>>>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".
>
>I think the original goal was to have some means to stop landlords who perpetually rent to drug dealers, gang members etc. It was brought about by neighbors seeking relief. Certainly it is also a means of the state taking control and ownership...

There's nothing sacred, not even private property. Tsk, tsk...

BTW, this "the original goal was..." is another thing typical of the legal system. One failure of the system (existence of drug dealers etc who somehow don't get arrested) is then replaced with this loophole. It basically means "we can't get rid of these guys, but we'll then make sure everyone can pester their landlord, to the point where we take the apartment". That doesn't do a bit against the drug distribution, nor does diminish any sort of crime, but has the effect of appeasing the neighbors... and of government getting another loophole. What's next? You lose the house because you once rent it to a guy who once donated to a charity which then turned out to be co-funding an orphanage in Pakistan? The difference between "perpetually" and "once" can be blurred by any lawyer.