Through Civil Asset Forfeiture, the police can seize any property they think was involved in a crime, and use that property for pretty much any purpose they wish, including parties etc.
Suppose burglary, theft, and related unauthorized takings are illegal in a US state, with the exception of when the government does it through civil asset forfeiture.
Suppose Alice broke into Bob's house and stole items (e.g. cash, jewelry, electronics, etc.) which the police later obtain from Alice via civil asset forfeiture, where the crime the property was accused of being involved in was the burglary at Bob's house (assuming they were forced into giving a specific justification at all). Do the police have any obligation to return that to Bob, or can they use it for whatever other purpose they wish?
Does this align incentives such that the police are financial beneficiaries of the taking, and thus have an incentive to contribute to conditions that make it more likely, or even facilitate it, so long as they believe they'll likely be able to get the property after it's been taken from the original owner?