It is said that equity abhors a forfeiture, but that maxim did not discourage the U.S. Attorney’s office in Massachusetts from trying to seize an elderly couple’s motel in U.S. v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, because of illegal drug use.  

Tewksbury’s Motel Caswell is a budget hotel, with rooms available at $59 per night and a sometimes questionable clientele, but Russell Caswell, the motel’s law-abiding owner, is devoted to it. Caswell’s family has owned the motel since 1955 and resides next door to it. There had been no alleged legal violations or litigation against the motel before the U.S. Attorney sued it. The motel’s exterior was illuminated with floodlights. The lobby had a security camera. Desk clerks kept registration cards on guests, and shared them with police investigators.  

At trial, law enforcement officers testified that the motel’s staff was courteous and cooperative.  Occasional drug crimes occurred at the motel, but the police did not advise the owner about reducing them, much less warn that he risked losing the property by forfeiture.

Over a 14-year period, police responded to a dozen or so sporadic and unrelated drug crimes there, involving relatively small quantities of drugs. The motel’s owner and employees were not complicit, and remained unaware of the crimes until arrests were made.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney brought a forfeiture action against the motel under the federal Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA). A U.S. magistrate conducted a trial in November 2012, and dismissed the action in January.

Double Victory

The court’s decision states the general principal that forfeitures are disfavored, and should be enforced only within the letter and spirit of the law. The decision then summarizes CAFRA, which requires the government to establish a “substantial connection” between the property and the crime by a preponderance of the evidence. This connection must be more than simply “incidental or fortuitous.”  If the government proves that property is subject to forfeiture, the owner can still prevail as an “innocent owner,” if he or she was unaware of the criminal activity or took all reasonable steps to terminate it.  

In the Motel Caswell’s case, the government invoked the federal Controlled Substances Act, which allows for forfeiture of land used for crimes punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment. The government argued first that the motel was subject to forfeiture because of drug crimes, and second that Caswell was not an innocent owner.  

Caswell contested both arguments, and scored a double victory. The court found that the government failed to show a substantial connection between the motel and the sporadic drug crimes, and that Caswell was an innocent owner because he lacked actual knowledge of the crimes and had taken all reasonable steps to prevent them.  Thus the Motel Caswell remains under Caswell family ownership, although one can expect Caswell to be more vigilant to avoid further problems.

Drug crimes take an enormous toll on society, and government police powers should be mustered against them.  However, as to the Caswell Motel, one might ask whether the government’s aggressive prosecution was premature and misdirected. 

Christopher R. Vaccaro is an attorney in Stoneham. Email: cvaccaro @verizon.net