STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, vs. SHAUNTEZ PALMER, Defendant. DISTRICT COURT FELONY DIVISION FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF MOTION AND mum MNCIS File NO. TO: THE HONORABLELUIS BARTOLOMEI, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT AND KEVIN BIEGING, ASSISTANT HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on June 4th, 2018, the Defendant, Shauntez Palmer, will seek the relief speci?ed below: new Mr. Palmer hereby requests a hearing regarding selective enforcement by the Minneapolis Police Department in violation of the equal protection clause of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. US. Const. Amend. Minn. Const. Art. 1 2. The defense further moves this Court to compel the state to disclose the following evidence: 1. Police reports, videos, and audio recordings, including but not limited to safe zone footage, department issued iphone data, trespass notices, BWC, MVR, squad to squad, dispatch, and MDT including administrative channels for all downtown Minneapolis drug sting related police interactions, regardless of charges that stemmed out of those interactions, on January 24, 2018, February 13, 2018, February 2811?, 2018, March 15, 2018, March 26, 2018, April 11, 2018, and May 24, 2018 2. MPD policies, procedures, directives, and manuals related to undercover drug stings including any information regarding drug stings shared in daily brie?ngs or roll calls 3. MPD policies, procedures, directives and manuals relating to operation, use, and purpose of safe zone cameras 4. Any and all documentation, data, statistics, and complaints the state intends to rely on to demonstrate that they have a legitimate basis for solely and repeatedly targeting Hennepin Avenue between 5th Street and 6th Street 5. The total amount of money con?scated and forfeited as a result of these marijuana stings This motion is based upon the court?s ?le, the entire record, the attached memorandum of law and any oral argument this Court wishes to entertain. Respectfully submitted, OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER MARY MORIARTY- CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER By: JESS BRAVERMAN Assistant Public Defender Attorney License No. 0397332 701 Fourth Avenue S, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: (612) 596-9407 Dated: This 31St day of May, 2018 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT FELONY DIVISION COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT State of Minnesota, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION vs. SHAUNTEZ PALMER, MNCIS File No. 27-CR-18-7791 Defendant. Shauntez Palmer is charged with Aiding and Abetting a Fifth Degree Sale of 1.6 grams of marijuana. On March 26, 2018, Officer Belcourt was working undercover on Hennepin Avenue between North 5th St. and North 6th St. Of?cer Belcourt stated in her report that she purchased marijuana from Ameir Davis, while Shauntez Palmer essentially acted as a lookout. The marijuana weighed 1.6 grams with packaging. Both men were arrested, and brought tojail. Although the sale itself did not take place on metro transit property, both men were trespassed ?om ?metro transit?s property.? The Minneapolis Police Department are engaging in a series of undercover marijuana stings using a large amount of department resources. The first precinct, in conjunction with other precincts and metro transit, are sending undercover of?cers out to Hennepin Avenue between 5th Street and 6th Street. Undercover stings have taken place on January 24, 2018, February 13, 2018, February 28th, 2018, March 15, 2018, March 26, 2018, April 11, 2018, and May 24, 2018. The Public Defender?s Office has reviewed 47 cases received as a result of stings on those dates. Almost all of those cases involve a sale of 1-2' grams of marijuana for a total of $10-$20. The total amount of marijuana recovered in these 47 cases amounts to not much over the felony threshold for possession for a single individual, roughly 70 grams, though some of the marijuana was weighed in its packaging so 70 gram is a generous estimate. On the dates of the stings of?cers are approaching people of color, individuals and groups, and asking to buy drugs. Of?cers have directly asked black men to facilitate drug deals with other black men, and have then requested that the facilitator be charged with sale. Of?cers are using Safe Zone cameras to surveil people of color. Of?cers are seeking out extremely low- level marijuana transactions with people of color and are then arresting and booking the sellers and submitting the cases for felony charging. Of the 47 cases reviewed by the Public Defender?s Office from undercover marijuana stings in 2018, all but one involve defendants who are people of color. The remaining 46 cases involve people of color. In the one exception, it was the white defendant who allegedly initiated the interaction with police and not the other way around. The Public Defender?s Of?ce submitted a data request to the Sentencing Guidelines Commission for 5th Degree Sale data from Hennepin County by race. In 2016, 42 defendants were sentenced for Fifth Degree Sale. Of those sentenced, 8 were white. The undercover buys conducted on Hennepin Avenue on these seven days in 2018 account for more 5?1 Degree sale cases than all 5th degree sale cases that were sentenced in 2016. In these sting cases, where of?cers choose how to conduct stings, where to patrol, who to surveil, and who to approach to initiate unlawful activity, 98% of defendants, all but one, were people of color. The Minnesota Supreme Court has long recognized the defense of selective enforcement based on race, which is a violation of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions. Selective enforcement occurs where there is discriminatory enforcement of a law that, on its face, is non-discriminatory. City of Minneapolis v. Buschette, 240 500 (Minn. 1976). As the Minnesota Supreme Court held, ?