Explore BrainMass
Share

Explore BrainMass

    The Houston Case

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA). This law sought to limit the ability of US Attorneys to exploit asset forfeiture procedures. A 1998 case in Houston brought to light the need to limit how asset forfeiture laws could be used. The Houston case involved a "Red Carpet Inn" motel. Research and summarize the Red Carpet Inn case, and answer the following questions:
    •Did the US Attorney go too far by using asset forfeiture against the motel owner?
    •Was the owner of the motel guilty of a crime? Why or why not?
    •Should the US Attorney have charged the motel owner with a crime, such as conspiracy or as an accessory to the crimes taking place on his property? Why or why not?
    •Given your analysis of the Red Carpet case, what is your opinion of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act? Was it necessary? Did it achieve its goal?
    •What is your evaluation of the US Attorney in the Red Carpet case? Should he be rewarded for doing his job, or punished for exceeding his authority?

    You may complete an Internet research by searching for the terms "asset forfeiture red carpet inn".
    APA Cite

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 10, 2019, 8:18 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/law/criminal-law-and-justice/houston-case-618743

    Solution Preview

    In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA). This law sought to limit the ability of US Attorneys to exploit asset forfeiture procedures. A 1998 case in Houston brought to light the need to limit how asset forfeiture laws could be used. The Houston case involved a "Red Carpet Inn" motel. Research and summarize the Red Carpet Inn case, and answer the following questions:
    •Did the US Attorney go too far by using asset forfeiture against the motel owner?

    Of course the U.S. Attorney went too far, because he publicly stated his intention to utilize this approach toward other legitimate business owners wherein if the business owners disagreed with the suggested security measures that police recommended, and if they couldn't afford these measures or weren't fiscally responsible for the business, they could be accused of tacitly supporting criminality. This is preposterous and was an exaggeration that attempted to allow the federal government to overstep its constitutional boundaries and engage in the re-appropriation of profits, land, and property because of a false insinuation by federal officials of criminality against innocent citizens.

    •Was the owner of the motel guilty of a crime? Why or why not?

    No, he was not guilty of any crime ...

    Solution Summary

    'The Houston Case is examined. The expert completes internet research for "asset forfeiture red carpet inn".

    $2.19