IJ Scores Major Federal Court Victory In Massachusetts Civil Forfeiture Case

Arlington, Va.—In a major triumph for property rights, a federal court in Massachusetts dismissed a civil forfeiture action against the Motel Caswell, a family-run motel in Tewksbury, handing a complete victory to owners Russell and Patricia Caswell.  In one of the most contentious civil forfeiture fights in the nation, Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts concluded, based on a week-long bench trial in November 2012, that the motel was not subject to forfeiture under federal law and that its owners were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.

The Institute for Justice and local counsel Schlossberg, LLC, brought the case to trial to expose the injustices of civil forfeiture laws that allow law enforcement agencies to pad their budgets by taking property from innocent owners who have never been convicted or even charged with a crime.

Download the federal court ruling (pdf).

“This is a complete victory for the Caswell family and for the protection of private property rights,” said Scott Bullock, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.  “The Caswells will keep their motel, and private property rights are preserved.”

The government had sought to take the Motel Caswell from the Caswell family under the theory that the motel allegedly facilitated drug crimes.  But the court found that Mr. Caswell “did not know the guests involved in the drug crimes, did not know of their anticipated criminal behavior at the time they registered as guests, and did not know of the drug crimes while they were occurring.”

“This outrageous forfeiture action should never have been filed in the first place,” said Larry Salzman, an IJ attorney.  “What the government did amounted to little more than a grab for what they saw as quick cash under the guise of civil forfeiture.”

Caswell said, “I couldn’t have fought this fight without the help of the Institute for Justice.  It is hard to believe anything like this goes on in our country, but the government goes after people they think can’t afford to fight.  But with IJ’s help, we put up a heck of a fight and have won.  The public needs to stand up against these abuses of power.”

The Problem of civil forfeiture is widespread.  In 1986, the year after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Fund was created—the fund that holds the forfeiture proceeds from properties forfeited under federal law and available to be paid out to law enforcement agencies—it took in just $93.7 million.  Today, it holds more than $1.6 billion.  An Institute for Justice report, Inequitable Justice:  How Federal “Equitable Sharing” Encourages Local Police and Prosecutors to Evade State Civil Forfeiture Law for Financial Gain, documents how the problem is growing worse.  Between 2000 and 2008, equitable sharing payments from the U.S. Department of Justice to state and local law enforcement doubled from about $200 million to $400 million per year.

“Civil forfeiture is a draconian power that is too easily abused,” said Darpana Sheth, an IJ attorney.  “This case epitomizes what an aggressive U.S. attorney wielding these laws can do to a small property owner like Russ Caswell.”

IJ President and General Counsel Chip Mellor said:  “The Institute for Justice has documented time and again that civil forfeiture invites a lack of accountability, a lack of due process and a lack of restraints on government authority.  Civil forfeiture needs to end.  If the government wants to take someone’s property, it should first be required to convict that person of a crime.  Short of that, you will end up with what the federal government tried to do in Tewksbury.”

John E. Kramer
(703) 682-9320
[Private Property]


A free, once–weekly e-mail round-up of liberty news, articles and activism.



  • Pingback: Massachussets small business owners win case against civil forfeiture abuse « Trutherator's Weblog()

  • tionico

    now the court needs to award to the plaintiff (motel owner who was violated) every penny of legal fees incurred. And all the pro bono representation needs to be billed at standard hourly rates. And the funds should come out of the pockets (budget) of the law enforcement agency which first determined they could seize the property, and NOT from the bloated civil forfeiture assets account. My guess is almost all of that money was also ilegally taken and needs to be returned. The entire civil forfeiture sham needs to be ended. They are worse than the old British military stopping and raiding wherever they wished, and seizing whatever they fancied to be “military stores” (such things as that barrel of flour the family had from last fall’s harvest, and was to last them until next fall’s harvest, or that pile of blankets they keep on hand for visitors), on what were known as “general warrants”. Such behaviour is precisely WHY our Bill of Rights was formed up and ratified by all the new states. The Fourth Article of Ammendment specifically was drafted and ratified to address precisely this sort of abuse: “the right of the People to be secure in their persons, papers, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized”.

    Where was THAT law when the civil forfeiture sham was declared the law of the land?

    At least this court saw it right. I did not read the entire decision, but I sincerely hope it was based upon the foregoing article of ammendment as being superior to the civil forfeiture “”laws”.