Another Ortiz case(wbur.org)
wbur.org
Another Ortiz case
http://www.wbur.org/2012/11/14/tewksbury-motel-owner-fights-property-seizure
139 comments
Yeah, it is a crappy hotel in a crappy area of town. You can't run a quality institution in that kind of neighborhood. As evidence of this, look at the hotel's claim that the Motel 6, Walmart and Home Depot up the street have similar crime rates.
As for your specific statements, I find it hard to reconcile your claim that owners "...were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken..." with the article's claim that sworn testimony by local law enforcement that, "the Tewksbury Police testified they never communicated with Caswell about what he could do to reduce drug crimes."
But be that as it may, if you care about civil liberties it is a fact that you'll mostly wind up defending unpopular actions by unpopular people who are unpopular for a reason. Because that is mostly who prosecutors are going to throw the book at, and go out of their way to target with every tool, ethical or not, that they can.
As for your specific statements, I find it hard to reconcile your claim that owners "...were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken..." with the article's claim that sworn testimony by local law enforcement that, "the Tewksbury Police testified they never communicated with Caswell about what he could do to reduce drug crimes."
But be that as it may, if you care about civil liberties it is a fact that you'll mostly wind up defending unpopular actions by unpopular people who are unpopular for a reason. Because that is mostly who prosecutors are going to throw the book at, and go out of their way to target with every tool, ethical or not, that they can.
That's because my claims come from the docket and the ones you cite come from a news article.
For the fourth time today: it is not my position that civil asset forfeiture reform isn't direly needed. But if you look at the process that actually occurred in this case, you'll find that this is very much not the textbook case of CAF abuse. This property was a real, practical problem for the community. The US Attorney's office used, in effect, a civil suit to resolve the problem after multiple local law enforcement interventions failed. That suit is receiving a full and fair hearing in front of an impartial judge.
Let me ask you directly: why do you think it should be illegal for the US Attorney's office to file a civil suit against the owners of a property that appears to be instrumental in the narcotics and vice trade of a whole township? If I slip and fall on your walkway, I can sue you. Why can't the government, here? They aren't threatening to imprison the owners. They're saying, "hey, owners, your operation of this business is so negligent and creates so many costs to the neighborhood that after multiple interventions with local law enforcement we're finally forced to sue".
For the fourth time today: it is not my position that civil asset forfeiture reform isn't direly needed. But if you look at the process that actually occurred in this case, you'll find that this is very much not the textbook case of CAF abuse. This property was a real, practical problem for the community. The US Attorney's office used, in effect, a civil suit to resolve the problem after multiple local law enforcement interventions failed. That suit is receiving a full and fair hearing in front of an impartial judge.
Let me ask you directly: why do you think it should be illegal for the US Attorney's office to file a civil suit against the owners of a property that appears to be instrumental in the narcotics and vice trade of a whole township? If I slip and fall on your walkway, I can sue you. Why can't the government, here? They aren't threatening to imprison the owners. They're saying, "hey, owners, your operation of this business is so negligent and creates so many costs to the neighborhood that after multiple interventions with local law enforcement we're finally forced to sue".
If what they're doing is illegal, they have a right not to have their property taken without the protections of being a criminal defendant.
If what they're doing isn't illegal, the state and city governments have the power to pass a law against it that actually gives them fair warning as opposed to nonspecific threats.
If what they're doing isn't illegal and the state and city governments don't want to pass a law against it, there's no reason to substitute the US Attorney's judgement for that of the people whose job it is to enforce the law.
The US attorney's office shouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the neighborhood. The neighbors might. If it's for some reason in the national interest to make sure that this particular flop-house changes its address, I suppose they could fund the case.
In other words, it is a textbook case of CAF abuse: avoiding criminal trials to get a plaintiff-friendly civil trial, stretching jurisdiction limits, bypassing separation of powers by enshrining prosecutors as policymakers, the whole deal.
If what they're doing isn't illegal, the state and city governments have the power to pass a law against it that actually gives them fair warning as opposed to nonspecific threats.
If what they're doing isn't illegal and the state and city governments don't want to pass a law against it, there's no reason to substitute the US Attorney's judgement for that of the people whose job it is to enforce the law.
The US attorney's office shouldn't have standing to sue on behalf of the neighborhood. The neighbors might. If it's for some reason in the national interest to make sure that this particular flop-house changes its address, I suppose they could fund the case.
In other words, it is a textbook case of CAF abuse: avoiding criminal trials to get a plaintiff-friendly civil trial, stretching jurisdiction limits, bypassing separation of powers by enshrining prosecutors as policymakers, the whole deal.
To answer your question, the equivalency is thus:
You ask: "If I slip and fall on your walkway, I can sue you. Why can't the government, here?"
This would imply that there is a single act (slipping and falling on a specific property) and a single remedy for that act (a lawsuit)
But here, the government has a choice of causative acts (drug deals and arrests were prevalent throughout that neighborhood -- they had quite a bit of choice as to which property they wished to "sue") and a choice of remedies ... of which seizure is the most extreme of all possible remedies.
It would be as if the government was seeking a specific property to slip and fall on, and chose to only pursue the most extreme possible form of response for that action.
They chose not to pursue the other properties, which showed equal rates of crime (this is NOT in the docket report you read), and chose not to pursue other remedies (such as other sanctions and means of remedy). And in this case, their own interests and the interests of the police department are particularly served by the extreme remedy, and the choice of party to pursue chosen by the "ease" of achieving this remedy.
You ask: "If I slip and fall on your walkway, I can sue you. Why can't the government, here?"
This would imply that there is a single act (slipping and falling on a specific property) and a single remedy for that act (a lawsuit)
But here, the government has a choice of causative acts (drug deals and arrests were prevalent throughout that neighborhood -- they had quite a bit of choice as to which property they wished to "sue") and a choice of remedies ... of which seizure is the most extreme of all possible remedies.
It would be as if the government was seeking a specific property to slip and fall on, and chose to only pursue the most extreme possible form of response for that action.
They chose not to pursue the other properties, which showed equal rates of crime (this is NOT in the docket report you read), and chose not to pursue other remedies (such as other sanctions and means of remedy). And in this case, their own interests and the interests of the police department are particularly served by the extreme remedy, and the choice of party to pursue chosen by the "ease" of achieving this remedy.
Can you get me a link to the information about comparable arrests and incidents in other properties? The record on this particular property is extreme, but you're right that it would be telling if a Motel 6 next door was escaping scrutiny because its ownership was corporate instead of a single guy.
Among many such articles: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://tewksbury.patch.com/artic...
a search for "tewskbury motel 6 drug crime" turns up quite some data. Without access to the police logs (as the defense has used) I can't provide specifics and comparisons, but it is clear that this motel is not the only neighborhood problem
a search for "tewskbury motel 6 drug crime" turns up quite some data. Without access to the police logs (as the defense has used) I can't provide specifics and comparisons, but it is clear that this motel is not the only neighborhood problem
So you use the facts as alleged by the prosecution, and I saw the facts as selected by the reported and testified in court?
On the rest of it, if there is ANY truth to the claim in the article that prosecutors do not bother to bring these cases when the property has less than $50k in value after debts, then no matter how much of a problem this hotel may in fact be, there is a fundamental problem with how prosecution is being brought here.
On the rest of it, if there is ANY truth to the claim in the article that prosecutors do not bother to bring these cases when the property has less than $50k in value after debts, then no matter how much of a problem this hotel may in fact be, there is a fundamental problem with how prosecution is being brought here.
Neither of us "use" any of the facts. A judge hears the case, like in any civil suit, which is exactly what this is.
The question at stake on this thread is, "is this civil suit abusive?" Obviously, much of the threat thinks civil suits like this are abusive. I don't understand that point of view, because to my eyes, businesses that feed off street crime are the urban equivalent of factories that belch toxic waste into waterways.
If there is evidence that this particular suit is abusive, what is it? I'm open to it!
The question at stake on this thread is, "is this civil suit abusive?" Obviously, much of the threat thinks civil suits like this are abusive. I don't understand that point of view, because to my eyes, businesses that feed off street crime are the urban equivalent of factories that belch toxic waste into waterways.
If there is evidence that this particular suit is abusive, what is it? I'm open to it!
At this point, I trust the reporting of a local newspaper more than the claims of the US Attorney in Massachusetts. I'm glad that btilly pointed out your contradiction of TFA is based entirely on that latter, discredited source.
Speaking of discredited sources, the local newspaper is just reprinting a slight gloss on a press release from a group with a clear political axe to grind (a Koch-funded libertarian advocacy group representing the motel owners). I guess the judge hearing the case will have to sort out which side's version is more accurate.
I'm sure the Kochs and their pet lawyers are every bit as awful as all the law-and-order fans (and political participation critics!) here on HN contend. On the sliding scale of evil scumbags, however, they'd have to travel for miles to catch sight of any federal prosecutor one could name.
I don't think the question is so much whether the remedy should exist, but where the line is drawn. How much of what kind of behavior will get your property taken by the state, and does it depend on what kind and how large a company you are?
why do you think it should be illegal for the US
Attorney's office to file a civil suit against the
owners of a property that appears to be instrumental
in the narcotics and vice trade of a whole township?
Appomattox -> Wickard v. Filburn -> Drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_amendment
Since apparently I can't reply at that depth:
10th: there is no Federal interest here. Any assertion of justification by nexus would be laughable: these crimes are by users and end-sellers. If the US attorney had evidence of an ongoing interstate operation then they ought to bust that, not the hotel.
5th: I find it hard to describe "heads I win, tails you lose" as due process. If they had not gained outside support, fighting this suit would bankrupt them. I realize that there is no ideal solution to that quandary, but as a result we must prosecutorial discretion to a very high standard.
10th: there is no Federal interest here. Any assertion of justification by nexus would be laughable: these crimes are by users and end-sellers. If the US attorney had evidence of an ongoing interstate operation then they ought to bust that, not the hotel.
5th: I find it hard to describe "heads I win, tails you lose" as due process. If they had not gained outside support, fighting this suit would bankrupt them. I realize that there is no ideal solution to that quandary, but as a result we must prosecutorial discretion to a very high standard.
What is a civil suit heard in front of an impartial judge if not "due process of law"? Read _Democracy and Distrust_ for a careful accounting of what the Constitution means by "due process".
The problem lies not in who's hearing the case, but in the fact that the burden of negating evidence is on the prosecuted rather than the burden of positive evidence on the prosecutor.
