 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Johnson2/14/2005
Defendants in consolidated criminal proceedings made a motion to suppress evidence or dismiss based in part on a claim of selective enforcement. The trial court ruled that they had presented sufficient evidence to warrant some discovery. The trial court defined who would be considered similarly situated to the defendants to guide the scope of discovery. The state argues that the trial court's definition of similarly situated persons is error as a matter of law because it failed to include certain narrowing factors suggested by the state in its definition. On the record before us, we hold that the trial court did not err as a matter of law.
FACTS
In these consolidated criminal proceedings, 13 unrelated black defendants were charged with deliveries of controlled substances, resulting in their arrests between January 1, 1999, and May 1, 2001. The arrests all occurred in downtown Seattle within the West Precinct of the Seattle Police Department (SPD). All of the arrests were through buy-bust transactions. In such transactions, undercover police officers buy drugs from the suspected dealer, and then arrest teams take the dealer into custody. The defendants made several claims in their motion to dismiss or suppress evidence on the consolidated proceedings. One of these claims is that the SPD and Anti-Crime Team (ACT) team personnel in their narcotics enforcement use 'impermissibly arbitrary classifications (racial or otherwise) in determining which geographic areas to target and whom to approach for undercover narcotics operations.' This is an equal protection challenge asserting selective enforcement by the SPD resulting in arrests disproportionately directed to African Americans. The defendants argued that 'the decision to concentrate enforcement efforts on street sales of very small quantities of narcotics in a few limited locales downtown is arbitrary, and lacks any substantial justification in legitimate law enforcement goals.'
Defendants also made other claims in their motions. The defendants argued that the enforcement decisions leading to their arrests violated their privacy rights under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. The defendants also asserted a basis for relief under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000d, a federal statute that prohibits programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance from intentionally discriminating against people on the basis of race. Defendants also argue for relief under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD).
Defendants sought discovery under CrR 4.7. As to the WLAD claim, the trial court noted that the statute, RCW 49.60.030(2), provides a civil action as a remedy, not dismissal of criminal charges or exclusion of evidence in a criminal case. Because there is no criminal remedy, the court denied the defendants motion for discovery as to this claim. A ruling on discovery on the equal protection claims required a determination of who is similarly situated to the defendants.
On July 26, 2001, the trial court and the parties started discussing the definition of similarly situated persons. The defendants first proposed that under Washington Supreme Court precedent, 'similarly situated means similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.' (citing In re Detention of Dydasco, 135 Wn.2d 943, 951, 959 P.2d 1111 (1998). Defendants argued that in this case, the Legislature provided a definition of similarly situated people: those who deliver drugs in Seattle in violation of RCW 69.50.401. This statute covers manufacture, delivery, and possession with intent to manufacture or deliver controlled substances. The state argued
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|