A constitutional class action lawsuit has been cleared to proceed against law enforcement in Harris County, one of the largest counties in the United States. The lawsuit alleges that the county’s forfeiture program regularly seizes cash and cars from individuals who have never been convicted of a crime. The Institute of Justice, a nonprofit libertarian law firm, is arguing the case, stating that Harris County has one of the most abusive forfeiture programs in the country.
The lawsuit originated from a 2019 traffic stop on Interstate 10 near Houston, where Ameal Woods, a trucker from Mississippi, was pulled over by a deputy for allegedly following a truck too closely. Although Woods was not ticketed, the deputy seized all the cash Woods had in his car, which amounted to $42,300. Harris County officials claimed that the money could be connected to criminal activity, such as money laundering or drug trafficking.
Civil asset forfeiture, the process by which law enforcement seizes property believed to be connected to illegal activities, was used to seize Woods’ money. Critics argue that this practice is akin to “legal theft,” as it allows police and prosecutors to treat anyone carrying a large amount of cash as guilty without requiring a criminal conviction.
In May of this year, a jury rejected Woods’ appeal to have his money returned, ruling that law enforcement had probable cause to believe the cash was contraband. The district attorney’s office celebrated the decision, claiming that Woods had intended to profit from illegal narcotics trafficking. However, Woods and his partner Jordan Davis are now named plaintiffs in a separate class action lawsuit that accuses Harris County of violating the Texas Constitution by seizing property based on mere suspicion of criminal activity and denying property owners the opportunity to challenge the seizure promptly.
The lawsuit could potentially include dozens of other drivers, as court filings from the Institute of Justice indicate that numerous forfeiture petitions have been filed based on boilerplate affidavits written by officers who were not present at the time of seizure. Harris County officials had attempted to have the case dismissed, claiming immunity, but a district court judge rejected the claim and allowed the constitutional challenge to proceed.
Attorney Wesley Hottot from the Institute of Justice criticized the district attorney’s statement that evidence showed Woods planned to buy and sell drugs, noting that they failed to provide specific details or proof to support these claims. The class action lawsuit aims to challenge the county’s forfeiture practices and the financial incentive it creates for abuse, as law enforcement and prosecutors are allowed to keep 100% of the proceeds from forfeitures.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for asset forfeiture programs across the country, as it brings attention to the controversial practice and raises questions about its constitutionality.
In conclusion, the constitutional class action lawsuit against Harris County’s forfeiture program sheds light on the potential abuse of civil asset forfeiture and its impact on individuals who have never been convicted of a crime. The case highlights concerns about the lack of due process and the financial incentives that may drive law enforcement to seize property without sufficient evidence. As the lawsuit progresses, its outcome could have far-reaching implications for the future of asset forfeiture programs in the United States.
