Was just looking up this case in talking over at Bob’s, thought I’d share the good news.
In what is being called a triumph for property rights, a federal judge in Boston has rejected the federal government’s attempt to seize a family-owned motel in Tewksbury under a controversial civil forfeiture law.
The owners of Motel Caswell have never been charged with any crimes and have never come under police suspicion. But in a trial last November, the U.S. attorney’s office sought to take the property because it alleged the motel — the building — had “facilitated” drug crimes….At trial, federal prosecutors introduced information about 15 specific drug-related incidents that occurred in a 14 year period. “It should be noted” wrote Magistrate Judge Judith Dein in Thursday’s decision, that during that time period, Caswell had rented out 196,000 rooms.
“I don’t know how I can see through the doors,” Caswell said last November in reference to the fact that those alleged crimes took place in closed rooms.
It doesn’t mention it but the Caswell family was instrumental in many of those drug arrests due to their cooperation with local police, and still they attempted to take his hotel. Here’s the big kicker:
The idea to go after the Motel Caswell sprung from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the trial revealed. The DEA has an agent who testified his job is to seek out targets for forfeiture by watching television news and reading newspapers. When he finds a property where drug crimes occur he goes to the Registry of Deeds. Finding the Motel Caswell had no mortgage and was worth almost $1.5 million, the DEA teamed up with the Tewksbury Police, who were offered 80 percent of the taking, the agent testified.
This wasn’t just a procedural action, the DEA was FISHING for valuable property they could take possession of, and split with local police. So they were fishing for his property, as well as tying up his business and finances in trials, this is a prime example of “Bad Justice”.
Go over to Bob’s to read about Tam’s Burgers over in California and see if it doesn’t smell the same to you.
Glad they dropped that case against the motel; thanks for the update.
I don’t know if it is similar or not; I think Tam’s Burgers may be more of a situation where the city just wants to be seen doing something. It is entirely possible someone wants the property though.
Isn’t it scary that the city council can use the threat of code compliance to implement 24/7 live direct to the police department surveillance?
These types of seizure need to be stopped. I can understand seizing the assets used in the commission of a crime, but to seize the assets of someone who isn’t involved in the crime, in my opinion, flies in the fact of the very spirit (and probably the letter) of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
s
Kinda reminds me of the Nazis taking the Jews Property in the ’30s.
One of the supposed arguments against private for-profit police agencies is the corrupability of seeking profit as opposed to the impartial motives of police provided by the state.
However once those state actors are also seeking profit that impartiality is gone.
Not only are the cops participating in business, but they have a non-competitive monopoly. They’re like the cable company – but with badges.
I hope someone got the agent’s name and sent it along to numerous Congresscritters as an individual who can be cut. If his job is to sit and look for prey, and not run investigations or enforce the law, he’s superfluous and should be seeking more productive employment.
Like, say, Wal-Mart greeter.