One important set of issues in this case involves questions we don’t have clear answers to: how the individual being tried was stopped by police in the first place, how they came upon the cannabis in the car, and how they came to assume or learn that the cannabis was for distribution. What we do know in general is that racialized defendants are sometimes profiled, and in the context of drugs, seldom given the benefit of the assumption that they possess drugs for personal use, which would not be sanctioned after the passing of the 2024 law insofar as the quantity was under 25 grams. In this case, the person had a quantity of cannabis on them that exceeded this amount, but it’s unclear how it came to be known or assumed that he was selling or how a confession was obtained. We see over and over how racialized defendants with small quantities end up in court for charges related to distribution. Due to deficiencies in the new cannabis regulations (which we have written about previously), this structural injustice is likely to persist.

We see additional evidence in this case of the racialized nature of Germany’s War on Drugs. Both the judge and the prosecution explain their theory that distribution of drugs via car delivery is of lower culpability than a person selling in a park. Neither really explain their reasoning and no legal justification is given, instead they express their emotional responses to these two fact patterns. While in this case the individual supposedly benefits from these prejudices, they should nonetheless be called out. Our view is that the judge and prosecutor are influenced by racialized moral panics around drug distribution, which reinforce criminalization that disproportionately targets racialized people. Per this moral panic, parks are the place where the ills of drug supply take place, and racialized people are the main culprits. Research shows that while recreational drug users are most likely to buy drugs from friends or private dealers and that purchasing drugs in public spaces is the exception rather than the rule, policing and criminalization of drug supply is concentrated against people engaged in street supply. Despite these facts, the judge and prosecutor portray public supply as inherently more problematic, perhaps because of the racialized image they have.

A young man with a partner and children is being tried because of cannabis found in his vehicle. We do not learn about how he was stopped by the police, but he confessed to selling cannabis on the day in question. He’s caught with not very much cannabis.

The judge questions the defendant in a relatively friendly manner, inquiring about his drug use (he does not use drugs) and then proceeds to put into the record evidence from the drug lab on the quantity and potency of cannabis found. Finally, the judge reads out the individual’s past criminal record, which includes some sentences from many years ago, as well as a more recent minor case.

It is now time for the prosecutor to request a sentence. His recommendation is a prison sentence of 15 months and he spends some time defending this. He starts with mitigating factors: by acknowledging that the cultivation and possession of cannabis are about to be legalized in Germany and that cannabis is, according to him, a “light” drug; noting that the active substance amount the person is found with is just above a legal threshold for a “not small quantity” (nicht geringe Menge); and that supplying cannabis via car delivery is less problematic than selling in a park. On the other hand, argues the prosecutor, the individual is not deterred from committing crime by being a parent, which suggests probation is insufficient as a sanction.

Next up is the defense lawyer, who doesn’t add much, only noting that this is a “less serious” case and that his client should receive a fine. His client declines to add anything at this time.

In the end, the judge sentences the person to nine months in prison, to be served as three years on probation. For the judge, what counted in favor of the defendant was that he confessed and that while he has prior convictions, these are from some time ago. On top of that, for the judge, delivering drugs by car is less problematic than selling in a park. He does not explain this further or draw on any legal precedent justifying the stance.

In closing, the judge reminds the defendant of the stakes: If he violates probation, he faces additional consequences, including prison.