If the town wants to shut down this business, why not simply revoke their business license or change the zoning. There are numerous ways to shut down a nuisance business. You don't have to steal their property.
The actual goal is to profit from seizing the property. Shutting down the business is the excuse.
This is civil forfeiture 101: the police department gets to increase its budget by $800K, and they don't even have to charge anyone with a crime. In the government, that's what's known as a "win-win".
This is civil forfeiture 101: the police department gets to increase its budget by $800K, and they don't even have to charge anyone with a crime. In the government, that's what's known as a "win-win".
@tptacek
Out of morbid curiosity, does the government ever do anything wrong? Whenever you comment on a story involving government, I know, without fail, that you are going to somehow take the "pro-goverment" line.
You've done it here. You did it with Aaron Swartz. I've seen you do it on other threads where civil libertarians are outraged about one thing or another.
So: do you ever actually side with the people? Or is it just all government, all the time with you? I ask because I'm starting to tune you out, and you make such insightful comments on other topics.
Out of morbid curiosity, does the government ever do anything wrong? Whenever you comment on a story involving government, I know, without fail, that you are going to somehow take the "pro-goverment" line.
You've done it here. You did it with Aaron Swartz. I've seen you do it on other threads where civil libertarians are outraged about one thing or another.
So: do you ever actually side with the people? Or is it just all government, all the time with you? I ask because I'm starting to tune you out, and you make such insightful comments on other topics.
Huh? Where are you reading that I'm OK with what happened to Aaron Swartz? I am the opposite of OK with what happened to Aaron Swartz.
Just because I don't use the exact same reasoning as you do to arrive at the same conclusion does not mean I am in a bucket with "people who think Swartz got what he deserved".
What I'm guessing happened is this: you think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the conduct outlawed under CFAA shouldn't be criminal. I think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the sentencing mechanisms under CFAA are insane and scale trivial offenses to multi-year sentences by having them track "damages". Both of us arrive at the same conclusion, that Aaron was maltreated by prosecutors, but by different means.
This way of thinking, where anyone who disagrees with a specific point about Aaron Swartz must somehow be on the side of the government, is a pox on the whole site.
Just because I don't use the exact same reasoning as you do to arrive at the same conclusion does not mean I am in a bucket with "people who think Swartz got what he deserved".
What I'm guessing happened is this: you think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the conduct outlawed under CFAA shouldn't be criminal. I think what happened to Aaron was terrible because the sentencing mechanisms under CFAA are insane and scale trivial offenses to multi-year sentences by having them track "damages". Both of us arrive at the same conclusion, that Aaron was maltreated by prosecutors, but by different means.
This way of thinking, where anyone who disagrees with a specific point about Aaron Swartz must somehow be on the side of the government, is a pox on the whole site.
I didn't mean to imply that you thought Aaron "got what he deserved."
Just that you took the most pro-government position I've seen anyone on HN take, both recently and in that (regrettable) thread six months ago.
Perhaps you don't see yourself as pro-government, and it's just been a string of articles where you think the people are in the wrong, not government. That's fine, I'm just trying to understand why you comment the way you do.
UPDATE: I think I see now what my issue is. Whenever the goverment does something wrong, you tend to do two things:
1. You write many, many lines where you point out how great the government is, what a good job they're doing, etc. It's all very "pro-government" and mostly, actually, off topic.
2. You then, at the end, or frequently in some later comment, claim you disagree (sometimes even in ALL CAPS) with the thing the government actually did that was wrong that everyone else is talking about.
So, when people are upset with the government for, say, civil forfeiture, you don't talk about that. Instead, you talk about everything else you can come up with to make the government (or in this case, Ortiz) look good.
I guess that's why I see you as "pro-government" with your comments. Perhaps others do too, and that might be good enough reason to consider toning back the gov-love?
Just that you took the most pro-government position I've seen anyone on HN take, both recently and in that (regrettable) thread six months ago.
Perhaps you don't see yourself as pro-government, and it's just been a string of articles where you think the people are in the wrong, not government. That's fine, I'm just trying to understand why you comment the way you do.
UPDATE: I think I see now what my issue is. Whenever the goverment does something wrong, you tend to do two things:
1. You write many, many lines where you point out how great the government is, what a good job they're doing, etc. It's all very "pro-government" and mostly, actually, off topic.
2. You then, at the end, or frequently in some later comment, claim you disagree (sometimes even in ALL CAPS) with the thing the government actually did that was wrong that everyone else is talking about.
So, when people are upset with the government for, say, civil forfeiture, you don't talk about that. Instead, you talk about everything else you can come up with to make the government (or in this case, Ortiz) look good.
I guess that's why I see you as "pro-government" with your comments. Perhaps others do too, and that might be good enough reason to consider toning back the gov-love?
I'm definitely more pro-government than most people on HN.
What happened to Aaron was a travesty. In fact, it's even more a travesty from my vantage point, because it strikes directly at the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The only reason the operators of a flophouse hotel that concealed meth labs and multiple retail heroin dealing operations could possibly appear sympathetic on HN is because the US Attorney's office in Boston poisoned their reputation by threatening Aaron Swartz with a multi-year sentence and 13 felony convictions.
[later]
I reject entirely the idea that the comment to which you're responding is "pro-government". My comment is anti-flophouse. That's not remotely the same thing.
What happened to Aaron was a travesty. In fact, it's even more a travesty from my vantage point, because it strikes directly at the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The only reason the operators of a flophouse hotel that concealed meth labs and multiple retail heroin dealing operations could possibly appear sympathetic on HN is because the US Attorney's office in Boston poisoned their reputation by threatening Aaron Swartz with a multi-year sentence and 13 felony convictions.
[later]
I reject entirely the idea that the comment to which you're responding is "pro-government". My comment is anti-flophouse. That's not remotely the same thing.
You post is essentially rubber-stamping the government's civil forfeiture laws when it's against someone you (and the government) don't like, like this motel.
That's not justice, and frankly, no one should support the government's use of civil forfeiture, ever, for any reason, full stop.
Civil forfeiture is so abused by the government today as to be evil in and of itself. No "ends justifies the means" argument applies when it comes to civil forfeiture, in this case, or any other. It's that bad.
Of course, the government disagrees, as do you: that's what makes you "pro-government" in this case.
That's not justice, and frankly, no one should support the government's use of civil forfeiture, ever, for any reason, full stop.
Civil forfeiture is so abused by the government today as to be evil in and of itself. No "ends justifies the means" argument applies when it comes to civil forfeiture, in this case, or any other. It's that bad.
Of course, the government disagrees, as do you: that's what makes you "pro-government" in this case.
Ridiculous. You could use the exact same logic to call me "pro-government" in supporting the government for suing to shut down a factory that pours mercury into a river.
What the fuck does "pro-government" even mean? What an asinine line to argue. I'm anti-flophouse, like the government. I'm anti-military-occupation, unlike the government. I'm anti-copyright-infringement, like the government. I'm anti-patent-system, unlike the government. I'm anti-meth-lab, like the government. I'm anti-marijuana-prohibition, unlike the government.
Do you want me to go on?
Are you pro-abortion-clinic-bombings? You must be pro-government. Are you anti- workplace- race- discrimination? You must be pro-government. Are you uniformly against every intervention the government pursues? Is that the ideological line I to which I have to hew to meet your approval? I guess I'll have to do without that, then.
What the fuck does "pro-government" even mean? What an asinine line to argue. I'm anti-flophouse, like the government. I'm anti-military-occupation, unlike the government. I'm anti-copyright-infringement, like the government. I'm anti-patent-system, unlike the government. I'm anti-meth-lab, like the government. I'm anti-marijuana-prohibition, unlike the government.
Do you want me to go on?
Are you pro-abortion-clinic-bombings? You must be pro-government. Are you anti- workplace- race- discrimination? You must be pro-government. Are you uniformly against every intervention the government pursues? Is that the ideological line I to which I have to hew to meet your approval? I guess I'll have to do without that, then.
Man, you don't understand. They're like, "the establishment" man! You have to oppose everything they're in favor of. And be in favor of everything they oppose. Fight the power!
I feel like I'm being Dale Gribbled while everyone else thinks they're being Hank Hilled by me. I think I'll take a break and make some parsnip soup.
You must try this if you like parsnips: https://gist.github.com/4575875 (replace the turnip with parsnip or use both)
Parsnip soup is such a win. Wow. The pig feet help.
I'm curious about this 'anti flophouse' sentiment. Not everyone can afford $200 bucks a night for a hotel room.
Poor people need a place to stay too.
Poor people need a place to stay too.
> Poor people need a place to stay too.
Yes, they do. It'd be nice if they could have a place to stay that didn't host meth-labs or dead heroin users.
Yes, they do. It'd be nice if they could have a place to stay that didn't host meth-labs or dead heroin users.
What would a cheap place do that would prevent such things? Strip search all their customers to make sure they did not have enough heroin to overdose on?
The hotel isn't spawning this sort of shit, it is just attracting it by virtue of being cheap enough for low-lifes to afford. The local authorities are the ones that failed, not the motel.
The hotel isn't spawning this sort of shit, it is just attracting it by virtue of being cheap enough for low-lifes to afford. The local authorities are the ones that failed, not the motel.
This argument is ridiculous. If he's pro-government (which is doubtful), what of it?
Not only is this comment targeting a contributor's person (ad hominem attack), it's uninteresting, unenlightening, ignorant and totally off-topic.
If you have something to say that's on topic or relevant to the article, please feel free to contribute. Otherwise, you're just adding noise.
Not only is this comment targeting a contributor's person (ad hominem attack), it's uninteresting, unenlightening, ignorant and totally off-topic.
If you have something to say that's on topic or relevant to the article, please feel free to contribute. Otherwise, you're just adding noise.
Not speaking for tptacek, but in my opinion the civil libertarians online, even on HN, get worked up on some pretty misinformed bases. It's slightly more sophisticated than the e-mails your grandma forwards you claiming Obama is a muslim, but not by much.
Wow, way to go with the middle brow dismissal. It's nice to know you're actually listening to the opposition.
I've noticed the same thing.
I apologize in advance if this is completely off-base, but, my personal theory is that due to tptacek's work in security, he is afraid to take a harder stance against government wrongdoing. Perhaps this would risk his (or his company's) eligibility for future security clearance and/or government contracts.
To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!"
I apologize in advance if this is completely off-base, but, my personal theory is that due to tptacek's work in security, he is afraid to take a harder stance against government wrongdoing. Perhaps this would risk his (or his company's) eligibility for future security clearance and/or government contracts.
To quote Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!"
