The prosecution has just scored a major victory in Operation Meth Merchant (previous SM post here):
U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy refused Wednesday to toss out cases against dozens of South Asian merchants accused in the methamphetamine sting, rejecting the American Civil Liberties Union’s argument that police intentionally targeted South Asian merchants while ignoring white-owned stores.
As a reminder, here are the key objections the ACLU raised about this operation:
* Operation Meth Merchant resulted in the arrest of 49 people, 44 of whom are South Asian, and 33 of whom have the last name Patel.
* Operation Meth Merchant targeted 24 stores for investigation, 23 of which are owned by South Asians. This, despite the fact that approximately 80 percent of area stores are owned by whites or other ethnic groups, according to the ACLUs investigation.
* The officials directing Operation Meth Merchant had evidence that at least 16 white-owned stores in the area sold products used to manufacture methamphetamine, and yet failed to investigate any of them. These stores include Avaco, Bell’s Smokeshop, Bi-Lo, Breezy Top, Citgo Quikmart, Dollar General, Family Dollar, Food Lion, Fred’s, Home Depot, Jerrell’s Food Mart, Lowe’s, Sam’s Club, and Wal-mart.
* The officials directing Operation Meth Merchant have failed to disclose the existence of any evidence against the vast majority of the 23 South-Asian-owned stores prior to targeting them for investigation.
The ACLU’s summary sheet is here. The motion for dismissal with details of the argument is here.
The judge saw it differently:
His 38-page ruling noted that the defense lacks even basic evidence showing discrimination, citing a magistrate judge’s earlier order that said allowing the group a chance to dig through more evidence would be authorizing a “fishing expedition.”
… And he echoed a previous ruling that “simply pointing out that most of the individual defendants are of Indian national origin is insufficient.”
The ruling is here (August 3, second item). The crux seems to be that according to the judge, the defense presented no evidence that the non-Indian-run stores above sold the items in question (e.g. cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine) in the specific knowledge that buyers intended to use them to make meth. In the sting on Indian-run stores, the buyers made statements about “cooking” that referred to meth. The defense argues that this does not mean the sellers understood the reference. In any case, since there was no sting on the non-Indian-run stores, how would one get the evidence either way? To me this still looks like a clear case of selective prosecution on an ethnic basis, but perhaps legal minds can pore over the documents and give us their more considered views.
