>In the case of a civil proceeding, the innocence of the property owner is typically not a defense.

This sentence tells one all there is to know about this mix of common law and law... "in the case of" instead of just there being a rule which applies or not; "typically" - instead of a clear yes and no; "is a defense" - that's probably not in the law at all, it's the history of how such cases fared in court.

The very idea that owner (aka lord of the land :) should somehow be responsible for the actions of his tenants, i.e. police over them, is IMO ridiculous. Would they be going against a huge company owning hundreds of apartments in several cities, if they failed to notice the difference between old ladies gathering for bridge and old ladies getting stoned? Was there ever a case of "we offer you a choice between 200 apartments in this project... well, 199 actually, one belongs to the state now".