Tweet
The police have no problem stealing from you as long as they think they can get away with it. This case is fueled primarily by the fact that the old guy owns this piece of property free and clear and the local government and feds think they can steal it without a lender and thereby, a significant legal warchest to aid the defense.
Court Rejects Justice Department Seizure of Motel .
By GARY FIELDS And JOHN R. EMSHWILLER
A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's effort to seize a family-owned motel in Tewksbury, Mass., a decision that could rein in the federal government's power to seize private property.
The government argued the property, known as the Motel Caswell, was forfeitable because it has been connected to criminal activity, in this case 15 drug-related incidents that took place between 1994 and 2008. The Caswell family, owners of the motel through a trust, said it had nothing do with the drug activities.
The $57-a-night Motel Caswell was an unlikely prize in a high-stakes tug-of-war between conservative legal activists and the government. The Journal previously wrote about the motel in October 2011 as part of its series Federal Offenses, which examined the consequences of a vastly expanding federal criminal law book.
In a sometimes scathing ruling, which for now halts the civil action brought by the federal government, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Dein said the federal government "had not met its burden of proving a substantial connection between the Motel Caswell and the forfeitable crimes, and, therefore, has not met its burden of proving that the Property is forfeitable."
The judge added that the motel's proprietor, Russell Caswell, of Tewksbury, Mass., did meet his "burden of proving the innocent owner defense."
Mr. Caswell's case, which was detailed in a page-one Wall Street Journal article in 2011, challenged the U.S. government's asset-forfeiture system, which collects billions of dollars each year of cash, real estate, cars and other assets. In some cases, property has been seized without the owner being convicted of a crime. The proceeds from those seizures are often doled out to local authorities who participate in the investigations that lead to the seizures.
Law-enforcement authorities argue the laws afford adequate citizen protections and are important tools used to drain the wealth of drug traffickers and other criminal enterprises.
The U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement that it respected the opinion, but added that the case "was strictly a law-enforcement effort to crack down on what was seen as a pattern of using the motel to further the commission of drug crimes for nearly three decades. We are weighing our options with respect to appeal." The government has 60 days to appeal.
Judge Dein said there no evidence that Mr. Caswell or his employees were aware of the criminal activity until after the fact, and noted they had on several occasions contacted the authorities to inform them about suspicious activities. She noted the hotel had been licensed every year by local Tewskbury authorities.
Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm in Arlington, Va., that represented the Caswells on pro bono basis, said the judge's ruling could have wider implications if other federal districts pick up on it.
"Until this decision there were very few federal decisions" that maintained that "substantial connection" required a direct link to the crimes by the owner of the property being forfeited, she said. "In the past all they had to establish was someone was selling drugs on the property. That's all that was necessary."
The decision "will make it tougher for the government to initiate forfeiture proceedings or file complaints based on the actions of third parties," Ms. Sheth said.
Court Rejects Justice Department Seizure of Motel .
By GARY FIELDS And JOHN R. EMSHWILLER
A federal judge rejected the Justice Department's effort to seize a family-owned motel in Tewksbury, Mass., a decision that could rein in the federal government's power to seize private property.
The government argued the property, known as the Motel Caswell, was forfeitable because it has been connected to criminal activity, in this case 15 drug-related incidents that took place between 1994 and 2008. The Caswell family, owners of the motel through a trust, said it had nothing do with the drug activities.
The $57-a-night Motel Caswell was an unlikely prize in a high-stakes tug-of-war between conservative legal activists and the government. The Journal previously wrote about the motel in October 2011 as part of its series Federal Offenses, which examined the consequences of a vastly expanding federal criminal law book.
In a sometimes scathing ruling, which for now halts the civil action brought by the federal government, U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith Dein said the federal government "had not met its burden of proving a substantial connection between the Motel Caswell and the forfeitable crimes, and, therefore, has not met its burden of proving that the Property is forfeitable."
The judge added that the motel's proprietor, Russell Caswell, of Tewksbury, Mass., did meet his "burden of proving the innocent owner defense."
Mr. Caswell's case, which was detailed in a page-one Wall Street Journal article in 2011, challenged the U.S. government's asset-forfeiture system, which collects billions of dollars each year of cash, real estate, cars and other assets. In some cases, property has been seized without the owner being convicted of a crime. The proceeds from those seizures are often doled out to local authorities who participate in the investigations that lead to the seizures.
Law-enforcement authorities argue the laws afford adequate citizen protections and are important tools used to drain the wealth of drug traffickers and other criminal enterprises.
The U.S. Attorney's Office said in a statement that it respected the opinion, but added that the case "was strictly a law-enforcement effort to crack down on what was seen as a pattern of using the motel to further the commission of drug crimes for nearly three decades. We are weighing our options with respect to appeal." The government has 60 days to appeal.
Judge Dein said there no evidence that Mr. Caswell or his employees were aware of the criminal activity until after the fact, and noted they had on several occasions contacted the authorities to inform them about suspicious activities. She noted the hotel had been licensed every year by local Tewskbury authorities.
Darpana Sheth, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm in Arlington, Va., that represented the Caswells on pro bono basis, said the judge's ruling could have wider implications if other federal districts pick up on it.
"Until this decision there were very few federal decisions" that maintained that "substantial connection" required a direct link to the crimes by the owner of the property being forfeited, she said. "In the past all they had to establish was someone was selling drugs on the property. That's all that was necessary."
The decision "will make it tougher for the government to initiate forfeiture proceedings or file complaints based on the actions of third parties," Ms. Sheth said.
Comment