Not an unreasonable position, since the smell of 0.5 percent and 0.4 percent brews are hardly distinguishable.
But aside from the merits of Judge Dear’s legal analysis, significant is his observation in the decision: “As hard as I try, I cannot recall ever arraigning a white defendant for such a violation.” Indeed, he made it clear that he hoped his ruling would persuade the NYPD to reevaluate its enforcement of the prohibition because as far as he could tell, blacks and Hispanics were singled out.
And then there is Judge Dear’s penchant for holding credit card debt collection attorneys’ feet to the fire in cases that come before him. He has dismissed many of the cases over what he saw as inadequate proof of debt or notice to the defendants that a collection lawsuit was even filed. We don’t know the demographics of the litigants in the cases he threw out, but a substantial number of them doubtless involved members of minority communities.
In sum, to our mind the racial implications were groundless and the process plainly flawed.