13 ms·
Triumphant motel owner slams Carmen Ortiz
- zafka 14y agoThis brings a smile to my face.
- nirvana 14y agoI've just been made aware that there is evidence that someone has been trying to steal property worth more than $1M! We need a prosecutor to draw up charges...oh, wait. Who prosecutes the prosecutors?
- DannyBee 14y agoIt wouldn't matter, prosecutors have absolute immunity, instead of the qualified immunity a government official normally gets while doing their job. If you want to start to change the way they act, start there. Edit: Since a lot of folks seem to not be familiar with terminology, things like "absolute immunity" or "qualified immunity" refer to civil liability, not criminal. At least in the US, the main method of policing government civil rights violations is through civil lawsuits for damages, not through officials being arrested. (This of course, is also a larger issue, but a more difficult one :P)
- ChuckMcM 14y agoReally? That is the first I heard of absolute immunity being applied to prosecutors. Where is that spelled out?
- DannyBee 14y agoSee Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (197-) and all cases since
- rosser 14y agoNote, that's absolute immunity from civil liability. Criminal conduct could still be prosecuted — not that it's likely to be, of course...
- DannyBee 14y agoYes, you are right, but, AFAIK, it hasn't happened ;) This is, after all, one of the reasons section 1983 was enacted.
- jessaustin 14y agoA prosecutor's criminal conduct in the context of prosecuting a case would never be prosecuted by other prosecutors. It would set a bad "precedent". If it were shockingly egregious criminal conduct while prosecuting a universally beloved public figure (like Mr. Rogers or Joe Montana or similar), you might see criminal charges in relation to impeachment proceedings undertaken by a legislature, but although that is possible it isn't likely. Now if a prosecutor did something horrible to children or copyrighted materials or something he might be prosecuted criminally for that, only if it had nothing to do with his work.
- mindcrime 14y agoThat's probably mostly true, but it's worth pointing out that some prosecutors (if not federal prosecutors, to be fair) are sometimes held accountable for their actions. Mike Nifong[1] the infamous "Duke Lacrosse"[2] prosecutor, was disbarred, removed from office as DA, charged with various ethics violations and was even held in contempt of court at one point, and spent one day in jail (and paid a $500 fine) as a result. Unfortunately it's all too rare for prosecutors to suffer any consequences for what they do, and it takes a really egregious case of misconduct like this (as well as a group of well-heeled and well connected defendants) to prompt such a thing. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Nifong [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case
- rosser 14y agoA brief bit of searching indicates that prosecutors do indeed have absolute immunity from civil liability for their official actions during a trial (see Imbler v. Pachtman).
- tjic 14y agohttp://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5758861728040203406&q=Imbler+v.+Pachtman,+424+U.S.+409+(197-)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,22&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5758861728040203...
- ChuckMcM 14y agoThanks, that is an interesting decision to read.
- TillE 14y agoEven in (hypothetical) cases of obvious misconduct or corruption? That seems extremely unlikely.
- DannyBee 14y agoYes. I posted the main case that starts this line in the comment to Chuck, but also see Rehberg v. Paulk, 132 S. Ct. 1497 (2012). It's worse than you think. In Rehberg, the accusation was the chief investigator for the DA's office simply presented made up testimony in front of the grand jury, knowing it was false, and the prosecutor knew it was false as well when questioning him/presenting it. They did this 3 times, leading to indictments against folks that were, thankfully, later dismissed by judges. It was also alleged that they both had conspired, pre-indictment, to make up and present this false testimony to the grand jury. Holding: Both are entitled to absolute immunity. This particular case seems more about grand juries, until you realize what was alleged and who was testifying.
- rosser 14y agoThe State has had incredibly broad latitude during Grand Jury proceedings since well before these cases. They've also had significantly less freedom to engage in shenanigans in other circumstances, AIUI. (I'll defer to someone with specific knowledge to the contrary, of course. I'm a technologist, not a lawyer.)
- defen 14y agoRegarding the Rehberg v. Paulk case - is that the end of the story? Did the chief investigator or prosecutor suffer any consequences for their actions? How could a prosecutor do that and not get disbarred?
