost literally everything they had worked for because of this effort by federal and local law enforcement officials not to pursue justice, but rather to police for profit.

The Institute for Justice, a national public interest law firm that fights civil forfeiture abuse nationwide, represented the Caswells in defense of their property and their constitutional rights. After a
four-day trial, on January 24, 2013, a federal judge in Boston dismissed the forfeiture action against them ruling that the government engaged in “gross exaggeration” of the evidence and did not have
authority to forfeit the property. The judge also held that the Caswells were themselves innocent owners of the property that took all reasonable actions to prevent crime on their property.

The U.S. Attorney’s office later announced that it would not appeal Judge Judith Dein’s decision so the Caswells’ victory is now final. The decision is a significant win for property rights, the rule of law,
and a hard-working, law-abiding family bullied by the federal government.
Would Civil Asset Forfeitures be used properly if we did not have a War on Drugs? How has the war on drugs precipitated the massive increase civil asset forfeitures on not only criminals but also on innocent people?
Ans. Civil forfeiture was rarely used before the war on drugs started in 1970's. After that we have seen a significant rise in the number of civil forfeitures. Now, since there is quite a possiblity of police departments,
like in the previous example to try and misuse the law for their own profits, and this has caused innocent bystanders, who are not accomplice in crime to get effected, in a way that landowners can get their properties
confiscated for activities of their tenants. So harsh implementation of the civil forfeiture laws can be seen as federal / state bullying of its citizens and has tremendous effect not only on criminals but also on innocent people