5 ms·

> The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to i

by maratd 14y ago

> The owners of the hotel repeatedly admitted under oath that they had continuing knowledge of drug crimes occurring on their premises, and had no policies to investigate the use of their rooms. Your entire comment essentially boils down to this. I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs ... but even if you don't, do you really think the hotel owners should be Drug War warriors, enforcing the law, and turning their own customers in to the authorities?

tptacek 14y ago
Yes, I think that business owners shouldn't be allowed to knowingly profit from having their property used as a staging ground for armed crack and heroin dealers, street-level prostitution, and methamphetamine manufacturing. I think that because all of those activities create externalities that impose terrible costs on neighbors and on the whole township.
- encoderer 14y ago
  Ding, Ding, Ding. I was enraged at first but when I had this same thought, it changed my mind. Truth is, it would be bad for business if Caswell took an activist approach towards cleaning up his property. Or at the very least, he believes it would be bad or else you'd think he'd have done it by now. He does, after all, live on the premises. All this "behind closed doors." Sure, wink wink, nod nod. Perhaps the gov't needs to build more of a paper-trail (assuming the news article I read was correct that this guy has not had any formal issues renewing various licenses and such) but yeah, you don't get to profit off of criminal activity and not expect the public to do something about it.
rayiner 14y ago
You don't think there is anything with knowingly profiting from illegal activity?
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  They are not law enforcement. There is nothing reasonable they could do to enforce the law on their property that is by its very nature open to anyone in the public. If law enforcement knew of drug activity, why weren't they able to stop it? The owners of the motel have much less legal recourse than the police do. More generally, a "service provider" (taken loosely) has no obligation to act as law enforcement of its service. An ISP knows illegal activity happens over its lines, and it profits from it. They have no obligation, nor the power, to police their lines in a manner that would make them immune from this sort of forfeiture.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    The law asks business owners to help law enforcement in this regard, and asks from them a very low bar: not knowingly profiting from the illegal activity. This is not novel--the underlying principles of derivative liability date to the 17th century. Knowingly profiting from activity has always carried with it special responsibilities. A motel is not like an ISP--the former has far more ability to control what happens on their premises. Indeed, at common law, inn keepers could be held liable for failing to secure their property resulting in theft or loss of a guest's belongings. Moreover, there is a big distinction, both in law and in common sense, between knowing in the abstract that your service is used for illegal activity, and knowing about specific illegal activity and turning a blind eye. E.g. if you sell a gun knowing the buyer intends to murder someone with it, you can be held liable as an accomplice!
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      Not knowing or profiting from illegal activity is such a nebulous claim that it can't be enforced except in the most extreme situations. All ISPs profit from illegal activity. The problem is identifying individual instances of it is nearly impossible. In the same way this motel owner had an impossible task of identifying drug users or other criminals without having any specific knowledge of criminal activity. I do not want to live in a society where business owners are empowered to deny service because someone "looks like" a drug user. I'll let you imagine all the myriad ways that can be abused.
damnedcustomer 14y ago
> turning their own customers in Now that you emphasize customer I see the error of elected governance.
mpyne 14y ago
It would be one thing perhaps if it was people selling weed out of their room but meth labs are actively dangerous. Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more. Just because you believe there's nothing wrong with using drugs doesn't mean that current drug dealers are perfectly savory characters.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more. They could just as easily threaten owners of a motel, and tell them that if they don't get to do their thing there will be more trouble than the motel owner can handle. Having a fixed place of business makes you vulnerable, and the neighbourhood this motel is in makes me sceptical about it being easily sold to new owners. I think there is an element of making an example out of this particular motel to scare the rest into compliance. "Look what happens if you don't clean up, you lose your business". But unfortunately if you do try to clean up you find yourself facing armed gangsters. Tough choice.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Life is full of tough choices though. Unless the end game for all time is supposed to be meth labs in every fourth room something had to change. I would ask if the owner bothered to get the police involved but I suspect people will just tell me that the government is evil, why would he call the police, and other such statements. :P
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      A business owner is not a part of law enforcement. Law enforcement should do their own homework, and if they have proof or indication of wrongdoing at some location they should go after the perpetrators, not after the location. If you go after the location all you achieve is that the crime will shift a bit down the street, or to another part of town, or will go even deeper underground. If you go after the perpetrators you make a start with plugging the hole, and you should make it painfully obvious that the owners had nothing to do with the busts lest they end up paying the price. Of course, if the owners accept direct payment (instead of simply receiving 'industry standard' compensation for lodging) for turning a blind eye things would change. Similar issues exist with clubs where drug dealers pay a fee to the house in order to be able to work on the premises. A place where I used to work had a coffeehouse next door that was used by a motorcycle gang for their 'meetings'. I guarantee you that if the owner had called the police the place would have burned to the ground. Businesses caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and crime are in an extremely tough position, getting the police involved is the fastest way to get into serious trouble or end up dead. If you think that 'not going to the police' is cowardly then you'll be happy to know that a very large number of crimes ends up unsolved because one day the criminal will walk free again and witness protection only goes so far. The simplicity with which you assume these things are handled is not reflected in real life, dealing with criminals invading your property is extremely difficult. If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.
eaurouge 14y ago
I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs I'm going to guess you don't share your neighborhood with crack houses, meth labs, drug dealers etc
MichaelSalib 14y ago
"Drug crimes" covers a very broad spectrum from smoking pot to making meth. I don't think motels should be overly eager to report pot smokers, but meth makers? My God, do you have any idea how dangerous meth synthesis is? If you screw up meth production, explosions and toxic chemical releases are likely. No one with a brain should want a meth lab on their property. I wouldn't bring up the meth lab, except...they had a meth lab on their property.