We do zero work at all for the government. Our clients are startups and technology companies, along with large F-500 IT shops. I would personally have a moral problem with assisting the US military in 2013.
I shouldn't have to spell that out simply because I (a) disagree or (b) read news stories more carefully than you do, but every time a story like this comes up, I inevitably do have to defend myself from someone who thinks my opinions are bought and paid for. In reality, arguing against random HN people argues against my own interests.
I shouldn't have to spell that out simply because I (a) disagree or (b) read news stories more carefully than you do, but every time a story like this comes up, I inevitably do have to defend myself from someone who thinks my opinions are bought and paid for. In reality, arguing against random HN people argues against my own interests.
It's a ridiculous assertion to imply that government employees are so scared of losing their jobs, that they would spend copious amounts of their free time posting pro-government messages on random internet websites.
HN is supposed to be a place that encourages intelligent conversation and freedom of thought. We as a community are supposed to be mature enough to understand that not everyone is going to see things the same way.
The problem is, a lot of left-leaning people are so completely certain that their views are correct, and their correctness seems so obvious to them that they can't imagine how any logical person doesn't perceive reality in the same way. Just as many Conservatives feel the exact same way.
What gets lost in all of the petty arguments is the fact that there is plenty of room in the middle for people who agree with Republicans on some issues, and Democrats on others.
One of the dumbest fucking things our nation has ever done, is allow the formation of distinct political parties. The governance of the United States, or any other country for that matter, should not be conducted like a fucking football game.
HN is supposed to be a place that encourages intelligent conversation and freedom of thought. We as a community are supposed to be mature enough to understand that not everyone is going to see things the same way.
The problem is, a lot of left-leaning people are so completely certain that their views are correct, and their correctness seems so obvious to them that they can't imagine how any logical person doesn't perceive reality in the same way. Just as many Conservatives feel the exact same way.
What gets lost in all of the petty arguments is the fact that there is plenty of room in the middle for people who agree with Republicans on some issues, and Democrats on others.
One of the dumbest fucking things our nation has ever done, is allow the formation of distinct political parties. The governance of the United States, or any other country for that matter, should not be conducted like a fucking football game.
We don't need to personally attack tptacek and question his motives here.
He's just really really wrong on this, is all. Let's not discourage people from using their real name or their real opinions.
He's just really really wrong on this, is all. Let's not discourage people from using their real name or their real opinions.
I find your argument to have zero constructive value. Aside from the gross exaggeration to attempt to attack the speaker instead of the idea, it is possible that some have a more "law and order" outlook on the world, while others have more of a "fear law and order" outlook. That this is repeatedly demonstrate should surprise no one, and your statement of it as if you've unearthed some grand conspiracy borders on obnoxious. You'll get the up-arrows by people so utterly desperate to be outraged by this story, but you deserve none.
You make a good case that this fits within the bounds of an enemy target as far as the classic drug war goes.
I think we'd agree though that sans rundown hotel the drugs still would have been made, the people would have died, the cops would have had to arrest people.
Like it or not, the marginal people in the world need places to sleep, go to work, shout at aliens and watch law and order like everyone else. If the meth lab wasn't there then maybe the suburban rental down the street, or the dead junkie could have been in the room next to yours at the quality in that didn't have a huge warning on yelp that let you avoid it.
It's a decent part of the reason that a lot of cities have relatively well know open air drug markets in bad parts of town that don't get much static, or that the oakland pd mostly looked the other way at the large mostly illegal mega grows in the warehouse districts 10 years ago because they knew the alternative would just push them into residential neighborhoods and cause a lot more problems.
Minus the moral outrage and necessity of retribution, the guy was probably doing the rest of the hotels and the town a favor.
I mean that is unless you're arguing to generate enough new revenue so that we can spend drug war size money on top notch medical, pyschiatric, housing and supervision for a large chunk of marginalized people in this country.
I think we'd agree though that sans rundown hotel the drugs still would have been made, the people would have died, the cops would have had to arrest people.
Like it or not, the marginal people in the world need places to sleep, go to work, shout at aliens and watch law and order like everyone else. If the meth lab wasn't there then maybe the suburban rental down the street, or the dead junkie could have been in the room next to yours at the quality in that didn't have a huge warning on yelp that let you avoid it.
It's a decent part of the reason that a lot of cities have relatively well know open air drug markets in bad parts of town that don't get much static, or that the oakland pd mostly looked the other way at the large mostly illegal mega grows in the warehouse districts 10 years ago because they knew the alternative would just push them into residential neighborhoods and cause a lot more problems.
Minus the moral outrage and necessity of retribution, the guy was probably doing the rest of the hotels and the town a favor.
I mean that is unless you're arguing to generate enough new revenue so that we can spend drug war size money on top notch medical, pyschiatric, housing and supervision for a large chunk of marginalized people in this country.
I don't understand why the list of reasons you gave support the idea that government should be able to just steal the hotel from its owner without first charging the owner of a crime.
> The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. . . .
If the government wants to impose some standards on how a hotel should be run, it should publish laws to that effect and the penalties should something on the order of fines or loss of business license, not loss of the property.
> The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
It is not the duty of private citizens to act as an unpaid quasi-police force.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
> The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
Are they required by law to make changes?
> Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
If and when police discover illegal activity, they are free to do their jobs and arrest people. It is not the hotel owners' job to act as a police force.
> The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
Knowledge that crimes have occurred in the past does not mean that the hotel owners had a duty to act as an unpaid police force.
> The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. . . .
If the government wants to impose some standards on how a hotel should be run, it should publish laws to that effect and the penalties should something on the order of fines or loss of business license, not loss of the property.
> The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
It is not the duty of private citizens to act as an unpaid quasi-police force.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
> The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
Are they required by law to make changes?
> Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
If and when police discover illegal activity, they are free to do their jobs and arrest people. It is not the hotel owners' job to act as a police force.
> The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
Knowledge that crimes have occurred in the past does not mean that the hotel owners had a duty to act as an unpaid police force.
They're not stealing; they're suing.
There's a whole weird history of civil asset forfeiture being abused, such as when the one black guy in a rural Ohio town is pulled over on his way to buy a new truck with cash, and the cops seize the cash under CAF rules on suspicion that the guy's a drug dealer. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE IS OK. But you'd want to be careful (not "agree with me", just, careful) being knee-jerk about this stuff.
So what were these guys doing, and how is it different?
So what were these guys doing, and how is it different?
> The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
Your entire comment essentially boils down to this. I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs ... but even if you don't, do you really think the hotel owners should be Drug War warriors, enforcing the law, and turning their own customers in to the authorities?
Your entire comment essentially boils down to this. I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs ... but even if you don't, do you really think the hotel owners should be Drug War warriors, enforcing the law, and turning their own customers in to the authorities?
Yes, I think that business owners shouldn't be allowed to knowingly profit from having their property used as a staging ground for armed crack and heroin dealers, street-level prostitution, and methamphetamine manufacturing. I think that because all of those activities create externalities that impose terrible costs on neighbors and on the whole township.
Ding, Ding, Ding.
I was enraged at first but when I had this same thought, it changed my mind.
Truth is, it would be bad for business if Caswell took an activist approach towards cleaning up his property. Or at the very least, he believes it would be bad or else you'd think he'd have done it by now. He does, after all, live on the premises.
All this "behind closed doors." Sure, wink wink, nod nod.
Perhaps the gov't needs to build more of a paper-trail (assuming the news article I read was correct that this guy has not had any formal issues renewing various licenses and such) but yeah, you don't get to profit off of criminal activity and not expect the public to do something about it.
I was enraged at first but when I had this same thought, it changed my mind.
Truth is, it would be bad for business if Caswell took an activist approach towards cleaning up his property. Or at the very least, he believes it would be bad or else you'd think he'd have done it by now. He does, after all, live on the premises.
All this "behind closed doors." Sure, wink wink, nod nod.
Perhaps the gov't needs to build more of a paper-trail (assuming the news article I read was correct that this guy has not had any formal issues renewing various licenses and such) but yeah, you don't get to profit off of criminal activity and not expect the public to do something about it.
It would be one thing perhaps if it was people selling weed out of their room but meth labs are actively dangerous. Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more.
Just because you believe there's nothing wrong with using drugs doesn't mean that current drug dealers are perfectly savory characters.
Just because you believe there's nothing wrong with using drugs doesn't mean that current drug dealers are perfectly savory characters.
> Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more.
They could just as easily threaten owners of a motel, and tell them that if they don't get to do their thing there will be more trouble than the motel owner can handle.
Having a fixed place of business makes you vulnerable, and the neighbourhood this motel is in makes me sceptical about it being easily sold to new owners. I think there is an element of making an example out of this particular motel to scare the rest into compliance. "Look what happens if you don't clean up, you lose your business". But unfortunately if you do try to clean up you find yourself facing armed gangsters. Tough choice.
They could just as easily threaten owners of a motel, and tell them that if they don't get to do their thing there will be more trouble than the motel owner can handle.
Having a fixed place of business makes you vulnerable, and the neighbourhood this motel is in makes me sceptical about it being easily sold to new owners. I think there is an element of making an example out of this particular motel to scare the rest into compliance. "Look what happens if you don't clean up, you lose your business". But unfortunately if you do try to clean up you find yourself facing armed gangsters. Tough choice.
Life is full of tough choices though. Unless the end game for all time is supposed to be meth labs in every fourth room something had to change.
I would ask if the owner bothered to get the police involved but I suspect people will just tell me that the government is evil, why would he call the police, and other such statements. :P
I would ask if the owner bothered to get the police involved but I suspect people will just tell me that the government is evil, why would he call the police, and other such statements. :P
A business owner is not a part of law enforcement. Law enforcement should do their own homework, and if they have proof or indication of wrongdoing at some location they should go after the perpetrators, not after the location.
If you go after the location all you achieve is that the crime will shift a bit down the street, or to another part of town, or will go even deeper underground. If you go after the perpetrators you make a start with plugging the hole, and you should make it painfully obvious that the owners had nothing to do with the busts lest they end up paying the price. Of course, if the owners accept direct payment (instead of simply receiving 'industry standard' compensation for lodging) for turning a blind eye things would change. Similar issues exist with clubs where drug dealers pay a fee to the house in order to be able to work on the premises.
A place where I used to work had a coffeehouse next door that was used by a motorcycle gang for their 'meetings'. I guarantee you that if the owner had called the police the place would have burned to the ground.
Businesses caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and crime are in an extremely tough position, getting the police involved is the fastest way to get into serious trouble or end up dead.
