Nair Law LLC
  • Home
  • Biography
    • Rishi Nair >
      • Representative Experience
      • Publications & Awards
      • Professional & Civic Activities
      • Additional Background
  • Nair Law LLC Blog
  • Press Coverage
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

"Draconian" Civil Forfeiture Action Rebuffed By Federal Judge

3/6/2013

0 Comments

 
Eminent domain is one of the harshest tools government can assert to curtail property rights.  Zoning regulates how a property owner may use their property, but eminent domain goes to their right to own the property itself.  Traditionally victorious, the government occasionally is overzealous in its application of the doctrine against property owners.  Recently, the Chicago Tribune wrote about a victory for property owners against a forfeiture action brought by the US government.  The case involves a family owned motel in Tewksbury, Massachusetts.
The US government cited the subject property as the site of at least 15 drug related incidents between 1994 and 2008.  Using that as a pretext for seizure, the US government sued under eminent domain for the court to award them the property.  

Finding that the government had not met its burden in "in providing that the property is forfeitable," Magistrate Judge Judith Dein of U.S. District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the government's forfeiture action.  The Judge concluded that "[p]unishing Mr. Caswell by forfeiting the motel obviously would not punish those engaged in the criminal conduct."  Ultimately the Judge took note of the fact that the government failed to work with the motel or notify it that it faced forfeiture.  The Judge concluded that the "draconian" measure of forfeiture should be reserved for worse cases.


What does a Massachusetts case have to do with Chicago?  Well, the Chicago Municipal Code contains a very similar power for city attorneys.  Section 8-4-090.  I know from experience that the City's attorneys use it in similar ways described in the article above that Judge Dein found "punishing", unwarranted, and misdirected.

Using this section of the municipal code, the City may heavily and punitively fine property owners for the conduct of others.  After being provided notice, property owners have 30 days to evict or otherwise remove any nuisance creating tenants, friends, or even relatives.  It is the last item that creates a potential constitutional issue.

While it is constitutional for the government to seize property, they must for all seized property, pay a fair price or they run afoul of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause of the Constitution.  Chicago's law operates in a way that not only deprives property owners of their property, it forces them to separate families, a violation of the First Amendment, or the Fifth/Fourteenth.

Chicago should reform this legislation and ensure it is not be applied in any discriminatory manner.   My ultimate suspicion is that the City uses these provisions and a special police task force primarily against minorities.  Such powerful laws require strict oversight as was evidenced in Massachusetts but all too often aggressive tactics win the day and property owners and their communities suffer.  An attorney is a very effective tool to thwart governmental forfeiture actions under any theory.
0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Rishi Nair owns Nair Law LLC and practices as Of Counsel at Keener and Associates, P.C.

    Archives

    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012

    Categories

    All
    Accident
    ADA
    Affirmative Defense
    Alienation Of Affection
    Appeal
    Association
    Award
    Bankruptcy
    Breach Of Contract
    Breach Of Warranty
    Cancellation
    Cease And Desist
    Certify
    Choice Of Forum
    Choice Of Law
    Civil Rights
    Civil Rights Act Of 1964
    Class
    Class Action
    Commerce Clause
    Common Carrier
    Common Elements
    Compliance
    Condo
    Condominium
    Constitution
    Constitutional Rights
    Contracts
    Conversion
    Countersue
    Criminal Defense
    Debt
    Debt Collector
    Deep Dish Pizza
    Defamation
    Defense
    Dilution
    Disability
    Discrimination
    Dog Bite
    Driver
    Duty Of Care
    Elements
    Employment
    Employment Litigation
    Expert
    Express Warranty
    Failure To Maintain
    Fall Protection
    FDCPA
    Federal
    Federal Law
    First Amendment
    FOIA
    Forcible Entry And Detainer Act
    Forum Non Conveniens
    Fourteenth Amendment
    Hotel
    Illinois
    Illinois Law
    Implied Warranty
    Infringement
    Injunction
    Insurance
    Intellectual Property
    Intentional Tort
    IP Litigation
    IP Litigation
    Jury
    Jury Verdict
    Lawsuit
    Litigation
    Medical Malpractice
    Negligence
    Negotiate
    Osha
    Personal Injury
    Product Liability
    Property
    Protected Conduct
    Real Estate Landlord Tenant Ordinance
    Real Property
    Reckless
    Retaliation
    RLTO
    Safety
    Second Appellate District
    Section 1983
    Seniority
    Settlement
    Seventh Circuit
    Special
    Speeding
    Sports
    Subrogation
    Tax
    Taxation
    Ticket
    Title VII
    Tort
    Tortious Interference
    Trademark
    Trademark Enforcement
    Trademark Litigation
    Trespass
    Trespass To Chattels
    TTAB
    Uniform Commercial Code
    Unpaid
    Vehicle
    Workplace Accident

    RSS Feed

    Privacy Policy
    Terms of Use
    Disclaimer


Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Phil Roeder