[t]here can be no doubt that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the discriminatory - enforcement of nondiscriminatory laws? City of Minneapolis v. Buschette, 240 500 (Minn. 1976). Although the Minnesota Constitution does not have an amendment with language that mirrors the United States Constitution?s Equal Protection Clause, Article One Section 2 of the Minnesota Constitution has been recognized as the legal equivalent. State 12. Russell, 477 886 (Minn. 1991). Further, the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the Minnesota Constitution?s Equal Protection Clause merits a standard of review that is independent of, and more stringent than, the federal equal protection standards. Id. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the defense of selective enforcement is available to challenge enforcement of criminal laws. State v. Buschette, 240 500 (Minn. 1976) . .the defense of discriminatory enforcement by law-enforcement officials on all levels of state criminal laws and municipal penal ordinances may be raised by a defendant?). Where a defendant raises such issue, he is entitled to adversary hearing at the trial court State v. Sharich, 209 907 (Minn. 1973). Under Minnesota law, a party who alleges selective enforcement, and supports the allegations with facts, is entitled to a contested hearing on the matter. State v. Sharich, 209 907 (Minn. 1973). ?To take a claim of discriminatory enforcement beyond the frivolous state, the defendant must allege facts which show that he was singled out for enforcement and that his selection was invidious or in bad faith.? State v. Hyland, 431 868 (Minn. App. 1988) (citation omitted). The defendant has to ?Show that he is a member of a suspect class, that he was exercising a. fundamental right, or that any intentional deliberate, or systematic singling out occurred.? 10!. (citation omitted). Under federal law, the defense must present ?some evidence tending to show? discriminatory effect and discriminatory intent. United States v. 517 U.S. 456 (1996). Allegations that police are targeting members of a suspect class for enforcement of particular criminal laws has been found to be suf?cient under Minnesota law to merit a hearing on selective enforcement. In Russell 1, the defense alleged that of?cers conducted theft stings targeting black defendants. State v. Russell, 343 36 (1984) (commonly referred to as Russell Ito distinguish it from equal protection case Russell decided in 1991). The police set up a buy house where people would bring stolen goods and sell them to an undercover of?cer. Id. All but one person charged with related activity were black. Id. Though the court ultimately found that the state adequatelyjusti?ed their actions at the contested hearing, the court found there was a suf?cient showing to merit the hearing in the ?rst place. Id. Similarly, in State v. Woodard, the defense presented statistics demonstrating that police were targeting black people for theft stings, and argued that police clearly intended to discriminate since they knew of the discriminatory effect but continued their operations. 378 32 (Minn. App. 1985). While the court found at the hearing that the state adequatelyjusti?ed their actions, the defendant?s allegations merited the hearing in the ?rst place. Id. Minneapolis Police conducted targeted stings on January 24, 2018, February 13, 2018, February 28th 2018, March 15, 2018, March 26, 2018, April 11, 2018, and May 24th 2018. These 8 days in 2018 account for more 5th Degree Sale cases than all such cases that were sentenced collectively in 2016. Every single one of these stings took place around 5th street and Hennepin Avenue. Each sting, which resulted in an average yield of 1-2 grams of marijuana per defendant, a petty misdemeanor amount in terms of possession, utilized the resources of numerous police precincts, metro transit of?cers, and safe zone cameras. Each one of these cases was submitted for felony charging. Absent active and targeted police action in engaging in sales, much of the behavior observed by police would merit. no charge at all, or nothing more than a petty misdemeanor possession charge or a misdemeanor loitering with intent charge. These largely 1-2 gram and $10-$20 sales have resulted in felony convictions for numerous black defendants who had been targeted, and all the devastating collateral consequences that go along with such convictions, jail time, prison time, and even deportation proceedings. Of?cers have used tactics such as approaching individuals and groups and asking to buy drugs, and asking people to facilitate sales with other people and then submitting the facilitator for felony charging. 46 out of 47 people charged with these low-yield marijuana sales are black and many are homeless. The defense is aware of no other populations of people that are being targeted similarly through such a massive, deliberate, and focused departmental effort that is so wholly disproportionate to the crime being charged, and is aware of no other large-scale targeted marijuana stings in other locations in Minneapolis in 2018. I Mr. Palmer was a target of selective enforcement of the Minneapolis marijuana sales law by Minneapolis Police Officers. Mr. Palmer is entitled to a hearing. Mr. Palmer will be asking for strict scrutiny review, though the defense submits that the state could not withstand rational basis review under the federal or Minnesota standard. The defense has submitted a request for discovery to Police Chief Arradondo and is awaiting a reply. The defense is further requesting discovery that ?relates to the case? and is in the state?s possession in order to prepare for the hearing, including but not limited to the enumerated discovery requested. EXHIBIT A Mm ego.? sale of Controlled Substance Crime by Race: Sentenced Hennepin County 2016 Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission (MSGC) monitoring data are offender-based, meaning cases represent offenders rather than individual