If you think that 'not going to the police' is cowardly then you'll be happy to know that a very large number of crimes ends up unsolved because one day the criminal will walk free again and witness protection only goes so far.
The simplicity with which you assume these things are handled is not reflected in real life, dealing with criminals invading your property is extremely difficult.
If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.
If you go after the location all you achieve is that the crime will shift a bit down the street, or to another part of town, or will go even deeper underground. If you go after the perpetrators you make a start with plugging the hole, and you should make it painfully obvious that the owners had nothing to do with the busts lest they end up paying the price. Of course, if the owners accept direct payment (instead of simply receiving 'industry standard' compensation for lodging) for turning a blind eye things would change. Similar issues exist with clubs where drug dealers pay a fee to the house in order to be able to work on the premises.
A place where I used to work had a coffeehouse next door that was used by a motorcycle gang for their 'meetings'. I guarantee you that if the owner had called the police the place would have burned to the ground.
Businesses caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and crime are in an extremely tough position, getting the police involved is the fastest way to get into serious trouble or end up dead.
If you think that 'not going to the police' is cowardly then you'll be happy to know that a very large number of crimes ends up unsolved because one day the criminal will walk free again and witness protection only goes so far.
The simplicity with which you assume these things are handled is not reflected in real life, dealing with criminals invading your property is extremely difficult.
If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.
What I can't understand is that you seem to think that it is simultaneously true that law enforcement can fully investigate these kinds of criminal activity without at least the tacit awareness of the owners, and that the owners can somehow convince the crime lords that they would have had nothing to do with law enforcement's later arrests (especially given the coffeehouse you mention).
So sure, criminals are dangerous. I completely agree. But it is not incumbent on the rest of society to "sit there and take it" because the building owner is in a difficult spot. No matter what gets done to advance the situation from there the building owner will have tough problems to face.
But in this particular situation everyone knew there was crime going on there, so this is one of the very few owners who'd be able to say with a straight face that it's not like he tipped the cops off if he wanted to work them.
> If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.
And the same solutions, one would imagine. I'm not at all saying it's an easy problem to fix, I just don't see how "do nothing" is a valid member of the "possible solution" set.
So sure, criminals are dangerous. I completely agree. But it is not incumbent on the rest of society to "sit there and take it" because the building owner is in a difficult spot. No matter what gets done to advance the situation from there the building owner will have tough problems to face.
But in this particular situation everyone knew there was crime going on there, so this is one of the very few owners who'd be able to say with a straight face that it's not like he tipped the cops off if he wanted to work them.
> If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.
And the same solutions, one would imagine. I'm not at all saying it's an easy problem to fix, I just don't see how "do nothing" is a valid member of the "possible solution" set.
> What I can't understand is that you seem to think that it is simultaneously true that law enforcement can fully investigate these kinds of criminal activity without at least the tacit awareness of the owners, and that the owners can somehow convince the crime lords that they would have had nothing to do with law enforcement's later arrests (especially given the coffeehouse you mention).
Criminals congregating in a place gives you a good reason to visit the place. The owner would not have to have anything to do with that at all, clearly the police is aware this is a problem spot, the occasional probe by officers is then to be expected. That's called patrolling the neighbourhood and investigating suspicious activity. There is a clear mandate for that. All they'd have to do to get rid of most of the undesirables would be to have a coffee there twice daily, unannounced at random times.
I don't see how confiscating one of the premises is a valid member of the solution set either, but clearly that's more profitable than old fashioned police work and walking a beat. A visible presence is a very effective deterrent in cases like this.
That still won't solve the underlying problem, and it will likely still result in a shift. But it is just as effective as a confiscation and far more fair.
Criminals congregating in a place gives you a good reason to visit the place. The owner would not have to have anything to do with that at all, clearly the police is aware this is a problem spot, the occasional probe by officers is then to be expected. That's called patrolling the neighbourhood and investigating suspicious activity. There is a clear mandate for that. All they'd have to do to get rid of most of the undesirables would be to have a coffee there twice daily, unannounced at random times.
I don't see how confiscating one of the premises is a valid member of the solution set either, but clearly that's more profitable than old fashioned police work and walking a beat. A visible presence is a very effective deterrent in cases like this.
That still won't solve the underlying problem, and it will likely still result in a shift. But it is just as effective as a confiscation and far more fair.
"Drug crimes" covers a very broad spectrum from smoking pot to making meth. I don't think motels should be overly eager to report pot smokers, but meth makers? My God, do you have any idea how dangerous meth synthesis is? If you screw up meth production, explosions and toxic chemical releases are likely. No one with a brain should want a meth lab on their property.
I wouldn't bring up the meth lab, except...they had a meth lab on their property.
I wouldn't bring up the meth lab, except...they had a meth lab on their property.
You don't think there is anything with knowingly profiting from illegal activity?
They are not law enforcement. There is nothing reasonable they could do to enforce the law on their property that is by its very nature open to anyone in the public. If law enforcement knew of drug activity, why weren't they able to stop it? The owners of the motel have much less legal recourse than the police do.
More generally, a "service provider" (taken loosely) has no obligation to act as law enforcement of its service. An ISP knows illegal activity happens over its lines, and it profits from it. They have no obligation, nor the power, to police their lines in a manner that would make them immune from this sort of forfeiture.
More generally, a "service provider" (taken loosely) has no obligation to act as law enforcement of its service. An ISP knows illegal activity happens over its lines, and it profits from it. They have no obligation, nor the power, to police their lines in a manner that would make them immune from this sort of forfeiture.
The law asks business owners to help law enforcement in this regard, and asks from them a very low bar: not knowingly profiting from the illegal activity. This is not novel--the underlying principles of derivative liability date to the 17th century. Knowingly profiting from activity has always carried with it special responsibilities.
A motel is not like an ISP--the former has far more ability to control what happens on their premises. Indeed, at common law, inn keepers could be held liable for failing to secure their property resulting in theft or loss of a guest's belongings. Moreover, there is a big distinction, both in law and in common sense, between knowing in the abstract that your service is used for illegal activity, and knowing about specific illegal activity and turning a blind eye. E.g. if you sell a gun knowing the buyer intends to murder someone with it, you can be held liable as an accomplice!
A motel is not like an ISP--the former has far more ability to control what happens on their premises. Indeed, at common law, inn keepers could be held liable for failing to secure their property resulting in theft or loss of a guest's belongings. Moreover, there is a big distinction, both in law and in common sense, between knowing in the abstract that your service is used for illegal activity, and knowing about specific illegal activity and turning a blind eye. E.g. if you sell a gun knowing the buyer intends to murder someone with it, you can be held liable as an accomplice!
Not knowing or profiting from illegal activity is such a nebulous claim that it can't be enforced except in the most extreme situations. All ISPs profit from illegal activity. The problem is identifying individual instances of it is nearly impossible. In the same way this motel owner had an impossible task of identifying drug users or other criminals without having any specific knowledge of criminal activity. I do not want to live in a society where business owners are empowered to deny service because someone "looks like" a drug user. I'll let you imagine all the myriad ways that can be abused.
Don't argue with a straw man. This is not a situation where the government was going after a business owner for not denying service to someone who "looks like" a drug user. This was a situation where drug dealers were openly operating out of the guy's motel rooms. Someone was running a goddamn meth lab out of one of the rooms.
If he was so "openly" operating, why didn't the police arrest him? If they did, then what's the problem? Did they expect the motel owner to turn them in sooner? What exactly is enough evidence to assume someone is running a drug dealing operation? Are they expected to take note of how many people come and go during a given day? Profile their behavior? These seems like unreasonable expectations of the owner to me.
Maintaining law and order in the community is not only the responsibility of the police. The police cannot be everywhere, all the time. They can piece together a picture of what's going on by interviewing nearby residents after the fact, but in these sorts of communities it can be months or years before the police become aware of such activity and address it. People in the community have to participate, and businesses have a special responsibility to make sure their property is not used for illegal activity.
Yes, a motel owner is supposed to be generally aware of how many people come and go during the day, what kind of people, etc. This is not a high expectation, and it's the price of living in civilized society.
I'm not sure what you're background is, but safe, civilized communities don't spring up like mushrooms in a damp field. That's not the nature of humanity. Cooperating with the police and actively taking steps to keep illegal activity in check is what separates good working class neighborhoods from the ghetto.
Yes, a motel owner is supposed to be generally aware of how many people come and go during the day, what kind of people, etc. This is not a high expectation, and it's the price of living in civilized society.
I'm not sure what you're background is, but safe, civilized communities don't spring up like mushrooms in a damp field. That's not the nature of humanity. Cooperating with the police and actively taking steps to keep illegal activity in check is what separates good working class neighborhoods from the ghetto.
I don't disagree with any of that. But its not clear how we go from that to seizing and liquidating their property. Did law enforcement engage with them to see how they could work together to reduce crime? Somehow I doubt that.
First, you seem to have made yourself an expert on what this proprietor could and could not have done. That amuses me. You're making yourself into an apologist for a guy who profited from a business relationship with known drug dealers and pimps.
The owners of the motel are not limited by the constitution. The motel owner has been in business for a long time. You think he doesn't know drug activity when he sees it? He can and should refuse a room and ask offending or suspicious guests to leave. Of course, that would be bad for business. And that's why we're here.
The owners of the motel are not limited by the constitution. The motel owner has been in business for a long time. You think he doesn't know drug activity when he sees it? He can and should refuse a room and ask offending or suspicious guests to leave. Of course, that would be bad for business. And that's why we're here.
>You think he doesn't know drug activity when he sees it? He can and should refuse a room and ask offending or suspicious guests to leave.
And this is exactly the point. It's not his place to determine if someone "looks like" a drug user. If he has no specific knowledge of instances of drug use, he has no reason or in my opinion any right to deny someone service. Yes, its obvious when drug use happens in an area. But that is a far cry from identifying individual instances of drug users or other criminals. I do not want society to empower business owners to deny me business because I "look like" a drug user. The fact that you're even suggesting that is absurd.
And this is exactly the point. It's not his place to determine if someone "looks like" a drug user. If he has no specific knowledge of instances of drug use, he has no reason or in my opinion any right to deny someone service. Yes, its obvious when drug use happens in an area. But that is a far cry from identifying individual instances of drug users or other criminals. I do not want society to empower business owners to deny me business because I "look like" a drug user. The fact that you're even suggesting that is absurd.
