Mumphrey

United States v. Mumphrey

Good Law
193 F. Supp. 3d 1040·2016 WL 3548365·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85593
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 30, 2016Case No. 14-cr-00643-EMC-1California14,268 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chen, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL

In this collection of cases, a group of individuals, all of whom are African American and all who are being prosecuted for relatively low level drug trafficking in the Tenderloin under a program entitled Operation Safe Schools (“OSS”) (collectively, “Defendants”), contend their arrests and prosecution were based on racially selective actions taken by local and federal law enforcement. The issue currently before the Court is not whether racially selective actions were in fact taken, but whether Defendants are entitled to discovery to substantiate their claims of selective enforcement and prosecution.

After reviewing extensive briefing, the Court concludes that the record presented by the parties in connection with this motion contains substantial evidence sugges-five of racially selective enforcement by the San Francisco Police Department (“SFPD”) and other federal law enforcement in connection with the conduct of OSS; that evidence is countered by a conspicuously meager rebuttal by the government. Accordingly, the Court concludes Defendants have made sufficient showing entitling them to discovery with…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.