Navigation

Archive | selective enforcement

Thursday, November 14th, 2019

Judge Rakoff Orders Discovery On Defense Claim of Racially Selective Enforcement By “Reverse Stings”

In an Opinion and Order in United States v. Lopez, 19-cr-323 (S.D.N.Y. November 13, 2019), Judge Rakoff ordered initial discovery on the defense claim that DEA agents targeted racial minorities in their reverse sting drug robbery operations. In this reverse sting, confidential informants working with the DEA recruited the defendants, all men of color, to rob fictitious drug shipments. The defense filed a motion with evidence showing that “not a single one of the 179 individuals targeted in DEA reverse sting operations in the SDNY in the past ten years was white, and that all but two were African-American or Hispanic.” This contrasted significantly with the racial makeup of the population and the racial proportions of those arrested  for felony drug arrests and robberies, the two offenses arranged by the reverse sting. A “compelling expert analysis” demonstrated that the racially disparate impact was statistically significant and not random.

Judge …

Posted by
Categories: discovery, reverse stings, selective enforcement

Posted By
Categories: discovery, reverse stings, selective enforcement

Continue Reading
Thursday, October 25th, 2018

Interesting 9th Circuit Reverse Stash House Opinion

In a recent opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that selective enforcement claims in reverse stash-house sting operations are not subject to the nearly impossible-to-surmount discovery standard set forth in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 457 (1996).  See United States v. Sellers, 16-50061 (9th Cir. 2018), opinion available here.

Chief Federal Public Defender Jon Sands, who posts on the excellent Ninth Circuit Blog, has this summary:

In US v. Sellers, No. 16-50061 (10-15-18) (Nguyen w/Simon; Nguyen concurring; Graber dissenting), the panel majority held that in stash house reverse-sting cases, claims of selective enforcement are governed by a less rigorous standard than that applied to claims of selective prosecution under US v. Armstrong, 517 US 456 (1996). The 9th emphasizes the difference between selective prosecution and selective enforcement (9). The 9th stresses that the police do not enjoy the enforcement presumption of prosecutors and …

Posted by
Categories: equal protection, selective enforcement, stash house, sting

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

Continue Reading
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

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

Continue Reading