Landlords warned about drug dealing

Dayton Daily ^

[Stew Padasso]

Landlords warned about drug dealing

By Lawrence Budd

LEBANON | The commander of the Warren-Clinton County Drug Task Force gave notice Monday to the landlords of properties where drug dealing is alleged: Clean up or face seizure under public nuisance laws.

The warning came after an infant and 3-year-old girl were removed from their parents last week as Warren County drug agents were about to shut down purported crack cocaine trafficking at two homes in downtown Lebanon.

The unrelated girls were turned over to Warren County Children Services, one on Thursday and one on Friday — the same day a SWAT team served simultaneous warrants at residences on Warren Street and North East Street, officials said.

"It's another part of drug trafficking. Some people say there are no innocent victims. Well there certainly are," John Burke, commander of the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force, said Monday.

While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

In this case, Burke said the task force investigation spanned two months during which crack cocaine was frequently sold from the residences.

"The neighbors certainly noticed," Burke said. "It puts (landlords) on notice to be more vigilant what's going on in their buildings."

Burke said the girls' parents had not been arrested. The girls were removed by workers of children services and are in the custody of foster parents, community relations director Patti Jacobs said.

"We look at the adequacy of the supervision, dangerous acts and whether they are repeated. Whether the child is old enough to self-protect," Jacobs said.

On Friday, residents Eric Harley, 39, and Victoria Robinson, 40, were arrested by SWAT team members who served the warrant at 6 p.m. at 208 E. Warren St., Burke said.

A grand jury indicted Harley on three counts of trafficking in cocaine and Robinson on one count of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of permitting drug abuse, Burke said.

Other SWAT team members served a search warrant at 6 p.m. Friday at 318 N. East St. Both residences are rentals just west of downtown Lebanon, Burke said. Crack cocaine was seized, but no one was home on East Street, Burke said.

Harley and Robinson remained in the county jail, pending a bond hearing, according to jail records.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

They are talking about siezing the owners property if he has bad tenants. Admittedly, it's probably going to be a relief for the landlord to get rid of the place. But it is meant to be punishment.

In this area, there is nothing a landlord can do about a tenant. No matter what they do. I know of plenty of cases where property has been siezed from the owner, while his actions against the tenant had been going on fruitlessly for months and even years.

An average eviction where the tenant is a violent maniac last nine or ten months, rent free, with the owner paying all court costs, including the dirtball's dirtball attorney.

[philman_36]

Ah, understanding becomes clearer...Why didn't you follow your own advice?
...drag the tenants into the street and hang them from the streetlight.
A tainted perspective. Sorry to hear about your arrest/fine.

[joesnuffy]

Clean up or face seizure

The addiction to tax monies wasted by the free wheeling spending of corrupt fat politicans the magic cure for lack of tax money ....

We make money the old fashioned way....we steal it ...legally.... its easy when you are the one making the laws...enforcing the laws...exacting the penalties...

1776 will have to be earned all over again Im afraid...

[citizenK]

I understand and sympathize with the argument that neighborhoods should be free of "nuisances" like disruptive drug dealers and such. Furthermore, absentee landlords are a serious problem for many communities, especially in cities with declining populations and flight to the suburbs.

However, the approach taken here by the cops is wrong, pig-headed, and smacks of European facism circa the 1930s. Here, the cops are enlisting the property owners and members of the community to enter the fray of the drug wars, not only making them take responsibility for the (so-called criminal) actions their tennants, but doing so by using fear and coercion to threaten their very right to own the property.

A more favorable approach would be to help landlords root out undesirable tennants by helping neighbors and lanlords alike establish a record of complaint and evidence against those in the neighborhood who are continually presenting themselves as a nuisance to the community. Then, with a body of evidence and complaints against the nuisance neighbor, the police, landlords, and neighbors can petition the local court to take action against the disruptive element in their neighborhood.

It depends upon which state you live in, but renters have specific rights, including the right to privacy and freedom from intrusive snooping by the landlord. The cops in this case are encouraging landlords to spy on their tennants, and in so doing, seem to be passing the buck to the landlords. The cops say: "you fix problem, or we will confiscate your property" - and they can, just like they confiscate property in any drug related case. This is just the wrong approach to a society that advocates freedom based upon property rights. That being said, landlords need to be responsive to the complaints of neighbors and need to take some responsibility for the activities that take place on their property. Like I said before, depending upon the laws of the state granting renters specific rights, the sort of threat imposed by the police in this example is just another expansion of the questionable legal and moral practices of the nation's drug wars.

[MrLeRoy]

In B.C., where I live, which has very pro-tenant and anti-landlord regulations, a landlord can evict a disorderly tenant on 24 hours notice.

As the gillman points out, not all landlords have this power. Do you agree that it's wrong to hold a landlord responsible for not making an eviction he had almost no power to make?

[BADROTOFINGER]

Neighbours of the rental properties suffer significant financial and personal losses as a consequence of the landlord's neglect.

Well exactly what is a landlord supposed to do? They cannot legally monitor the activities of their tenants, and God help them if they violate the Fair Housing Act. This is just an excuse for the Feds to grab more land cheap...JFK

[headsonpikes]

That's amazing! They hold you liable, yet you can't evict???

And I thought we had socialism in Canada. ;^)

[philman_36]

They are talking about siezing the owners property if he has bad tenants. Admittedly, it's probably going to be a relief for the landlord to get rid of the place. But it is meant to be punishment.
So do you see yourself as an innocent victim of drug trafficking or as an innocent victim in general?

