People v. Blount, 90 N.Y.2d 998 (1997)
To establish a claim of unconstitutional selective enforcement of the law, a defendant must demonstrate both that the law was applied with an “unequal hand” and with an “evil eye,” meaning the selective application was deliberately based on an impermissible standard.
Summary
Defendants, inmates charged with possessing dangerous contraband, claimed unconstitutional selective prosecution. They argued that of hundreds of similar incidents, only a few were prosecuted, and these targeted inmates near release. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding the defendants failed to prove selective prosecution. The court reasoned the defendants didn’t show the prosecution was based on an impermissible standard like race or religion, nor did they demonstrate the prosecutorial choices lacked a rational basis, as prioritizing prosecution of inmates nearing release is rationally related to public safety and deterrence.
Facts
Inmates in two state correctional facilities in Cayuga County were found in possession of dangerous contraband. Of approximately 494 incidents involving possession of dangerous contraband by inmates, the District Attorney prosecuted only 13 cases. The defendants, among those prosecuted, argued that the prosecution’s enforcement choices were impermissibly based upon the offenders being within 3 1/2 years of their release dates.
Procedural History
The defendants challenged their prosecutions, claiming unconstitutional selective enforcement of the penal laws. The lower courts rejected the defendants’ claims. The Court of Appeals reviewed the lower court’s decisions.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendants met their burden of establishing that they were victims of unconstitutional selective enforcement of the penal laws.
Holding
No, because the defendants failed to demonstrate that the People’s prosecutorial decisions were made with an “evil eye,” the core element of unlawful selective enforcement, and the prosecutorial choices had a rational basis.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that to establish a selective enforcement claim, a litigant must show that the law was enforced with both an “unequal hand” and an “evil eye.” The court, quoting Matter of 303 W. 42nd St. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 693, explained that “there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application of the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification.” The defendants only showed that the District Attorney prosecuted a small fraction of the total incidents. Such a showing only demonstrated “the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement” and did not, without more, suggest a constitutional violation. Moreover, the court found the defendants failed to show there was no rational basis for the prosecutorial choices.
The court reasoned that prioritizing prosecution of inmates nearing release is rationally related to public safety and deterrence. As inmates with considerable time left to serve may be effectively penalized through the prison rehabilitative and disciplinary systems, it makes sense to limit the use of scarce prosecutorial resources to the prosecution of inmates who will soon be leaving the jurisdiction of the correctional system. Moreover, inmates with continuing criminal propensities who are nearing their mandatory release dates pose a greater threat to society than those who can be expected to remain within prison walls for extended periods. Finally, the threat of prosecution will obviously have a greater deterrent effect on those who are closest to release than on the latter class of inmates. The court concluded that proximity to release date is not an irrational or facially suspect criterion. Therefore, the court held the defendants failed to demonstrate that the People’s prosecutorial decisions were made with an “evil eye,” the core element of unlawful selective enforcement.