Opinion ID: 1755361
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Violation of statutory or constitutional rights

Text: ¶ 24. The fourth and final factor to be considered is whether the order violated Titan's statutory or constitutional rights. Titan argues that MDEQ enforced penalties against only Titan, while the agency failed to take any action against an adjacent facility that is the likely source of the contamination at issue here. Titan considers this as selective enforcement and therefore inadmissible. ( citing Everwood Treatment Co. v. EPA, 1998 WL 1674543 (S.D.Ala. Jan.21, 1998)). Titan asserts that in order to prove that selective enforcement has occurred, the defendant must show that government officials have not prosecuted others for the same conduct prosecuted against the defendant. However, Titan quotes the requirement for selective enforcement while omitting the remainder of the second prong of the test: `[t]he decision to prosecute this defendant was based upon impermissible grounds such as race, religion or the exercise of constitutional rights. ' (emphasis added) ( citing Rybachek v. United States, No. 91-35160, 1993 WL 385454, at 4, 8 F.3d 29 (9th Cir. Sept.29, 1993) (an unpublished opinion)). ¶ 25. In agreement with the chancery court, we hold that Titan's constitutional rights of equal protection have not been violated. We conclude, as did the chancery court, that Titan has not proved either prong of the test. Titan has not demonstrated that it was singled out, nor that it was selected for prosecution based upon protected classifications.