Hacker News Reader

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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?

How does the US Attorney get standing here? All other issues aside, shouldn't it be the MA Attorney General suing?

Appomattox -> Wickard v. Filburn -> Drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_S...

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.

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".