Mass. U.S. Attorney Won’t Appeal Tewksbury Motel Ruling

By WBUR Newsroom March 15, 2013

On Nov. 9, owner Russ Caswell stands outside his Motel Caswell in Tewksbury. (Winslow Townson/AP)

BOSTON — The Massachusetts U.S. attorney will not appeal a federal judge’s January ruling against the seizure of a family owned motel in Tewksbury that the government claimed was facilitating drug crimes.

The judge ruled that federal prosecutors did not have enough evidence to seize the motel.

The motel’s owner, Russell Caswell, said Friday that the government’s argument was ridiculous.

“A handful of people have done some drug stuff over the years and they try to use that to steal my property without ever accusing me of a single thing,” he said.

The U.S. government will now have to reimburse Caswell for an estimated half-million dollars in legal fees.

Earlier: Judge Dismisses Government Seizure Attempt Of Tewksbury Motel

Oliver Wendell Holmes

So now we-the tax payers are going to have pay for the inevitable abuse of power that the draconian law which led to an innocent party’s property being seized without due process.
In the continued “War on Drugs” witch-hunt during the Reagan years, the constitution was cast aside in favor of totalitarian-like laws that gives local law enforcement the incentive to “steal” property from innocent land-owners, forcing them at considerable expense, to prove their innocence.
This case clearly demonstrates that this law should without delay be stricken from the books.
DLTPC

This money was seized from some law abiding private property owners I am glad that Russ and IJ will be reimbursed, but I wish the system did not attack clearly innocent property owners. http://www.spoa.com -The Small Property Owners Association
- symbolset
  
  That’s not how it went. The feds were trying to seize the Motel and sell it in a profit-splitting plan with local law enforcement. The motel was selected because it has no mortgage, and so they figured there wouldn’t be resources to fight the seizure. If there was a mortgage, the bank would fight the seizure. It was a straight taking of a citizen’s real estate property for profit deal.
  
  The half million is just the legal fees racked up by the defense. No money was taken.
  - DLTPC
    
    Yes, you are right. I should have phrased that better. But, in essence people’s money is taken away also if they have to mount a $500K+ legal defense. IJ cannot come to everyone’s defense unfortunately.