search the site using Google™

 


Problem: Discriminatory Enforcement





Based on the following fact pattern, how would you decide a motion to dismiss a conviction on the grounds of racially discriminatory enforcement of the law? The Third Precinct of the Minneapolis Police Dept., a predominantly black precinct, has a higher incidence of residential burglaries than any other precinct within the department. Based on crime statistics, the police department and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension instituted an undercover operation in which two white officers bought stolen property off the streets. Because the white officers had limited success, the department employed a black officer to make the street buys in this particular neighborhood. The department set the officer up in a townhouse and brought in a female officer to pose as his girlfriend. The black officer made contacts with neighborhood people selling the stolen goods. The officer instructed them to bring the goods to his townhouse. Defendant, having complied, was arrested. Of the 43 people who brought goods to the officer's townhouse and were thereafter prosecuted, 42 were black, and one was white. Defendant claims racially discriminatory enforcement.


Do you dismiss the charges?


Answer

Compare with State v. Russell, 343 N.W. 2d 36 (Minn. 1984). The Court in this case affirmed the conviction, saying "it appears that the police were conducting a neutral undercover operation in predominantly black neighborhoods that were plagued by a high residential burglary rate and that their sole purpose was to identify and prosecute as many of the offenders as possible. The fact that most of the offenders in a predominantly black neighborhood were black does not establish purposeful discrimination..."

The discriminatory enforcement must be intentional.
                                                    Problems Menu
 
© 2007 Marc L. Miller & Ronald F. Wright