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.
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.
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!
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.
> 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?
"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]"
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)?
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.
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.