Business owners already HAVE and EXERCISE those rights. It's the right and responsibility of a business owner to keep his establishment clean and not profit on the back of obvious illicit activity. He can refuse service to anybody for any reason not protected by anti-discrimination legislation. And he knows that, it's why he addressed it in a quote early in that article -- claiming if he took responsibility and cleaned his motel up he'd be accused of discrimination. That's a cop-out.
>And he knows that, it's why he addressed it in a quote early in that article -- claiming if he took responsibility and cleaned his motel up he'd be accused of discrimination. That's a cop-out.
Unless everyone he denied access to were white, he would open himself up to such litigation. It's not a cop-out. Making assumptions about someone's character based on how they look is fraught with landmines. It is unreasonable to expect a business owner to take on that responsibility.
Unless everyone he denied access to were white, he would open himself up to such litigation. It's not a cop-out. Making assumptions about someone's character based on how they look is fraught with landmines. It is unreasonable to expect a business owner to take on that responsibility.
I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs
I'm going to guess you don't share your neighborhood with crack houses, meth labs, drug dealers etc
I'm going to guess you don't share your neighborhood with crack houses, meth labs, drug dealers etc
Note:
- 15 crimes over 14 years in which he rented 200,000 rooms, and
- he runs the risk of discrimination accusations if he refuses to rent a room.
What specific policies would you implement if you were managing this hotel that would have avoided 15 crimes in 200,000 room rentals? You're so confident this guy is negligent, show us how easy it is to avoid these problems.
- 15 crimes over 14 years in which he rented 200,000 rooms, and
- he runs the risk of discrimination accusations if he refuses to rent a room.
What specific policies would you implement if you were managing this hotel that would have avoided 15 crimes in 200,000 room rentals? You're so confident this guy is negligent, show us how easy it is to avoid these problems.
If it's so easy for 'policy changes' to react to the lawlessness, why can't the police, with all their customary non-forfeiture tools (that are not available to a private actor), just crack down on this problem spot with due-cause searches and arrests? It's a honeypot!
I don't want innkeepers to be direct reporting agents of law enforcement agencies, or subject to a 100% asset tax when they don't meet law enforcement's demands (plus appear to be an easy profitable high-equity target).
I don't want innkeepers to be direct reporting agents of law enforcement agencies, or subject to a 100% asset tax when they don't meet law enforcement's demands (plus appear to be an easy profitable high-equity target).
If the government doesn't like the way they're running their business, surely they should either charge them with an actual crime or buy them out.
That's exactly what the government is doing: they're suing the property because it's the instrument of serious crimes. The owners of the property are defending it in court.
There's a whole weird history of civil asset forfeiture being abused, such as when the one black guy in a rural Ohio town is pulled over on his way to buy a new truck with cash, and the cops seize the cash under CAF rules on suspicion that the guy's a drug dealer. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE IS OK. But you'd want to be careful (not "agree with me", just, careful) being knee-jerk about this stuff.
There's a whole weird history of civil asset forfeiture being abused, such as when the one black guy in a rural Ohio town is pulled over on his way to buy a new truck with cash, and the cops seize the cash under CAF rules on suspicion that the guy's a drug dealer. I AM NOT ARGUING THAT CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE IS OK. But you'd want to be careful (not "agree with me", just, careful) being knee-jerk about this stuff.
As I was trying to get across before, in a thread where you might have been a bit more receptive:
The reason the Innocent Black Guy in rural Ohio ends up with an impossible battle and travesty of justice IS BECAUSE the system gets lazy and invents crap like "suing property" and "plea bargain poker" in search of expediency against numerous truly unsavory characters. You can't claim to be concerned about IBG's plight yet be unconcerned with the deterioration of the legal system that eventually causes IBG to end up at the complete mercy of one prosecutor.
The reason the Innocent Black Guy in rural Ohio ends up with an impossible battle and travesty of justice IS BECAUSE the system gets lazy and invents crap like "suing property" and "plea bargain poker" in search of expediency against numerous truly unsavory characters. You can't claim to be concerned about IBG's plight yet be unconcerned with the deterioration of the legal system that eventually causes IBG to end up at the complete mercy of one prosecutor.
I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently that it becomes a blight on the whole neighborhood. I think that the same way I think they should be able to sue factory owners who dump toxic sludge into the waterways.
> I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently
So, given that this is not how civil asset forfeiture cases actually work, does this mean that you've changed your opinion?
So, given that this is not how civil asset forfeiture cases actually work, does this mean that you've changed your opinion?
It is in fact how this case worked!
Do you honestly think this case is a good model for the problems with civil asset forfeiture?
Do you honestly think this case is a good model for the problems with civil asset forfeiture?
Well with a quick search I was unable to find the specifics, but the article hints at it, and usually in these cases, the hotel is the thing getting sued. We're not talking about the city or neighboring properties suing this guy in civil court, showing harm, and getting appropriate damages. We're talking a civil case burden of proof of property being associated with a crime, where the penalty has no relation to damages caused, with higher costs of defense as it's a federal case, and no ability retain the specific thing, etc. If you really don't know what I'm talking about, go read into the details of these kinds of cases, and ask yourself whether such legal shenanigans are necessary or just expedient.
It's an acceptable model if one is willing to put aside the conduct of the guy on the receiving end and look at the mechanics of the process. It's not a case to rally around, but it does highlight some of the lurking problems that are primed to destroy the next unlucky innocent.
It's an acceptable model if one is willing to put aside the conduct of the guy on the receiving end and look at the mechanics of the process. It's not a case to rally around, but it does highlight some of the lurking problems that are primed to destroy the next unlucky innocent.
The docket on this case was posted downthread by 'thinkcomp.
Alright, as I had guessed, the case is against the real estate itself - not "the owners of the property".
"United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
"United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"
What, they sued a building?!?
Cross examination could be interesting.
Cross examination could be interesting.
That's why it's called civil forfeiture: the government seizes your property, without charging you with a crime. They don't charge you because you haven't committed a crime. They just don't like you (literally) and retaliate by stealing your stuff. Sometimes, they just want your stuff: when the police seize your property, they get to sell it and keep the proceeds.
The requirements to "win" a civil forfeiture case is incredibly low - much lower than, for instance, proving a crime was committed. Innocent victims (i.e. the rare cases where a forfeiture is overturned) always have their things seized immediately to begin with, because the standard of "proof" is so unbelievably low. It's just as easy to seize from the innocent as it is from the guilty.
When people first learn about civil forfeiture, the disbelief, the cognitive dissonance that such a thing even exists is amazing. In any other context, we'd call it what it is: theft, without due process. The whole legal basis is evil, wrong, and a direct result of the War on Drugs. It has thoroughly corrupted our police and judicial systems.
Once enough people become aware of it, it'll be overturned, but not before ruining countless lives. The legal basis for civil forfeiture cannot survive even the tiniest amount of light.
The requirements to "win" a civil forfeiture case is incredibly low - much lower than, for instance, proving a crime was committed. Innocent victims (i.e. the rare cases where a forfeiture is overturned) always have their things seized immediately to begin with, because the standard of "proof" is so unbelievably low. It's just as easy to seize from the innocent as it is from the guilty.
When people first learn about civil forfeiture, the disbelief, the cognitive dissonance that such a thing even exists is amazing. In any other context, we'd call it what it is: theft, without due process. The whole legal basis is evil, wrong, and a direct result of the War on Drugs. It has thoroughly corrupted our police and judicial systems.
Once enough people become aware of it, it'll be overturned, but not before ruining countless lives. The legal basis for civil forfeiture cannot survive even the tiniest amount of light.
In practice, it's a lawsuit with the owners on one side and the US Attorney on the other.
There is a difference there. Factory owners who dump are actively breaking the law themselves. The motel owner isn't doing any drug dealing, just renting rooms.
I don't think this is any different to ISPs having to police what their users are doing. For a motel owner to know about drug dealing they need to see it happening, but that's not possible behind closed doors, unless they use surveillance, which is illegal and unethical.
Similarly, ISPs who facilitate users who use their Internet access to download child porn have no way of knowing about this, unless they implement surveillance. This is unethical and illegal... Yet the crime is arguably worse!
I don't think this is any different to ISPs having to police what their users are doing. For a motel owner to know about drug dealing they need to see it happening, but that's not possible behind closed doors, unless they use surveillance, which is illegal and unethical.
Similarly, ISPs who facilitate users who use their Internet access to download child porn have no way of knowing about this, unless they implement surveillance. This is unethical and illegal... Yet the crime is arguably worse!
Why did this case ever go to a Federal case?
If the Tewksbury PD had knowledge, did they not also have the ability to give the info to a local county or state prosecutor? And if they knew and did nothing, either the community by way of the police chief give tacit approval, or, there is corruption somewhere.
If the Tewksbury PD had knowledge, did they not also have the ability to give the info to a local county or state prosecutor? And if they knew and did nothing, either the community by way of the police chief give tacit approval, or, there is corruption somewhere.
It went to trial because the local police department wants to net about $800K from seizing the land.
It went to federal trial because the feds have worked out a system where they'll take on all the legwork and trial expense for the local police, in exchange for 20% of the take ($200K in this case).
It's 100% about money, and 0% about reducing crime or prostitution (other properties nearby have identical crime rates, but aren't worth as much, so they're not targeted). Police departments use the money from civil forfeiture to pad their budgets. In some cities, the amount of money received each year from civil forfeiture is 3-5x that provided by taxpayers!
If you want to go wild with rage, spend some time reading up on the civil forfeiture laws and abuses. IMO there is no greater example of bad law and bad government today than civil forfeiture. I'm not alone in thinking so, either. It's that evil.
The US has enacted some truly bad laws in the last decade or so, but civil forfeiture is so far out in front as "worst law in widespread use" that is has no real competitors for the title.
It went to federal trial because the feds have worked out a system where they'll take on all the legwork and trial expense for the local police, in exchange for 20% of the take ($200K in this case).
It's 100% about money, and 0% about reducing crime or prostitution (other properties nearby have identical crime rates, but aren't worth as much, so they're not targeted). Police departments use the money from civil forfeiture to pad their budgets. In some cities, the amount of money received each year from civil forfeiture is 3-5x that provided by taxpayers!
If you want to go wild with rage, spend some time reading up on the civil forfeiture laws and abuses. IMO there is no greater example of bad law and bad government today than civil forfeiture. I'm not alone in thinking so, either. It's that evil.
The US has enacted some truly bad laws in the last decade or so, but civil forfeiture is so far out in front as "worst law in widespread use" that is has no real competitors for the title.