In this area, there is nothing a landlord can do about a tenant. No matter what they do.
I suggest selling out and moving on to a location more hospitable to landlords.
If you knew it was so bad why did you get involved in that type of enterprise in the first place?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The refrigerator case was just a mild annoyance. There were many far worse. I sold my properties to other fools and bailed.(Liberal lawyers whenever possible, that was when there were still tax benefits and people dumb enough to buy them.)

It was obvious that to stay in business, one either had to simply pour money down the socialist rathole forever or become a mass murderer.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

When I started, there were laws. Then they instituted the so-called housing court, which was much like the tribunals after a communist takeover. They existed simply to extract money from the property owners and punish those who sought to better themselves.

I actually sold my worst property to a fool of a liberal lawyer who thought she was going to show me how liberalism worked. The subhuman scum who lived there had other ideas.
In the end, she lost the building in her own housing court, had to file bankruptcy and lost her personal home as well.

[headsonpikes]

Something like K's suggestion looks right to me.

I guess we have a slightly more reasonable brand of socialism in this regard, in B.C.

Many socialist voters are landlords here. ;^)

It's hard to believe you guys put up with all this federal meddling in rental housing. That a disturbance or nuisance is being created by a tenant ought to be sufficient grounds for eviction.

[Stew Padasso]

Employee Alerts Police to Drug Suspects
2/5/03

By Kevin Cole


[WIBC News] - An alert Meijer employee is being crediting with alerting police to a possible methamphetamine lab in the making.


When a customer purchased six boxes of cold medication, the employee became suspicious and called police. Detectives say the employee also provided them with a description of the suspect and the vehicle he was driving.


Fishers police then followed the vehicle on 96th street, and stopped the car for a traffic violation.


Police say a drug sniffing dog indicated there were narcotics in the car and a further search found 76 boxes of decongestant, or pseudo-ephedrine, 4 bottles of starter fluid, and one bottle of butane - all materials used to make methamphetamine.


Police say they also found meth in the car, and almost four thousand dollars on Kenneth and Polly Rector. They were arrested and sent to the Hamilton County jail.

[Gianni]

Some people say there are no innocent victims. Well there certainly are

Didn't you read the next paragraph?

While emphasizing the property owners were not involved, Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

Think it coincidental that these appear sequentially?

[philman_36]

Didn't you read the next paragraph?
Why yes, I did. I even commented on that paragraph. Did you miss that reply?
...could prompt civil lawsuits..., not will.
When it happens then you can come claim you have some "victims". What will they be the "victims" of?
Think it coincidental that these appear sequentially?
Perhaps, but probably not. Creating illusion is such hard work.

[Gianni]

I didn't miss the reply, but I'm not sure where you're going with it. Are you saying that none of the property owners are victims until the drug warriors confiscate?

Is someone who has been threatened a victim? Maybe not, but I can't think of a counterexample right now.

[philman_36]

I didn't miss the reply...
Then why did you ask...
Didn't you read the next paragraph?
If you saw the reply and knew that I had read the paragraph why did you ask?
Are you saying that none of the property owners are victims until the drug warriors confiscate?
I've got a better question...How do you conclude that the property owners are currently victims? You do believe them to be "victims" don't you? How are the property owners "victims" and who/what is the damage/harm and who/what is causing the damage/harm?
Is someone who has been threatened a victim?
I've got a better question...Who is doing the threatening?

[suijuris]

It is an obligation of OWNERSHIP, not tenancy, to keep one's property 'nuisance'-free.

In Ohio it is easier to evict someones junk from a storage rental than a residence. Perhaps the LEOs would be willing to "help" evict the offending renters.

A nuisance is a tort.

Yeah, so let the offended party file suit, and if negligence/nuisance is proven, collect damages. So you think it is OK for some JBTs to confiscate property by force without due process (by due process I don't mean some quasi-judicial ruling or order; but due process in a real court with trial by jury).

[Gianni]

Burke said authorities would be contacting the landlords in this and other drug trafficking cases to advise them that properties that are the subject of repeated drug problems could prompt civil lawsuits to declare them public nuisances subject to seizure.

Am I reading that wrong? My opinion is that someone who advises me that my property could just as easily be theirs as mine is threatening to take it if I don't toe their line. In this case, the Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force is threatening to initiate a civil action which will result in the confiscation of their property.

If a mugger grabs a man and holds a gun to his head while demanding his wallet, then runs away before he hands it over, I would consider 'victim' appropriate. I cannot generate a scenario where someone has been threatened and 'victim' is inappropriate. Could be that I'm just tired.

[philman_36]

Am I reading that wrong?
Don't ask me! You're the one reading it!
... Warren-Clinton Drug Task Force is threatening to initiate a civil action which will result in the confiscation of their property.
So you're saying that some of the "innocent victims" of "drug trafficking" are these property owners, who can't possibly know everything that their tenants do, and they're being victimized and threatened by law enforcement agencies though the "illegal acts" occur through no fault of the owners.
Have I got that right? I just want to be clear here.

[Gianni]

Yes, I'm saying that they guy who has his vacation home confiscated because, while he was at work 1000 miles away, some high schoolers tied off on his dock while they smoked a joint is an innocent victim of the WOsD.

The original post was meant fecetiously, I found it too funny that the article concatinated Burke saying, "There are not innocent victims," and then following it immediately with what amounts to, "I'm threatening to make some right now!"

I don't feel its the property owners responsibility to do the job of the police wrt tenants.