Again, you confuse cause for the government to act against a defendent with choice of defendent, and also options of remedy with choice of remedy In this case

Again, you confuse cause for the government to act against a defendent with choice of defendent, and also options of remedy with choice of remedy In this case it is shown that a similar rate of crime occurred at the Motel 6 but the government did NOT choose to pursue that party. Instead they chose Motel Cass. similarly they had non-seizurre remedies but did not pursue those remedies. Simply having the right to pursue an extreme option against any party they could choose did not make it right to pursue that option against this party. this is what people mean when they say "prosecutorial discretion" and why people are so incensed by the discretion shown here... and over and over by this DA.