Civil forfeiture isn't even in the top 100 worst laws in widespread use. The laws that put millions of Americans in prison for insanely long prison terms, giving it the highest current incarceration rate of any modern country (slightly beating out the previous record holder, Stalin-era USSR) are much bigger problems than property seizure. I'd much rather have my car seized for stupid reasons, than be thrown in jail for stupid reasons.
And realistically, what could the owners of the motel have done to curb illicit activity in their rooms? I mean specifically, what could they have done, that would have actually curbed abuse? What it boils down to, is that they can take all the security measures they want, but if someone can rent a room and do/sell drugs, prostitute, and leave no evidence behind, it's outside the purview of the owners, and realistically can't be stopped. This is a function of the neighborhood, not the motel owners.
I'm no hotel policy expert, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express before. If I owned this motel and actually wanted to reduce some of these problems here are some steps I would take:
1) Don't rent rooms by the hour: this reduced prostitution.
2) Only allow registered guests to enter the hotel further than the lobby: good bye "drug stores"
3) Work with other local businesses, the police, and community members to clean up the streets. Drugs and crime should be bad for business. Elect and work with politicians that will put more police on the streets. Maybe institute a curfew. Improve the schools. Create after school programs.
If I was being proactive at fighting the blight throughout my 30 years (and my fathers previous 29) then the government would not be taking away my Model... if anything I would be getting in trouble for what I would be doing to whoever attempted to run a meth lab out of my place of business and my home (Those things explode!)
1) Don't rent rooms by the hour: this reduced prostitution.
2) Only allow registered guests to enter the hotel further than the lobby: good bye "drug stores"
3) Work with other local businesses, the police, and community members to clean up the streets. Drugs and crime should be bad for business. Elect and work with politicians that will put more police on the streets. Maybe institute a curfew. Improve the schools. Create after school programs.
If I was being proactive at fighting the blight throughout my 30 years (and my fathers previous 29) then the government would not be taking away my Model... if anything I would be getting in trouble for what I would be doing to whoever attempted to run a meth lab out of my place of business and my home (Those things explode!)
Here's the problem with what you're contending. Even if the facts are true, the issue has to do with the axe that the government wields here in disproportionate effect to those who are small and weak and not so against those who are stronger and have substantial resources:
From other articles [1] and [2]: "Dein asked Rao if it was the government's assertion that if a drug transaction takes place in the parking lot of McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts, and the employees are aware of it and do nothing about it, the government could seize those businesses as part of the drug-forfeiture law.
Rao essentially said that was true. She responded, "The test is knowledge and reasonable steps to curb drug activity."
What makes it worse are the potentials for substantial and unstoppable abuse from the US government on forfeiture laws:
"Dein said she has "serious concerns" about the government's interpretation.
Institute for Justice attorneys argue the case is simply about money. The government stands to profit in the sale of the Caswell Motel, which is worth an estimated $1 million with no mortgage.
Under a process known as "equitable sharing," the federal government would keep 20 percent of what it nets from selling the land, and the Tewksbury Police Department would pocket 80 percent, while the Caswell family will lose its livelihood, the Institute for Justice alleges."
Bullock wrote that if the government wins, it would be a slippery slope.
"Accepting the government's theory of forfeiture would subject to forfeiture countless establishments that serve the general public simply because they are the site of occasional drug crime,'' Bullock wrote.
And to counter many of your claims above: "But during the trial, Caswell, 69, who lives on the property with his wife, Patricia, testified he was "surprised'' by the civil-forfeiture notice.
"I never had any warning," he said.
In nearly 30 years of operating the 57-year-old Motel Caswell, which was built by his father and supports his family, Caswell testified that he has never been fined, cited or arrested, never had his business permit pulled, and was never told he could be in trouble for any third-party drug activity at the motel."
Furthermore, to your contention that this one property is the source and cause of the issues:
"It belies this notion that the area's great and there's this one problem property, the Motel Caswell," said attorney Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va.-based libertarian law firm representing motel owner Russ Caswell. "That's not the case at all.
Bullock said that when the Institute for Justice first took on the Motel Caswell case in 2011, the team examined police logs and found the rate of arrests at the motel comparable to that of its neighbors. He said more recent statistics obtained by The Sun seem in line with those initial findings.
The numbers raise the question of why this one business was targeted under the seizure laws, Bullock said.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment Friday."
[1] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell... [2] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22365659/tewksbu...
From other articles [1] and [2]: "Dein asked Rao if it was the government's assertion that if a drug transaction takes place in the parking lot of McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts, and the employees are aware of it and do nothing about it, the government could seize those businesses as part of the drug-forfeiture law.
Rao essentially said that was true. She responded, "The test is knowledge and reasonable steps to curb drug activity."
What makes it worse are the potentials for substantial and unstoppable abuse from the US government on forfeiture laws:
"Dein said she has "serious concerns" about the government's interpretation.
Institute for Justice attorneys argue the case is simply about money. The government stands to profit in the sale of the Caswell Motel, which is worth an estimated $1 million with no mortgage.
Under a process known as "equitable sharing," the federal government would keep 20 percent of what it nets from selling the land, and the Tewksbury Police Department would pocket 80 percent, while the Caswell family will lose its livelihood, the Institute for Justice alleges."
Bullock wrote that if the government wins, it would be a slippery slope.
"Accepting the government's theory of forfeiture would subject to forfeiture countless establishments that serve the general public simply because they are the site of occasional drug crime,'' Bullock wrote.
And to counter many of your claims above: "But during the trial, Caswell, 69, who lives on the property with his wife, Patricia, testified he was "surprised'' by the civil-forfeiture notice.
"I never had any warning," he said.
In nearly 30 years of operating the 57-year-old Motel Caswell, which was built by his father and supports his family, Caswell testified that he has never been fined, cited or arrested, never had his business permit pulled, and was never told he could be in trouble for any third-party drug activity at the motel."
Furthermore, to your contention that this one property is the source and cause of the issues:
"It belies this notion that the area's great and there's this one problem property, the Motel Caswell," said attorney Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va.-based libertarian law firm representing motel owner Russ Caswell. "That's not the case at all.
Bullock said that when the Institute for Justice first took on the Motel Caswell case in 2011, the team examined police logs and found the rate of arrests at the motel comparable to that of its neighbors. He said more recent statistics obtained by The Sun seem in line with those initial findings.
The numbers raise the question of why this one business was targeted under the seizure laws, Bullock said.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office did not respond to a request for comment Friday."
[1] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22253534/caswell... [2] http://www.lowellsun.com/todaysheadlines/ci_22365659/tewksbu...
He had no warning of the civil asset forfeiture suit, until the suit was served on him. But he had numerous warnings about the problems with his property, from local business owners first, and then by the Tewksbury Police Department, and then in response to multiple major criminal incidents at his hotel (a meth lab was discovered; the government contends no policy changes resulted; multiple people died in rooms the hotel; the government contends no policy changes resulted; multiple retail drug operations were found in the hotel; the government contends no policy changes resulted). It's disingenuous in the extreme for this guy to pretend he's taken by surprise here.
It's possible to simultaneously believe that we should be concerned about the lack of restrictions on the use of civil asset forfeiture and and at the same time believe that the state should have some recourse in court for properties operated in the fashion of this motel.
It's possible to simultaneously believe that we should be concerned about the lack of restrictions on the use of civil asset forfeiture and and at the same time believe that the state should have some recourse in court for properties operated in the fashion of this motel.
The issue is not a finding of cause for seizure, but the decision to choose this property versus the other properties that showed the same rate of crime and disregard for what was happening.
I edited my response above to include this section:
Furthermore, to your contention that this one property is the source and cause of the issues:
"It belies this notion that the area's great and there's this one problem property, the Motel Caswell," said attorney Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va.-based libertarian law firm representing motel owner Russ Caswell. "That's not the case at all.
Bullock said that when the Institute for Justice first took on the Motel Caswell case in 2011, the team examined police logs and found the rate of arrests at the motel comparable to that of its neighbors. He said more recent statistics obtained by The Sun seem in line with those initial findings.
The numbers raise the question of why this one business was targeted under the seizure laws, Bullock said.
I edited my response above to include this section:
Furthermore, to your contention that this one property is the source and cause of the issues:
"It belies this notion that the area's great and there's this one problem property, the Motel Caswell," said attorney Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice, the Arlington, Va.-based libertarian law firm representing motel owner Russ Caswell. "That's not the case at all.
Bullock said that when the Institute for Justice first took on the Motel Caswell case in 2011, the team examined police logs and found the rate of arrests at the motel comparable to that of its neighbors. He said more recent statistics obtained by The Sun seem in line with those initial findings.
The numbers raise the question of why this one business was targeted under the seizure laws, Bullock said.
Here's the government's evidence in the case:
http://forfeiturereform.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/124-U...
If other motels are operating in the same manner as this one, they should be treated consistently.
Like I said downthread: if you can get me a link to data about comparable incidents in other properties, that would be interesting. It obviously shouldn't be OK for a Motel 6 next door to escape scrutiny just because it has corporate ownership!
http://forfeiturereform.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/124-U...
If other motels are operating in the same manner as this one, they should be treated consistently.
Like I said downthread: if you can get me a link to data about comparable incidents in other properties, that would be interesting. It obviously shouldn't be OK for a Motel 6 next door to escape scrutiny just because it has corporate ownership!
From the article at:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sh...
"An investigation by the Lowell Sun confirms this:
A review of Police Department arrest logs from 2007 through 2012 shows that despite a relatively high number of drug arrests at the Motel Caswell property in recent years, more suspects have been busted on drug-related charges at nearby addresses.
During the examined six-year time period, police made 19 drug arrests at the Motel Caswell at 450 Main St., five fewer than at the property where Walmart is located at 333 Main St. Twenty-six drug arrests were made at each of the properties located at 85 Main St. [Home Depot & Applebees] and 95 Main St. [Motel 6 & IHOP]"
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sh...
"An investigation by the Lowell Sun confirms this:
A review of Police Department arrest logs from 2007 through 2012 shows that despite a relatively high number of drug arrests at the Motel Caswell property in recent years, more suspects have been busted on drug-related charges at nearby addresses.
During the examined six-year time period, police made 19 drug arrests at the Motel Caswell at 450 Main St., five fewer than at the property where Walmart is located at 333 Main St. Twenty-six drug arrests were made at each of the properties located at 85 Main St. [Home Depot & Applebees] and 95 Main St. [Motel 6 & IHOP]"
Again, you confuse cause for the government to act against a defendent with choice of defendent, and also options of remedy with choice of remedy
In this case it is shown that a similar rate of crime occurred at the Motel 6 but the government did NOT choose to pursue that party. Instead they chose Motel Cass. similarly they had non-seizurre remedies but did not pursue those remedies.
