Forfeiture – Motel – Drugs

Listen to this article

Where United States brought a civil forfeiture action pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act seeking the forfeiture of a motel in Tewksbury, (1) the government has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the motel is subject to forfeiture and (2) the claimant owner of the motel has met his burden of proving that he is the innocent owner of the property.

Therefore, judgment shall be entered in favor of the claimant and the forfeiture action shall be dismissed.

“This Court concludes that the Government has failed to meet its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Motel Caswell was ‘substantially connected’ to the forfeitable drug crimes. In so ruling, I recognize that the boundaries of what constitutes a ‘substantial connection’ are not well defined, and that each case must be considered on its own facts. … However, none of the myriad of cases cited by the parties present facts substantially similar to the facts presented here. Given the limited number of qualifying drug-related crimes which occurred at the Motel over an extended period of time, the limited evidence of other drug-related crimes, the owner’s lack of involvement in any drug-related incidents, the limited amount of drugs involved in each incident, and the fact that the crimes were committed by different transient guests at a property which, by definition, caters to transient guests, this Court concludes that finding a ‘substantial connection’ would be inconsistent with ‘both letter and spirit of the law.’ …

“This court also finds that the Claimant has met his burden of proving that he is an innocent owner of the Property. He did not have actual knowledge of the forfeitable drug crimes before or while they were occurring, and there is no evidence that he should have known that they were likely to occur. I further find that [Russell H.] Caswell has met his burden of proving that he was not willfully blind to the drug crimes. Finally, I find that Mr. Caswell took all reasonable steps to prevent drug crime on the Property.”

United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-038-13) (59 pages) (Dein, U.S.M.J.) (Civil Action No. 09-11635-JGD) (Jan. 24, 2013).

Click here for the full-text opinion.