by maratd 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

Yes, I think that business owners shouldn't be allowed to knowingly profit from having their property used as a staging ground for armed crack and heroin dealers, street-level prostitution, and methamphetamine manufacturing. I think that because all of those activities create externalities that impose terrible costs on neighbors and on the whole township.

encoderer 14y ago
Ding, Ding, Ding. I was enraged at first but when I had this same thought, it changed my mind. Truth is, it would be bad for business if Caswell took an activist approach towards cleaning up his property. Or at the very least, he believes it would be bad or else you'd think he'd have done it by now. He does, after all, live on the premises. All this "behind closed doors." Sure, wink wink, nod nod. Perhaps the gov't needs to build more of a paper-trail (assuming the news article I read was correct that this guy has not had any formal issues renewing various licenses and such) but yeah, you don't get to profit off of criminal activity and not expect the public to do something about it.

rayiner 14y ago

You don't think there is anything with knowingly profiting from illegal activity?

hackinthebochs 14y ago
They are not law enforcement. There is nothing reasonable they could do to enforce the law on their property that is by its very nature open to anyone in the public. If law enforcement knew of drug activity, why weren't they able to stop it? The owners of the motel have much less legal recourse than the police do. More generally, a "service provider" (taken loosely) has no obligation to act as law enforcement of its service. An ISP knows illegal activity happens over its lines, and it profits from it. They have no obligation, nor the power, to police their lines in a manner that would make them immune from this sort of forfeiture.
- rayiner 14y ago
  The law asks business owners to help law enforcement in this regard, and asks from them a very low bar: not knowingly profiting from the illegal activity. This is not novel--the underlying principles of derivative liability date to the 17th century. Knowingly profiting from activity has always carried with it special responsibilities. A motel is not like an ISP--the former has far more ability to control what happens on their premises. Indeed, at common law, inn keepers could be held liable for failing to secure their property resulting in theft or loss of a guest's belongings. Moreover, there is a big distinction, both in law and in common sense, between knowing in the abstract that your service is used for illegal activity, and knowing about specific illegal activity and turning a blind eye. E.g. if you sell a gun knowing the buyer intends to murder someone with it, you can be held liable as an accomplice!
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Not knowing or profiting from illegal activity is such a nebulous claim that it can't be enforced except in the most extreme situations. All ISPs profit from illegal activity. The problem is identifying individual instances of it is nearly impossible. In the same way this motel owner had an impossible task of identifying drug users or other criminals without having any specific knowledge of criminal activity. I do not want to live in a society where business owners are empowered to deny service because someone "looks like" a drug user. I'll let you imagine all the myriad ways that can be abused.

damnedcustomer 14y ago

> turning their own customers in Now that you emphasize customer I see the error of elected governance.

mpyne 14y ago

It would be one thing perhaps if it was people selling weed out of their room but meth labs are actively dangerous. Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more. Just because you believe there's nothing wrong with using drugs doesn't mean that current drug dealers are perfectly savory characters.

jacquesm 14y ago
> Crack dealers are not "nice people", they are generally well-armed and their customers are not always white Wall St. execs, they often are criminals (other-than-drug) themselves and that can endanger other motel guests, neighboring homes and businesses, and more. They could just as easily threaten owners of a motel, and tell them that if they don't get to do their thing there will be more trouble than the motel owner can handle. Having a fixed place of business makes you vulnerable, and the neighbourhood this motel is in makes me sceptical about it being easily sold to new owners. I think there is an element of making an example out of this particular motel to scare the rest into compliance. "Look what happens if you don't clean up, you lose your business". But unfortunately if you do try to clean up you find yourself facing armed gangsters. Tough choice.
- mpyne 14y ago
  Life is full of tough choices though. Unless the end game for all time is supposed to be meth labs in every fourth room something had to change. I would ask if the owner bothered to get the police involved but I suspect people will just tell me that the government is evil, why would he call the police, and other such statements. :P
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    A business owner is not a part of law enforcement. Law enforcement should do their own homework, and if they have proof or indication of wrongdoing at some location they should go after the perpetrators, not after the location. If you go after the location all you achieve is that the crime will shift a bit down the street, or to another part of town, or will go even deeper underground. If you go after the perpetrators you make a start with plugging the hole, and you should make it painfully obvious that the owners had nothing to do with the busts lest they end up paying the price. Of course, if the owners accept direct payment (instead of simply receiving 'industry standard' compensation for lodging) for turning a blind eye things would change. Similar issues exist with clubs where drug dealers pay a fee to the house in order to be able to work on the premises. A place where I used to work had a coffeehouse next door that was used by a motorcycle gang for their 'meetings'. I guarantee you that if the owner had called the police the place would have burned to the ground. Businesses caught in the crossfire between law enforcement and crime are in an extremely tough position, getting the police involved is the fastest way to get into serious trouble or end up dead. If you think that 'not going to the police' is cowardly then you'll be happy to know that a very large number of crimes ends up unsolved because one day the criminal will walk free again and witness protection only goes so far. The simplicity with which you assume these things are handled is not reflected in real life, dealing with criminals invading your property is extremely difficult. If it wasn't then this motel would be the only one, instead it is one of a series, and they all have the same issues.

eaurouge 14y ago

I reject the notion that there is something wrong with using drugs I'm going to guess you don't share your neighborhood with crack houses, meth labs, drug dealers etc

MichaelSalib 14y ago

"Drug crimes" covers a very broad spectrum from smoking pot to making meth. I don't think motels should be overly eager to report pot smokers, but meth makers? My God, do you have any idea how dangerous meth synthesis is? If you screw up meth production, explosions and toxic chemical releases are likely. No one with a brain should want a meth lab on their property. I wouldn't bring up the meth lab, except...they had a meth lab on their property.