Simply having the right to pursue an extreme option against any party they could choose did not make it right to pursue that option against this party. this is what people mean when they say "prosecutorial discretion" and why people are so incensed by the discretion shown here... and over and over by this DA.
In this case it is shown that a similar rate of crime occurred at the Motel 6 but the government did NOT choose to pursue that party. Instead they chose Motel Cass. similarly they had non-seizurre remedies but did not pursue those remedies.
Simply having the right to pursue an extreme option against any party they could choose did not make it right to pursue that option against this party. this is what people mean when they say "prosecutorial discretion" and why people are so incensed by the discretion shown here... and over and over by this DA.
> If other motels are operating in the same manner as this one, they should be treated consistently.
So if there is a super bad area, where all motels have lots of crimes, the government should just nationalize everything? You don't think this methodology may create some perverse incentives?
So if there is a super bad area, where all motels have lots of crimes, the government should just nationalize everything? You don't think this methodology may create some perverse incentives?
I'm wondering what kind of policy changes a motel could institute that would prevent people using drugs (or dying as a result) in their rooms? Search every guest's person and baggage for drugs? Put video cameras in the rooms? Discriminate against customers who look "shady"? Barge in on their customers in the middle of the night to check for illegal activity? Examine their customers' arms and legs for needle tracks before doing business with them?
Also, how many upscale hotels that cater to people in the entertainment industry (for example) haven't had 15 drug-related crimes in 14 years (about one per year)?
Also, how many upscale hotels that cater to people in the entertainment industry (for example) haven't had 15 drug-related crimes in 14 years (about one per year)?
Exactly.
Previously mentioned, as though it were damming: "its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again."
And exactly what do more reputable hotels do besides that? If I were so inclined, I could get myself a reservation in any hotel in the city and do whatever drugs I wanted. Only after they discovered this could they prevent me from doing it again.
Previously mentioned, as though it were damming: "its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again."
And exactly what do more reputable hotels do besides that? If I were so inclined, I could get myself a reservation in any hotel in the city and do whatever drugs I wanted. Only after they discovered this could they prevent me from doing it again.
Forget catering to the entertainment industry. How many hotels on the Las Vegas Strip don't have a worse record?
[deleted]
Agreed. If we don't nip this abuse of power in the bud, it will only escalate. There are legit ways of solving problems and then there is this.
If you read Reason (to steal a line from you), you know that laws prohibiting narcotics and prostitution are unethical and cause both activities to be more dangerous by forcing them underground.
It is beyond the power of U.S. attorneys to legalize either activity, but they are not beyond blame for enforcing unethical laws, and it is clearly baseless to blame private business for not helping them do so.
It is beyond the power of U.S. attorneys to legalize either activity, but they are not beyond blame for enforcing unethical laws, and it is clearly baseless to blame private business for not helping them do so.
I do read reason. I think marijuana should be completely legalized and sold like liquor is. I think we may end up having to regulate narcotics instead of criminalizing them. I think total bans on prostitution don't make much sense.
But I also think that meth labs, street-level hand-to-hand narcotics trading, and street-level prostitution are illegal for good reason.
But I also think that meth labs, street-level hand-to-hand narcotics trading, and street-level prostitution are illegal for good reason.
Do you think backroom meth labs and street-level prostitution would exist if professionalized alternatives were available? How many people have died from tainted homemade liquor purchased in speakaeasies since that type of prohibition ended?
That's the problem with your argument. This isn't a story of a negligent businessman allowing riff-raff to fester. It's a story of a social problem caused entirely by the government, being used to take property from a private business who didn't do enough to help them enforce their destructive laws.
That's the problem with your argument. This isn't a story of a negligent businessman allowing riff-raff to fester. It's a story of a social problem caused entirely by the government, being used to take property from a private business who didn't do enough to help them enforce their destructive laws.
By this logic, the government should confiscate each and every casino in Las Vegas. People commit numerous crimes, then lose the proceeds in these casinos. In some cases, the crimes occur on property - people are staying there when, for example, they phone in an unauthorized wire transfer from a corporate account, sell drugs, or commit other crimes in order to obtain gambling money. They are profiting from and are the impetus for many fraud, embezzlement, robbery, and drug cases each year.
The casinos have no on-site fraud/embezzlement monitoring programs for the crimes that occur in their hotel rooms, despite numerous cases every year arising from their properties. Someone call the Nevada equivalent of Carmen Ortiz and get these multi-billion dollar businesses confiscated! (I'm being sarcastic, of course - this type of thing is insane and deplorable in a country like the US).
The casinos have no on-site fraud/embezzlement monitoring programs for the crimes that occur in their hotel rooms, despite numerous cases every year arising from their properties. Someone call the Nevada equivalent of Carmen Ortiz and get these multi-billion dollar businesses confiscated! (I'm being sarcastic, of course - this type of thing is insane and deplorable in a country like the US).
You make it sound like these issues are unique to this one motel, when it comes with the business.
> * The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Hotels-motels-hot-spots-f...
> * The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/06/murder-suicide-whi...
> * Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel. / * The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/30/hard-rock-hotel-...
> * The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse... There are places like this all over American and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere, because this seems to be the primary complaint. If Charlie Sheen does cocaine in a luxury hotel room, that's all good fun. And it would be absurd to shut down the hotel because of what Sheen did, right? But a motel that serves poor people who are not celebrities -- yet nevertheless do drugs sometimes -- is entirely different.
This connects to the point that Orin Kerr and others have been making regarding the uproar over Aaron's death. "If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring."
> * The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Hotels-motels-hot-spots-f...
> * The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/06/murder-suicide-whi...
> * Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel. / * The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/dec/30/hard-rock-hotel-...
> * The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse... There are places like this all over American and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere, because this seems to be the primary complaint. If Charlie Sheen does cocaine in a luxury hotel room, that's all good fun. And it would be absurd to shut down the hotel because of what Sheen did, right? But a motel that serves poor people who are not celebrities -- yet nevertheless do drugs sometimes -- is entirely different.
This connects to the point that Orin Kerr and others have been making regarding the uproar over Aaron's death. "If you want to end these tactics, don’t just complain about the Swartz case. Don’t just complain when the defendant happens to be a brilliant guy who went to Stanford and hangs out with Larry Lessig. Instead, complain that this is business as usual in federal criminal cases around the country — mostly with defendants who no one has ever heard of and who get locked up for years without anyone else much caring."
Beyond that, I'm not sure HN is a great place to debate it.
Then why did you write a long comment rather than just flagging the article and moving on?
Then why did you write a long comment rather than just flagging the article and moving on?
[deleted]
Out of 280,000 room rentals over a period of 15 years, there were 15 cases of people with drugs.
If you believe grabbing property on that basis is justified, then, I am sorry to say sir that you are just a government shill who supports fascist forfeiture.
And apparently Caswell has had fewer crimes than other nearby addresses
http://forfeiturereform.com/2013/01/14/analysis-shows-fewer-...
If you believe grabbing property on that basis is justified, then, I am sorry to say sir that you are just a government shill who supports fascist forfeiture.
And apparently Caswell has had fewer crimes than other nearby addresses
http://forfeiturereform.com/2013/01/14/analysis-shows-fewer-...
"There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down"
In NYC, it's the Hotel Carter:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgBE1L8_WUs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCQ8_LkkaW0
In NYC, it's the Hotel Carter:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgBE1L8_WUs
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCQ8_LkkaW0
[deleted]
This quote made me stop:
“As he describes his job, he looks through the newspapers and looks at the Internet, looking for news stories of properties that might be forfeitable and brings them to the attention of the U.S. attorney,” Caswell’s attorney, Larry Salzman, said.
According to the agent’s sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity."
Ouch. I knew about the US forfeiture laws but this still managed to surprise me. The agents seem to have left any connection with justice and are pretty open about their real goal: grabbing money.
According to the agent’s sworn testimony, he then goes to the Registry of Deeds to determine the value of the targeted property. The DEA rejects anything with less than $50,000 equity."
Ouch. I knew about the US forfeiture laws but this still managed to surprise me. The agents seem to have left any connection with justice and are pretty open about their real goal: grabbing money.
So he's a real estate agent then?
Ba-dum tsss. But seriously, suppose that this agency needs a new office. What stops them from finding some nice buildings, link them to owners and investigate them just in case? They would be doing their jobs, with the potential bonus of a free office. A true real estate agency.
Yeah, false slippery slope and all but is it really a false one?
Yeah, false slippery slope and all but is it really a false one?
This story is outrageous. Outrageous. 14 crimes have occurred there in 15 years... And the government just wants to seize $1.5 million worth of property and keep the proceeds. That is itself a crime.
It's not the hotel owners job to do the job of the police. I don't want to check into a hotel and have them check my police record, ask if I am planning to have visitors, scan my luggage in a metal detector to see if I am carrying anything suspicious or illegal. Not their job.
If they see a crime occurring or something suspicious, call it in. Fine. But to hold private business owners responsible for the conduct of their customers? Ridiculous.
It's not the hotel owners job to do the job of the police. I don't want to check into a hotel and have them check my police record, ask if I am planning to have visitors, scan my luggage in a metal detector to see if I am carrying anything suspicious or illegal. Not their job.
If they see a crime occurring or something suspicious, call it in. Fine. But to hold private business owners responsible for the conduct of their customers? Ridiculous.
I think you are probably misinformed about the history of this property. The directly cited criminal cases in the evidence for the property spans a 7 page bulleted wall of text. Multiple people died there. They found meth labs there. On multiple separate engagements, retail drug operations were found running out of rooms in the property. And that's just the drug crimes.
The government can't just "seize" the property. They're suing the property in civil court. For what appears to be very good reason. The whole thing is receiving a full hearing in front of an impartial judge.
The government can't just "seize" the property. They're suing the property in civil court. For what appears to be very good reason. The whole thing is receiving a full hearing in front of an impartial judge.
Sounds to me to be exactly the kind of property a town needs. Get all that bad shit in one place so the police don't have to work finding the perps. Just station some agents in the hotel and go fishing.
Governments tried something similar with various housing project initiatives throughout the later part of the twentieth century.
It was an unmitigated disaster, and public policy has now shifted 180 degrees (with the biggest change in policy coming from the passing of the Public Housing Reform Act in 1998).
Even DC, where I live, has been working to undo fifty years of bad housing policy, with the shuttering and redevelopment of projects.