- DannyBee 14y agoHere is what I can find out: Starting with the complicated story here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531644.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1531644.html Ken Hodges is now a partner in a law firm (Ashe, Rafuse & Hill, LLP). I can find nothing that says he was disciplined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hodges http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Hodges Kelly Burke resigned, but not because of disgrace, but to run for election elsewhere: http://www.macon.com/2010/02/24/1035453/burke-to-resign.html http://www.macon.com/2010/02/24/1035453/burke-to-resign.html He lost that election, and is now at his own law firm: http://www.burkelasseterllc.com/ http://www.burkelasseterllc.com/ (I'm going by http://www.martindale.com/Mr-Kelly-R-Burke/888392-lawyer.htm http://www.martindale.com/Mr-Kelly-R-Burke/888392-lawyer.htm, which points to this) I can't find out all the details of what happened to James Paulk, but if he was charged, it doesn't show up in the public records I have access to. FWIW: Not all prosecutors are like this. I clerked for a former state's attorney who was a judge on the maryland court of special appeals. I have not the slightest doubt that he would have arrested, charged, and prosecuted all three of these men if something like this ever happened in his state.
- xxpor 14y agoNot exactly the same, but in Ohio the only person not from the state with the authority to arrest the county sheriff is the county coroner (how did that come about?).
- voidlogic 14y agoIt seems strange, but this policy seems pretty pragmatic to me: Here you have two elected county-level officials who often work together and thus are familiar with each-others business, but are not subordinates to one another. Basically peers.
- scarmig 14y agoIt makes some sense: the coroner is an elected official (why the hell do we elect coroners?) who has some independence from the sheriff. Other officials who are ostensibly higher level than the sheriff probably depend on his good graces as much as the sheriff does on them.
- xxpor 14y ago>why the hell do we elect coroners? I've wondered that as well. What are even the issues in a coroner election? Seems like a pretty objective job to me. The other poster makes the point about the coroner and sheriff being peers. That makes sense.
- Turing_Machine 14y agoThe coroner and the medical examiner have different functions in most modern jurisdictions. The coroner is in charge of the legal stuff, the medical examiner is in charge of stuff like determining the actual cause of death. There's a "coroner's jury" in some jurisdictions that hears evidence and decides whether the death was criminal, accidental, natural causes, etc. The medical examiner would (e.g.) determine that the person died from a gunshot wound. The coroner (or coroner's jury) would decide whether a crime was involved (rather than suicide, accident, lawfully shot by the cops or in self-defense by someone else).
- 14y ago
- jforman 14y agoNobody. They have immunity. Change comes from the legislature.
- tomjen3 14y agoIn large groups, revolutionaries -- like the founding fathers: >He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. >He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance >He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures >For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States >For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- tokenadult 14y agoIt's interesting to see the Institute for Justice, http://www.ij.org/ http://www.ij.org/ "the nation's only libertarian, civil liberties, public interest law firm," mentioned in this story. The involvement of specialist lawyers with knowledge of civil forfeiture law probably helped the motel owner win the ruling reported in this news story.
- a5seo 14y agoA few of the cases IJ has fought: - a bagel shop owner in Seattle wanted the right to hold a sign to promote his business - El Paso, TX passed a law that food trucks could not setup within a block of a traditional restaurant - Florida passed a law requiring interior decorators to get a license - Washington DC passed a law requiring that African hair braiders get a cosmetology license (which requires beauty school degree) yet beauty schools do not teach traditional African hair braiding (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-illegal-to-braid-hair-without-a-license http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/06/21/154826233/why-its-...) - Dallas, Texas passed a law saying businesses couldn't display signs in their windows due to safety (of course, nothing requires them to have ANY windows) - New London, CT used eminent domain to take an entire neighborhood of private homes to give the land to Phizer because Phizer would generate more tax revenue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- dmix 14y agoWhen I read things like this, I'm amazed libertarians have such a social stigma against them. Austrian economics is debatable in very large populations with entrenched governments but these social issues are so obviously wrong and it seems (civil) libertarians are the only ones highly vocal against them... yet they would still be considered radical in most contexts.
- eru 14y agoI guess libertarians would be better off, if the Austrian economics faction within them was less vocal.
- jonathlee 14y agoThe Institute for Justice has been fighting this one for a while. I'm glad they were finally able to get the judge to see what was going on. (Full disclosure: I am a supporter of IJ.)
- rshm 14y ago"Caswell estimates the U.S. government will have to pay at least $600,000 toward his defense fees.". What a waste of taxpayer's money.
- jeremiep 14y ago600k is nothing, the government probably wastes more than that on a daily basis.
