[jkeel]

Based on the information in the article, I cannot see how they can be just to go after him. With that logic they could go after owners of apartment buildings or even arenas (music festivals/shows tend to have people doing drugs there).

[encoderer]

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

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

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

[betterunix]

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

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

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

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

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

[nullc]

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

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

[jlgreco]

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

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

[hudibras]

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

[vidarh]

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

[smsm42]

There are special people there that their job is to find such properties so that government can seize them and get some cash from it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5090520 Hard to believe this is happening in America, but here you go, yet another gift that keeps on giving from the War on Drugs, most insane of all American wars.