State v. Johnson

Summary

Justice Earls, joined by Justice Morgan, dissented from the Court's affirmance of the denial of Jeremy Johnson's suppression and dismissal motions. The dissent would have held that Johnson's statistical evidence—showing substantial racial disparities in the officer's stops and cases—made a prima facie showing of selective enforcement and warranted further proceedings under a burden-shifting framework. The dissent also argued that the Court should clarify the governing standard for selective-enforcement claims. Justice Earls, dissenting, would have remanded for further evidentiary hearings tailored to that standard.