7th Circuit addresses 'khat' convictions for first time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on many types of drug cases, but was presented with a new drug to consider for the first time: “khat,” a popular drug among the Somali community.

Jama Mire and Hassan Rafle became involved in a conspiracy to distribute khat in the Indianapolis area. Khat is the common name for the plant having leaves that are chewed or soaked in tea. Khat is not illegal, but the plant contains two controlled substances,
cathinone and cathine, that are used to combat fatigue.

Mire’s business, the Somali House of Coffee, served as a place where people could get the drugs and enjoy in comfort. Government agents received a tip from a concerned Somali man about this khat-distribution conspiracy and launched an investigation into it. Mire and Rafle were each convicted on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cathinone. Mire was also convicted of knowingly using or maintaining a place for the purpose of distributing and using cathinone; and possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing cathinone.

The defendants challenged the government testimony by Drug Enforcement Administration chemists regarding the testing of khat plants for cathinone, claiming the testing procedures underlying the experts’ testimony were unreliable and incomplete.

The district court conducted a Daubert hearing on the motion and denied the motion to exclude.

In United States of America v. Jama Mire and Hassan Rafle, 12-2792, 12-2793, the men contended that their due process rights were violated because the Controlled Substance Act and its corresponding regulations do not provide fair warning that the possession of khat may be illegal. This argument is one of first impression in the 7th Circuit, Judge William Bauer noted, but all of the other Circuits that have considered it have rejected it.

The statutes at issue here require “actual knowledge” that khat contains a controlled substance and contain a scienter requirement.

“Like our sister circuits who have considered the regulations involving khat, we are mindful that ‘it would be helpful to people, who actually resort to statutes and regulations to determine whether their conduct is lawful, for Congress, through the statutory or regulatory scheme, to include the word “khat” in the CSA,’” Bauer wrote. “This is especially true considering that not all khat leaves contain cathinone or cathine and that other plants containing controlled substances are specifically listed in the schedules. But this does not invalidate the statutes at issue on Due Process grounds; the Defendants’ fair warning challenge fails.”

The men also claimed the District Court erred under Daubert in admitting the government’s expert testimony regarding the chemical composition of the khat leaves tested.

“To find in the Defendants’ favor, we would have to write an additional element into the offenses: that khat leaves must have a ‘certain amount’ of cathinone versus ‘any quantity.’ That is not our job, and we decline to do so,” the court ruled. “The Defendants’ argument that a qualitative assessment is insufficient because it does not say ‘how much’ cathinone or cathine is in a given leaf or plant easily fails; the district court correctly rejected it.”

The 7th Circuit also rejected Mire’s double jeopardy challenge to his convictions and his claim that the government didn’t provide sufficient evidence to support his convictions.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?