- rosser 14y ago$parent =~ s/daily/hourly/g;
- danielharan 14y agoThat still seems wrong by at least an order of magnitude. 600000 * 24 * 365 = 5,256,000,000 5 billion wasted out of a 3.5 trillion budget would represent only 0.142% waste.
- jeltz 14y agoIf the government just had 0.142% waste they would be amazing.
- detst 14y agoThat's the same logic that results in people paying a huge markup on cables because it's only a fraction of the cost of the TV they just bought. $100 is $100 and $600k is $600k. Trying to put it in relative terms to minimize the cost doesn't make any sense. It's still a waste.
- dredmorbius 14y agoIt's a minuscule cost to the system that's well worth it to provide justice to this man. It's a cost that is the responsibility of the citizens of the United States, on whose behalf the government acts. The cost, per citizen, of this settlement is $0.002. I'm sorry to hear about your loss, I hope you'll get over your pain soon. By contrast, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 have cost $1,416 billion, or $4,570 per man woman and child in the country. A hair over a dollar per day (think about that when you're paying for your Starbucks). The responsibility for the acts resulting in this settlement lies squarely with Carmen Ortiz and her office. If you don't like to see your government wasting dollars on illegal, impudent prosecutions, while, say, letting major financial fraud go unprosecuted, well, say something about it.
- xanados 14y agoThis is pure evil, and morally worse in my opinion than going after Swartz. At least he almost certainly actually violated a law. Trying to fill government coffers by seizing the assets of innocent bystanders is ridiculous.
- jkeel 14y agoBased on the information in the article, I cannot see how they can be just to go after him. With that logic they could go after owners of apartment buildings or even arenas (music festivals/shows tend to have people doing drugs there).
- encoderer 14y agoHypothetically, how would you feel if a business owner knowingly profited off of illicit activity while keeping jusssst enough distance between himself and the criminal to say "I didn't see nuthin!"? THAT is the argument here. Not saying it's totally righteous, but that the theory isn't preposterous and litigating the case isn't absurd. In this case I think the real failure of the gov't was not taking more aggressive steps at a paper trail. Giving this guy notice, so to speak.
- hudibras 14y agoBut the thing that bugs me about this case is that the local police didn't do anything at all to warn Caswell or work with him to reduce crime at his business. The city police officers are, after all, his peers and neighbors and you would think they would have acted with better intentions and morals.
- warfangle 14y agoMilitarization of police forces and the minimization of community relationships. Chalk it up to the war on drugs. Related: stop-and-frisks in NYC inherently make law-abiding members of the community afraid to go to the police for help. Between the fear of being treated like a criminal when you're not, and the fear of being strung up for being a 'rat,' law abiding citizens unfairly targeted by such things are caught between a crack rock and a hard time place. Not saying it's right, or moral. It's just a symptom of the underlying disease of treating drug abuse as a criminal issue instead of a medical issue.
- arbuge 14y agoGreat to see Ortiz's office crash and burn, but innocent taxpayers are also losers here. They now have to refund the defendant's legal bills - around $600k in total.
- tnuc 14y agoOrtiz's office will probably appeal, so no money will be paid for many months.
- georgemcbay 14y agoAnd then later we'll pay even more money.
- mahyarm 14y agoI really don't understand why people bring up this logic whenever the government loses a court case.
- jlgreco 14y agoYeah, I also don't understand what I am supposed to do with this "perspective". Does it mean that I am supposed to be angry at the officials for wasting my money? I am already angry at them for much better reasons. Am I supposed to be displeased with such an award? That cost, even though it is (barely) coming out of my wallet is justified.
- tjic 14y agoYou don't understand why taxpayers are upset that government officials theoretically working FOR them can make idiotic decisions, and then get off consequence-free, and all the damages that they created are paid for by everyone but themselves? What aspect of this should we elaborate on?
- mahyarm 14y agoThere are so many other instances where this logic is usually not brought up, but it can apply far more readily. It's as if making this man destitute and the government winning is the better thing. It's the same logic of people implying people who get an non-guilty verdict are usually secret guilty.
- alpb 14y agoThe story writes as "The innkeeper’s complaint follows the suicide of hacker Aaron Swartz" and it is inevitable that average Joe will think that aaronsw hacked people's bank accounts &c.
- jlarocco 14y agoIt seems inevitable that if "average Joe" read that far, he would continue reading to the next paragraph, where Swartz's crime is explained.