charges. Offenders sentenced within the same county in a one-month period are generaiiy counted oniy once, based on their most serious offense. Information Requested: 2016 data, specifically for drug sale cases, as opposed to possession, by degree and race for Hennepin County. Analysis: . Sentenced 2016 . - . Sale of Controlled Substance Crime under Minn. Stat. 152.021, subd. 1 152.025, subd. 1 - Hennepin County I . By Race In 2016, 164 offenders were sentenced in Hennepin County for Sale of a Controlled Substance Crime in the First? through Fifth?Degree. The following table displays the number of offenders sentenced by degree and race. Number of Offenders Sentenced for Sale of Controlled Substance Crime Sentenced Hennepin County 2016 :Degree 16 22 4 5 4 34.0% 46.6% 0.0% 6.5% 10.6% 100.0% 2nd Degree 7 16 1 0 24 29.2% 66.7% 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 100.0% 3rd Degree 9 39 1 1 0 50 16.0% 76.0% 2.0% 2.0% 0.0% 100.0% 4th Degree 1 0 0 0 0 1 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% Degree 6 31 1 1 1 42 19.0% 73.6% 2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 100.0% 41 106 2 7 6 164 Total 25.0% 65.9% 1.2% 4.3% 3.7% 100.0% Source: MSGC Monitoring Data 4/30l2018 1 EXHIBIT Affidavit of Anna Novak Upon information and belief I swear the following information to be true and correctpa'ralegai with the Hennepin County Of?ce of the Public Defender. I have been a paralegal with this office for 4 years. My Job is to assist attorneys with their cases by pulling records, compiling information and creating demonstratives as needed. I have reviewed almost 100 marijuana sale cases from 2018 that have been submitted to the Office of the Public Defender. i pulled out any 2018 cases where an undercover officer was involved in a street level marijuana buy, which was a total of 47 cases. To the best of my ability, I believe I reviewed all undercover marijuana stings from 2018 that were submitted to the Public Defe nder?s Of?ce. The cases i pulled out from 2018 all had offense dates of eitherJanuary 24, 2018, February 13, 2018, February 28, 2018, March 15, 2018, March 26, 2018, April 11, 2018, or May 24, 2018. Almost every case I reviewed involved a sale to an undercover officer around 5th Street and Hennepin Avenue. Out of the 47 people charged with felony marijuana sale, 46 were black. The cases I reviewed varied in terms of- whether police or the defendant were alleged to have initiated the contact in relation to the drug sale. in the case of the sole white client to be charged, police allege that it was the client who initiated the interaction and not the other way around. The vast majority of these felony cases involve Marijuana sales of 1-2 grams in exchange for $10-$20. Many cases involve less than 1 gram. I decta re under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated In this document Is true and correct. Minn. Stat. 358 116 Dated: May 31, 2018 Anna Novak, Paralegal EXHIBIT OFFICE OF PUBLIC DEFENDER HENNEPIN COUNTY - FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 701 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 1-400 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1600 MAIN Mary F. Moriarty Fax NUMBERS: (612) 348-7530 . CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER (612) 348?2025 May 29, 2013 I Chief Medaria An?adondo 350 S. St. Room 130 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Chief Arradondo, The .Hennepin County Of?ce of the Public Defender demands all MP1) policies, procedures, manuals,and - directives regarding undercover marijuana stings in downtown Minneapolis. It has some to our attention that the Minneapolis Police Department has begun to prioritize crimes involving 1-2 grams of marijuana The First . Precinct CRT, working with Metro Transit and teams from other precincts, are conducting undercover marijuana stings in downtown Minneapolis. A review of the cases received by our of?ce strongly suggests a trend of room! pro?ling under the guise of ?livability? detail. Of?cers are approaching people of color and asking to purchase drugs. Of?cers have directly asked black men to facilitate drugs deals with other black men, and have then requested that the facilitator be charged with sale. Of?cers are using safe zone cameras. to surveil peeple of color. Almost all of the marijuana sale cases involve a . sale of as little as one to two gtams? ?40 grams under the felony threshold for possession. The targeted behavior, at times initiated by MPD of?cers themselves, is barely from petty misdemeanor possession, but leads to vastly different outcomes. As a result ofthis practice, folks are sitting in jail and even prison, and are having felonies added to their records. 0f the cases reviewed by our o?i'oe, all but one involve people of color. In the one case that served as an exception, it was the white male, and not the. MPD of?cer, who initiated the interaction. 1 To the extent that crimes involving one to two grams of marijuana appear tabs 11 high priOrity for the MP1), we - believe that yore- Department, and the city "as a whole, can ?nd ways to address the issue that do not lead to such starkly disparate and har.sh treatment of already vulnerable members of our community. In the meantime, . we are litigating some of the cases that your office has brought to the County Attorney for charging, and respect?illy request the documents referenced above, along with any additional information that may shed light on and help make sense of this ongoing practice. Please feel ?ee to contact me with any questions or concerns . Jess Special Litigation Unit Hennepin County Public Defender' 5 Of?ce 701 4"l Ave S.- Suite 1400 Mhmeapolis, MN 55415 612-596-9407 Jess.Brave1man@hennepin.us CC: Mary Moriarty, Chief Public Defender Jeanette Boomer, Assistant ChiefPublic Defender Jacob Frey, Mayor Imani Jaafar, Director, Of?ce of Pohee Conduct Review Mike Freeman, Hennepin County Attorney Susan Sega], Minneapolis City Attorney . Frames: 11:. an! ACTION 111115131.an