US v. Arroyo, No. 07-2423. An ex-cop got busted for cocaine and ecstasy possession (actually, it seems he was a cop at the time he was busted, but the opinion is not clear on that). He was charged with conspiracy. At sentencing, the judge departed upwards because he USED to be a cop and “the district court plausibly found that in this instance the very bad example set by having a police officer buying and making available illegal drugs enhanced the seriousness of the crime.” The First points to the fac that “Arroyo had in fact worn his uniform for some of the purchases, and some of those who obtained drugs from him socially knew his position and could have deemed his furnishing of the drugs as trivializing the seriousness of the offense--enhancing a risk already present where use is recreational and liable to be brushed off as nothing to worry about.” So, the First rejects the idea that the District Court was automatically giving cops that get caught using drugs a higher sentence. The first says “Yet the possibility that a fact or factor like occupation cuts one way in one case and a different way in another means nothing, so long as a different context makes that sensible.”
The First says there isn’t much of a double jeopardy argument since the sentences were run concurrently. The government seems to have won part of the double jeopardy argument by concluding that two conspiracies were a “close call” but because there was a difference in WHO the conspirators were, this wasn’t a problem.