While serving on a homicide grand jury, ~20 of the 100 or so homicides we heard occurred at Sursom Corda, one of the last projects in the city, which was finally closed down.
It was an unmitigated disaster, and public policy has now shifted 180 degrees (with the biggest change in policy coming from the passing of the Public Housing Reform Act in 1998).
Even DC, where I live, has been working to undo fifty years of bad housing policy, with the shuttering and redevelopment of projects.
While serving on a homicide grand jury, ~20 of the 100 or so homicides we heard occurred at Sursom Corda, one of the last projects in the city, which was finally closed down.
I usually don't go in for commenting about the drug war because it's dumb and i'm over preaching to the converted. But I couldn't resist sidestepping the obvious revenue issue here and note that on any number of occasions I've stayed at perfectly straight hotels presumably run by upstanding members of the community that almost without a doubt had more than 15 felony drug offenses occurring just on that day!
If your standards can include 9 years of traffic and a baker's dozen of issues it seems like a vast majority of lodging would be in danger of a zealous prosecutor.
Now I'm sure this guy has in some way separated himself out in the states attorney's mind as compared to the usual econolodge, but that's faint comfort. Working for a time with federal investigators it became clear that pretty much 100% of the population is guilty of something if you're looking, usually something that can be finessed into a no joke federal rap.
It's very unusual that it ever becomes an issue - but you get the right combination of attention, timing and bad luck or malice and then suddenly your world turns upside down. It seems like this happens really often when you're a target or related to an investigation, they put together what they think is a solid case only to find out whoops they got it wrong you're obviously not their guy. At that point god help you if you're stealing cable or borrowing your brother's wifi or were growing a tiny pot plant in the basement.
I wonder what even the theoretical justification for something like this would be. If we seize the hotel then those junkies will stop shooting heroin because they cant get a chill hotel room in town?
If your standards can include 9 years of traffic and a baker's dozen of issues it seems like a vast majority of lodging would be in danger of a zealous prosecutor.
Now I'm sure this guy has in some way separated himself out in the states attorney's mind as compared to the usual econolodge, but that's faint comfort. Working for a time with federal investigators it became clear that pretty much 100% of the population is guilty of something if you're looking, usually something that can be finessed into a no joke federal rap.
It's very unusual that it ever becomes an issue - but you get the right combination of attention, timing and bad luck or malice and then suddenly your world turns upside down. It seems like this happens really often when you're a target or related to an investigation, they put together what they think is a solid case only to find out whoops they got it wrong you're obviously not their guy. At that point god help you if you're stealing cable or borrowing your brother's wifi or were growing a tiny pot plant in the basement.
I wonder what even the theoretical justification for something like this would be. If we seize the hotel then those junkies will stop shooting heroin because they cant get a chill hotel room in town?
"U.S. Attorney Ortiz said through a spokeswoman last week that the government wanted to send a message by going after the motel .... up the street Walmart and Home Depot have all experienced a similar rate of drug crimes .... attorney Salzman says there’s one good reason Ortiz didn’t go after them .... the U.S. Attorney’s office, looking to make an example, picked on the smallest kid on the block.”
Where have we heard this story before? It seems as if the Judiciary Committee might have more than just the Aaron Swartz case to consider.
Where have we heard this story before? It seems as if the Judiciary Committee might have more than just the Aaron Swartz case to consider.
If even an tenth of the attention that's been paid to Aaron and his case over the last week could be shined on the heinous violation of Due Process that is Civil Forfeiture, I'd consider that, alone, a victory.
Seriously.
As this case shows, it's an injustice that almost entirely hits the lower classes.
It's not a conspiracy. There is even a certain logic to it: if drug dealers keep using a particular place as a meet up spot, you have to wonder if the owner isn't turning a blind eye to keep the business. But: this is a cheap motel. Of course it's going to be a hotbed for shady things. If you're up to something shady, where do you go, the Ritz?
But the forfeiture laws are completely insensitive to these facts. All they do is to work the taking of property from the poor just because by virtue of being poor (or serving the poor) crime happens in their midst.
As this case shows, it's an injustice that almost entirely hits the lower classes.
It's not a conspiracy. There is even a certain logic to it: if drug dealers keep using a particular place as a meet up spot, you have to wonder if the owner isn't turning a blind eye to keep the business. But: this is a cheap motel. Of course it's going to be a hotbed for shady things. If you're up to something shady, where do you go, the Ritz?
But the forfeiture laws are completely insensitive to these facts. All they do is to work the taking of property from the poor just because by virtue of being poor (or serving the poor) crime happens in their midst.
The owner of this hotel was almost certainly turning a blind eye to keep the business.
The owners of the hotel aren't poor (the tenants obviously are, though).
Unlike many CAF cases, this one received a full hearing in front of a judge with evidence presented from both sides.
The owners of the hotel aren't poor (the tenants obviously are, though).
Unlike many CAF cases, this one received a full hearing in front of a judge with evidence presented from both sides.
Very interesting post up top--I didn't know that.
You're right--even though I think civil forfeiture is wrong, I can see how this would not be a sympathetic case in front of a judge.
You're right--even though I think civil forfeiture is wrong, I can see how this would not be a sympathetic case in front of a judge.
The actual docket is here:
http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1823970
You can help shine a light on what the DOJ and USAO are up to (and continue what Aaron Swartz started by downloading PACER) using this tool:
http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/
If you follow the directions, it doesn't cost anything.
http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1823970
You can help shine a light on what the DOJ and USAO are up to (and continue what Aaron Swartz started by downloading PACER) using this tool:
http://www.plainsite.org/asymptote/
If you follow the directions, it doesn't cost anything.
I have been following this case for quite some time. I think it is worth noting that the defence lawyers[1] are a pro bono libertarian law firm, initially funded by the Koch brothers, that strategically litigates media friendly cases. It has been said that "In pursuit of its goal of a radical laissez-faire capitalism, the Institute has initiated a number of lawsuits aimed at ending government regulation of business. While the lawsuits generally involve small businesses, often in communities of color, the goal is to set a legal precedent for the deregulation of big business in general."[2]
As a bit of silly trivia, in the movie "Invention of Lying" Ricky Gervais' character had a quicky fling set there where it was named "A Cheap Motel for Intercourse with a Near Stranger".
[1] http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture [2] http://my.execpc.com/~ajrc/ifj.html [3] http://www.futuregamez.net/movies/inventionoflying/invention...
As a bit of silly trivia, in the movie "Invention of Lying" Ricky Gervais' character had a quicky fling set there where it was named "A Cheap Motel for Intercourse with a Near Stranger".
[1] http://www.ij.org/massachusetts-civil-forfeiture [2] http://my.execpc.com/~ajrc/ifj.html [3] http://www.futuregamez.net/movies/inventionoflying/invention...
If someone wants to demonize an organization they don't like, it's popular to accuse them of having ties to the Koch brothers.
Well, here's some other (obviously evil) organizations funded by the Kochs:
Well, here's some other (obviously evil) organizations funded by the Kochs:
- ACLU
- MIT
- NYC Ballet
- American Museum of Natural History
- PBS
- Lincoln CenterDude, you're hurting the narrative. Not cool.
It is wonderful that these stories are coming up.
But is there a wiki somewhere that is tracking these so that when people go and look at Ortiz in more detail, we've got a quick way of educating them?
But is there a wiki somewhere that is tracking these so that when people go and look at Ortiz in more detail, we've got a quick way of educating them?
I think PlainSite is probably the closest thing. It lets you tag cases (if you sign up) and search by attorney or legal entity.
http://www.plainsite.org
http://www.plainsite.org
Carmen Ortiz sounds like nothing more than a state-sponsored terrorist.
Prosecutors in general are professional conspiracy theorists.
Watching too much Foxy News, aren't we now?
Civil forfeiture laws are the scariest government threat to American freedoms and rights.
Unfortunately they have been upheld by the Supreme Court. And oddly, the freedom touting Republicans have traditionally supported these laws as they are "tough in crime."
Unfortunately they have been upheld by the Supreme Court. And oddly, the freedom touting Republicans have traditionally supported these laws as they are "tough in crime."
Seems to me the whole gang in the Boston DA office need to go, starting from Ortiz and working swiftly all the way down.
Thomas Jefferson - "A government afraid of its citizens is a democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson - "A government afraid of its citizens is a democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny."
This seems like the physical equivalent of mega.co.nz, a "dangerous property".
The owner may be upstanding, but the people we expect to protect us (the gov't) see it as a nest of thieves, regardless of who owns it. But if that were illegal, it seems to me Vegas would have been plowed under a long time ago.
The owner may be upstanding, but the people we expect to protect us (the gov't) see it as a nest of thieves, regardless of who owns it. But if that were illegal, it seems to me Vegas would have been plowed under a long time ago.
It occurs to me that Ortiz is having a spotlight done upon her office. She finally went too far, now people are questioning her actions.
Transparency's a bitch.
Transparency's a bitch.
Are government buildings at risk when elected officials commit crime in them?
Any time you read a story like "government attempts to liquidate real property to fund police department", your first thought should be "that's not the whole story", because (for the most part) that's not how the federal government operates. So, some issues with this story:
* This case is Sonya Rao, not Carmen Ortiz (though once again Ortiz oversees all the cases in her office).
* The hotel is, let's not sugarcoat it, a blighted flophouse. Don't take my word for it; here's TripAdvisor ("ROOMS BY THE HOUR: Hookers, drug addicts, drug dealers, need I say more") complete with picture: http://tinyurl.com/ta-caswell and here's Yelp ("Please don't bring your kids here.") http://tinyurl.com/y-caswell
* The owners of the hotel were warned repeatedly by local law enforcement and an intervention of local hotel owners; specific measures were suggested to minimize the problems at this place and weren't taken; the hotel had no security, and its drug countermeasures consisted of a list of persons not to rent to again.
* The hotel owners made no policy changes after a methamphetamine lab was discovered in one of their rooms.
* The hotel owners made no changes after the dead body of a heroin overdose victim was found in one of their rooms.
* Drug deals weren't simply occurring at the hotel; the Tewskbury PD repeatedly discovered drug dealers operating full-time out of rooms in the hotel.
* The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms.
There are places like this all over America and they're all neighborhood blights that need to be shut down (hey, by the way, still think there couldn't possibly be a difference between an apartment and a room up for temporary let on Airbnb?).
If all we're saying is that civil asset forfeiture is the wrong means to shut them down, I'm with you. But this case does not make my blood boil the way it does for some. Beyond that, I'm not sure HN is a great place to debate it.