Archive | stash house

Friday, September 8th, 2017

Selective Enforcement and Fictitious Stash Houses: Important Third Circuit Case

Last week, in United States v. Washington, the Third Circuit held that selective enforcement claims against law enforcement officers are not subject to the insurmountable discovery standard that has long thwarted selective prosecution claims. This opinion is the product of a nationwide effort to challenge the racially selective use of fictitious stash house stings.

These stings permit the government to script its enforcement practices to trigger harsh mandatory minimums.  Troublingly, Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan has found powerful evidence that the government selectively targets people of color for these sting operations. As we have previously written, the University of Chicago Law School’s Federal Criminal Justice Clinic (FCJC) is working with attorneys nationwide to challenge this discriminatory practice.

With Washington, these attorneys scored an important victory.  Professor Alison Siegler, Director of FCJC, offers this writeup:

I’m writing to note a truly groundbreaking aspect of United States


Posted By
Categories: equal protection, selective enforcement, stash house

Continue Reading
Friday, March 31st, 2017

Racial Discrimination in Stash House Sting Cases

Earlier this week, the Chicago Tribune ran a piece on the ND IL litigation challenging the disparate racial impact in stash house sting cases.  We blogged here about the report by Columbia Professor Jeffrey Fagan.  You can access Professor Fagan’s report, and other filings in the litigation, here.

If you have a case involving a stash house sting, please let us know.  We are trying to keep track of their use here, including their disparate racial impact.

 …

Posted by
Categories: stash house

Posted By
Categories: stash house

Continue Reading
Saturday, October 6th, 2007

GET YOUR STASH HOUSE IN ORDER

United States v. Wilson, Docket No. 05-5985-cr (2d Cir. September 24, 2007) (Jacobs, Katzmann, Hall, CJJ) (per curiam)

This short decision disposes of a sufficiency claim that has not yet arisen in this Circuit relating to “stash house” prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).

Wilson shared two apartments with a drug dealer – the tools of his trade were in open view all over the place. She argued that the evidence was legally insufficient because the government did not prove that she herself intended that the premises would be used for an unlawful purpose.

The Circuit made short work of this. The phrase “for the purpose” in § 856(a)(2) refers to the purpose of the person who is permitted to engage in drug activity in the premise, and not she who permits him. By contrast, § 856 (a)(1) makes it a crime for the person controlling the premises to have …


Posted By
Categories: intent, purpose, stash house, sufficiency, Uncategorized

Continue Reading