[encoderer]

Hypothetically, how would you feel if a business owner knowingly profited off of illicit activity while keeping jusssst enough distance between himself and the criminal to say "I didn't see nuthin!"?

THAT is the argument here. Not saying it's totally righteous, but that the theory isn't preposterous and litigating the case isn't absurd.

In this case I think the real failure of the gov't was not taking more aggressive steps at a paper trail. Giving this guy notice, so to speak.

[betterunix]

"Hypothetically, how would you feel if a business owner knowingly profited off of illicit activity while keeping jusssst enough distance between himself and the criminal to say "I didn't see nuthin!"?"

The point of a system of laws is to draw the line somewhere. If he is just far enough from the criminal to claim that he cannot stop the crime from happening on his property, then he should not be prosecuted.

"the theory isn't preposterous and litigating the case isn't absurd"

The theory is not preposterous if we are willing to accept tyranny and oppression in this country. Keep in mind that the government was attempting to take this man's property, sell it, and recycle the proceeds into the budget of the very police force that targeted him. That sort of power has led to self funded police -- police forces who budgets consist entirely of proceeds from the sales of seized property and assets.

It should scream corruption to anyone who is used to living in a free society. That most Americans do not see just how corrupt that system is is an indication that boiling the frog slowly is a viable strategy to establish fascism (but did we really need to be told that?).

[nullc]

There is no shortage of laws against criminal conspiracy and contributing acts which are applicable for the scenario you describe... but they charge the property instead of the person because the property doesn't have civil rights and so the states' burden is much lower.

Civil forfeiture is outright evil. Wink and nod arms-length crime can be handled without it.

[jlgreco]

Where he the owner of an expensive hotel, rather than a cheap motel, serving primarily wealthy people, rather than poor people, in which rockstars and high-end escorts occasionally OD'd, rather than crack-whores and nobodies, we would not even dream of considering him responsible or even seizing his property.

That we are even having the discussion and considering his potential 'guilt' is a problem.

[encoderer]

Oh, please.

If one rockstar checks-in to your hotel and OD's a reasonable person wouldn't assume that all rockstars are dangerous.

But when you have obvious prostitution rings running out of your motel? When you have a person renting a room to a dealer who was arrested in that same motel for dealing?

This guy is running a slum, he's not some poor "little man" who deserves your pity. He has a multi million dollar net worth.

[jlgreco]

What do you expect such a hotel owner to do? Strip search patrons for drugs and install cameras in their rooms to ensure that no money is exchanged for sex? Give background checks and risk discrimination lawsuits by refusing to service people who look sketchy to you?

Read the judges decision. The man did everything he could reasonably be expected to do. His motel did not spawn lowlifes, it was merely cheap enough for lowlifes to afford. Society spawned those lowlifes and the local government is responsible for that, not him.

[encoderer]

I'm not declaring the guy guilty. I'm saying that your class-warfare based dismissal is silly.

Really, if you've spent much time in a city, you've seen street-level drug trafficking and prostitution. It's not hard to spot. But again, you take this to the absurd. This is not about rockstars ODing at the St. Regis, and it's not about strip searching people before you give them a room. This is about a gov't lawsuit that contended that the motel owner, like anybody else paying attention, could spot this illicit activity and not only failed to ask these guests to leave but also continued renting them rooms! That his property was a blight on the neighborhood. That he had been negligent. The DOJ obviously didn't prove those points to a preponderance of evidence, but I think your reaction here is wanting.

I'm not one for internet debates, so go ahead and have the last word. I chimed in because if somebody just reads the lede in a case like this it sounds awful and unamerican: Private property can be taken for crimes he didn't himself commit? What! But IMO (and in current civil forfeiture law and judicial precedent) there is sound reasoning behind cases like this. Businessmen have had a legal obligation to maintain order and actively cooperate with law enforcement going back through 300 years of common law.

CF laws need reform, but I'm of the opinion that this case is NOT the poster child for that cause that you're making it out to be.

[jlgreco]

Fun excerpts:

> the Government has identified only a limited number of isolated qualifying drug-related incidents spread out over the course of more than a decade, none of which involve the Motel owner or employees

> Based on the evidence presented and my observation of the witnesses during trial, I find that Mr. Caswell is appropriately concerned with the events that take place at the Motel and that he recognizes that it is in his interest and in the interest of his family to operate as safe an enterprise as possible.

> Motel employees, including maids and desk clerks, have called the police on a number of occasions to report suspicious activity.

> Mr. Caswell has called the police on a number of occasions to report suspicious activity.

You say:

"The DOJ obviously didn't prove those points to a preponderance of evidence"

But the DOJ did not merely fail to prove anything. They were completely full of shit, and they went after this guy because they thought they could get away with it. It is as clear as daylight if you actually read the documents and not a bunch of pro-government rants on hacker news.

[jacquesm]

You have been arguing this line in this and other threads quite vehemently and yet I can't escape the impression that you haven't even done the most basic research on the case under discussion. I'm confused. You're obviously quite clever and it appears to me that you have no dog in this race. Why not be more objective?

[SoftwareMaven]

If the government thought he did something illegal, why didn't they charge him with a crime? Aiding and abetting a crime is a crime in and of itself. I can't find a logical reason other than they didn't believe there was any proof there. If they don't believe he was doing committing a crime, why on earth should his property be subject to seizure? The only ones I can see involve corruption.

[chris_wot]

He's not running a slum.

[hudibras]

But the thing that bugs me about this case is that the local police didn't do anything at all to warn Caswell or work with him to reduce crime at his business. The city police officers are, after all, his peers and neighbors and you would think they would have acted with better intentions and morals.

[warfangle]

Militarization of police forces and the minimization of community relationships. Chalk it up to the war on drugs. Related: stop-and-frisks in NYC inherently make law-abiding members of the community afraid to go to the police for help. Between the fear of being treated like a criminal when you're not, and the fear of being strung up for being a 'rat,' law abiding citizens unfairly targeted by such things are caught between a crack rock and a hard time place.

Not saying it's right, or moral. It's just a symptom of the underlying disease of treating drug abuse as a criminal issue instead of a medical issue.

[vidarh]

The judge very clearly disagreed with you about it being preposterous, on the basis of a total lack of evidence to support this assertion, while the hotel owner on the other hand was able to demonstrate that he and his staff have alerted police to suspicions of crime multiple times and generally been cooperative.