I find that Mr. Caswell took all reasonable steps to prevent drug crime on the Property.
In any event, property owners are not obligated to become “substitute police forces.”
It sounds like no matter what else happened, the government chose the wrong way to proceed against this property; they jumped the gun trying to do an asset forfeiture when the proper response was to establish a long track record of having local police request specific interventions to curb crime.
Since the police weren't able to present any evidence that they had requested those interventions, there was no way for the government to prove that the owner of the motel was operating negligently (though: let's be honest about that; the place is a blighted flophouse).
The outcome here seems like the right one. I'm just a lot less outraged that this process got set in motion in the first place; some intervention was clearly needed. Just not the nuclear one.
The judge's opinion certainly makes the man sound like a victim of persecution to me. From it:
The evidence was consistent that no law enforcement personnel ever attempted to communicate with Mr. Caswell about any potential safety measures which could have been taken at the Motel Caswell to reduce drug crime at the Property. Moreover, the numerous law enforcement witnesses offered very few suggestions even at trial which are not already in use at the Motel.
Also from the opinion:
I reject the Government’s argument that Mr. Caswell did nothing to safeguard the Property. Rather, there was a clerk at the front desk 24 hours a day for security purposes. There also was a camera in the main lobby and a sign warning guests that suspicious behavior would be reported during the entire period in question. Moreover, the Property was well-lit both in the front and back, a security camera was added to the back parking lot, and guests were always required to fill out registration cards, a procedure that was tightened after the police suggested copying drivers’ licenses. In addition, Mr. Caswell and the Motel staff reported suspicious behavior to the police, cooperated fully with the police, gave the police access to rooms and registration cards, and generally maintained good relationships with law enforcement. Police were free to and did drive through the premises regularly on patrol.
In your previous comments you wrote: "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". But the judge's opinion says pretty much the exact opposite.
I respect your long track record of commenting constructively on HN. But as far as this specific case goes, I think readers would do well to be skeptical of your confident-sounding pronouncements.
I do not pity the man who is forced to reconcile the apparent belief that the government is always right with a government official claiming that the government was wrong.
No pity required— that man doesn't exist. If people actually thought that way they'd be disabused of the notion after the first few counterexamples they encounter.
Just-world, like other stereotyping biases is so insidious because the mistaken belief starts with the truth: "The government is usually right, so it's (very likely) right in this case (and the rightness justifies the outcome)". You can, perhaps, debate the "usually" but that misses the point: In terms of _justice_ and human rights it is improper and immoral to reason using coarse prior probabilities: You should be no more likely to convict a black person because statistically black people commit more crimes, people should be judged on their own merits. The underlying fallacy in many instance of just-world is the mistaken belief the its proper to apply your belief that the world is generally just to a specific case of potential injustice.
So there is no dissonance for most— they think "well, I always believed the government was only usually right. No one is perfect, and see— the system worked!".
Leads me to question whether this case is as black-and-white as it would seem.