Philly’s Pot Policy: A Recipe for Lawsuits?

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Well I would certainly hope that a DA’s unilateral decision not to prosecute a still-established crime would not be enough to convert a non-1983 claim into a viable one…but who can project the thought process of some PA judge seeking the accolades of grievance mongers everywhere.

  2. Howard Wasserman says:

    I doubt it. What would be the right at issue? Equal Protection? Is disparate impact, even statistically significantly disproportionate impact enough to show intentional discrimination? Fourth Amendment? Police work on a probable cause standard (or less, if it’s a Terry or auto situation); the validity of the police decision is never tied to any ultimate prosecution (otherwise, an arrestee would have Fourth Amendment claims whenever the DA chooses not to prosecute).

    I’m not a crim pro guy, so maybe I’m missing something.