I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently that it becomes a blight on the whole neighborhood. I think that the same way I think they should be able to sue factory owners who dump toxic sludge into the waterways.

> I think the US Attorney's office should absolutely be able to sue the owners of a property for operating it so negligently

So, given that this is not how civil asset forfeiture cases actually work, does this mean that you've changed your opinion?

It is in fact how this case worked!

Do you honestly think this case is a good model for the problems with civil asset forfeiture?

Well with a quick search I was unable to find the specifics, but the article hints at it, and usually in these cases, the hotel is the thing getting sued. We're not talking about the city or neighboring properties suing this guy in civil court, showing harm, and getting appropriate damages. We're talking a civil case burden of proof of property being associated with a crime, where the penalty has no relation to damages caused, with higher costs of defense as it's a federal case, and no ability retain the specific thing, etc. If you really don't know what I'm talking about, go read into the details of these kinds of cases, and ask yourself whether such legal shenanigans are necessary or just expedient.

It's an acceptable model if one is willing to put aside the conduct of the guy on the receiving end and look at the mechanics of the process. It's not a case to rally around, but it does highlight some of the lurking problems that are primed to destroy the next unlucky innocent.

The docket on this case was posted downthread by 'thinkcomp.

Alright, as I had guessed, the case is against the real estate itself - not "the owners of the property".

"United States v. 434 Main Street, Tewksbury, Massachusetts"

What, they sued a building?!?

Cross examination could be interesting.

That's why it's called civil forfeiture: the government seizes your property, without charging you with a crime. They don't charge you because you haven't committed a crime. They just don't like you (literally) and retaliate by stealing your stuff. Sometimes, they just want your stuff: when the police seize your property, they get to sell it and keep the proceeds.

The requirements to "win" a civil forfeiture case is incredibly low - much lower than, for instance, proving a crime was committed. Innocent victims (i.e. the rare cases where a forfeiture is overturned) always have their things seized immediately to begin with, because the standard of "proof" is so unbelievably low. It's just as easy to seize from the innocent as it is from the guilty.

When people first learn about civil forfeiture, the disbelief, the cognitive dissonance that such a thing even exists is amazing. In any other context, we'd call it what it is: theft, without due process. The whole legal basis is evil, wrong, and a direct result of the War on Drugs. It has thoroughly corrupted our police and judicial systems.

Once enough people become aware of it, it'll be overturned, but not before ruining countless lives. The legal basis for civil forfeiture cannot survive even the tiniest amount of light.

In practice, it's a lawsuit with the owners on one side and the US Attorney on the other.

Where the owners have the burden of proof of proving that the building didn't do anything wrong.

It's mindblowingly stupid.

There is a difference there. Factory owners who dump are actively breaking the law themselves. The motel owner isn't doing any drug dealing, just renting rooms.

I don't think this is any different to ISPs having to police what their users are doing. For a motel owner to know about drug dealing they need to see it happening, but that's not possible behind closed doors, unless they use surveillance, which is illegal and unethical.

Similarly, ISPs who facilitate users who use their Internet access to download child porn have no way of knowing about this, unless they implement surveillance. This is unethical and illegal... Yet the crime is arguably worse!