- youngerdryas 14y agoI hope she still runs for office so we can have protests at every event.
- EvanAnderson 14y agoDoes anybody else find the photo of the motel owner a little jarring? It's something about the lens distortion, I think, that makes me see him as a cardboard stand-up when I just glance at the picture.
- georgemcbay 14y agoYes, it looks odd. I think it is due to a combination of using a wide-angle lens to fit in the entirety of the motel front plus the flash/lighting seems to be hitting him more from the side (our right, his left) than straight on (maybe bounced off a reflector off to the side to avoid harsh facial shadows). Combination is a weird forced perspective effect that makes him look flat.
- cshesse 14y agoYou're definitely correct about the flash, I think the second reason is that the aspect ratio has been altered. The 350x290 image is displayed at 300x275.
- pakitan 14y agoCan anyone clarify why is he expecting to be paid $600K for his legal fees? I thought that in US the party which lost the case is not obligated to cover the legal fees of the winner. Which is one of the things that makes patent trolls thrive.
- zapdrive 14y agoYea. Can somebody with actual knowledge about this care to explain?
- adventured 14y agoThat can be decided on a case by case basis. The judge has wide discretion on dictating such. Usually in cases where the judge determines the case is particularly frivolous or without merit. If the case is regarded to be without merit, and the burden was particularly onerous (which it sounds like it was in this case), the judge can force the plaintiff to pay.
- lawnchair_larry 14y agoAlso one of the things that makes sociopathic self-serving prosecutors thrive, apparently. If it's a rare exception that he doesn't have to pay that $600k, what does that tell you about the cost of entry to this already asymmetric game? You cannot win these battles. He either loses his property, or "wins" and loses his $600k. Carmen Ortiz and Stephen Heymann are incentivized to find a target and steamroll them at all costs. This incentive is entirely incompatible with seeking justice.
- robot 14y agoA ton of writing that fails to clearly describe what the conflict is all about.
- DanBC 14y agoMan runs a motel. Police find a meth lab in the motel. Some people die of drugs overdoses in the motel. Police claim to arrest drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes etc in and near the motel, and claim the owner not only does nothing to prevent these criminals but actively encourages the criminals. Eventually they decide to seize the property (somehow) to prevent further crime. Motel owner claims that crime, while high, is similar to other motels in the area. Owner claims that he's followed police advice and is doing his best to stop criminals using his property for crime. A process with a potential for abuse that happens a lot in the US. Getting attention here, and now, because of the involvement of Ortiz.
- cshesse 14y agoThe government appears to be able under current forfeiture law, to sue property that was involved in a crime. Such as a motel that was used to make meth. For example "US vs. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/555 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/461/555
- thomasz 14y agoWtf. Each and every time I think I finally got a fairly good understanding of America, I'm made aware of something like that.
- tomjen3 14y agoNever seemed to make any sense to me. How can money be responsible for its use?
- LoganCale 14y agoIt can't, and it doesn't have civil rights (or other capabilities) to defend itself, which is why the government likes to sue it—it's an easy win for them.
- md224 14y agoRelevant comments posted by tptacek in a previous thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084996 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084996 Leads me to question whether this case is as black-and-white as it would seem.
- gyardley 14y agoYou should really download the judgement and read it before you accept that set of comments as factual. Apart from the Trip Advisor and Yelp reviews, the judge addresses the lot of them.
- tptacek 14y agoIt sounds like no matter what else happened, the government chose the wrong way to proceed against this property; they jumped the gun trying to do an asset forfeiture when the proper response was to establish a long track record of having local police request specific interventions to curb crime. Since the police weren't able to present any evidence that they had requested those interventions, there was no way for the government to prove that the owner of the motel was operating negligently (though: let's be honest about that; the place is a blighted flophouse). The outcome here seems like the right one. I'm just a lot less outraged that this process got set in motion in the first place; some intervention was clearly needed. Just not the nuclear one.
- gyardley 14y agoThe 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/forfeiture/caswellopinion-1-24-13.pdf 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.
- scoot 14y ago"Caswell estimates the U.S. government will have to pay at least $600,000 toward his defense fees." I can't help but think that whoever made the decision to bring this frivolous case to trial should pay the fees.
- zachinglis 14y agoSo my question… with all these posts we're seeing and complains, is there an official investigation that we know of? I know there's a petition and it seems to have passed but I was curious as to what was going on.