Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.

The opinion's at http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/private_property/forfeit... - I'd recommend people read it before concluding there had to be some sort of government intervention against this man and his property.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: