Judges to examine if stings where ATF agents encourage suspects to rob phony drug stash-houses are racially biased

In this Nov. 25, 2013 file photo, Chief U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo speaks from the bench in Chicago. A question raised nationwide about whether federal agents display racial bias by staging phony stash-house stings overwhelmingly in black neighborhoods is the focus of landmark hearings in Chicago.A rare panel of federal trial judges including Castillo begins two days of hearings Thursday Dec. 14, 2017, on the stings. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green File)

By MICHAEL TARM,  AP Legal Affairs Writer  CHICAGO (AP) 12/14 — The question of whether federal agents display racial bias by staging phony drug stash-house stings overwhelmingly in black neighborhoods is the focus of hearings beginning Thursday in Chicago and could determine whether agencies curtail or even abandon their use nationwide.

A first-of-its-kind panel of federal trial judges holds two days of hearings on the stings, which are overseen by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and typically involve agents posing as cartel couriers who talk suspects into agreeing to rob drugs that don’t exist from what they are told are guarded stash houses that are also fictitious.

The nine panelists — each of whom presides over 12 separate stash-house cases with 43 defendants in all — chose to hear evidence simultaneously on the question after defense teams in the dozen cases all moved for the indictments to be tossed on grounds of racial bias.

How the judges rule in coming weeks — and they could submit a single ruling — is expected to influence how courts around the country deal with similar claims about the stings, which have been a favorite tool of federal law enforcement dating back to the 1990s. Rulings in Chicago could also encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue.

Among the panelists is Ruben Castillo, whose ruling in 2013 that there’s a “strong showing of potential bias” in the stings generated years of legal motions and dueling expert reports — culminating in this week’s hearings. He ruled just weeks after he was sworn in as the federal court’s first Hispanic chief judge.

Stash-house stings have been criticized on other grounds, including in how agents dangle the prospect of pocketing tens of thousands of dollars to often poor, desperate subjects. Some courts have warned the stings risk crossing the line into illegally entrapping suspects.

Authorities insist they’re careful not to entrap anyone, targeting only those with records of violent crimes and who say unequivocally they want in on armed robberies.

The answer to the question of whether the stings discriminate by race hinges largely on competing interpretations of statistics.

Defense lawyers say the fact that around 80 percent of stings are conducted in predominantly African-American neighborhoods speaks for itself.

Their main witness is Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School. In his report for defense lawyers, he notes that out of 94 stash-house defendants in the Chicago area between 2006 and 2013, 74 were black, 12 were Hispanic and just eight were white. That and other data, he writes, proves a “pattern of discrimination.”

But government lawyers say it’s only natural that trafficking-related stings are focused where trafficking activity is highest — in low-income areas on Chicago’s South and West Sides. Fagan’s report, they contend in one filing, “is riddled with false assumptions … designed to manufacture a racial disparity where none exists.”

Their expert is Max Schanzenbach, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law. After scrutinizing the same data, he faulted Fagan’s methodology.

“A straightforward comparison of the stash house defendants to reasonable comparison groups — those arrested for similar crimes, in particular a home invasion involving a firearm — finds no statistical evidence of discrimination,” he concludes.

Some judges have gone on the record criticizing agents’ power to arbitrarily increase the severity of charges and potential sentences simply by increasing the amount of drugs they tell targets are in the non-existent stash houses. And suspects can be charged not only with trying to steal but with trying to distribute the phantom drugs, charges that carry stiff mandatory prison terms.

“The time has come to remind the Executive Branch that the Constitution charges it with law enforcement — not crime creation,” a U.S. judge in central California, Otis Wright, wrote in a scathing 2014 ruling. “The Constitution will not tolerate subjecting an individual to prosecution for an imaginary crime subject to a very real punishment.”


Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: ATF - BATFE, Judges, Racial Issues, Racial Profiling, Robbery

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fourteen − 12 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.