Victory! Texas Couple Wins Round Two In Forfeiture Fight

Our last update to Liberty & Law readers on IJ’s constitutional challenge to civil forfeiture in Texas started with seven words: Good things come to those who wait. This past October, a Texas appellate court proved that principle true once again when it unanimously reversed a Harris County civil forfeiture judgment and ordered the return of $41,680 seized from IJ clients Ameal Woods and Jordan Davis.

Ameal and Jordan’s case is part of IJ’s enduring effort to end the unjust and unconstitutional forfeiture system in Texas. In 2014, IJ’s lawsuit aimed at Harris County’s forfeiture program came just one vote shy of obtaining review at the Texas Supreme Court. In a rare move, five of the nine justices wrote separately to outline the type of forfeiture challenge they would like to see in the future.

Harris County’s continued abuse of state forfeiture power provided that case.

In 2019, police illegally seized Ameal and Jordan’s life savings based on a suspected connection to drugs. As Ameal told the officers, the couple built those savings though years of hard work and intended to invest the cash in Ameal’s fledgling trucking business. The police who seized their money found no drugs and made no arrests. No charges were filed. But Harris County prosecutors were determined to keep the money anyway.

IJ stepped in to defend Ameal and Jordan against Harris County’s forfeiture efforts and simultaneously filed a major class action on the couple’s behalf seeking to invalidate the county’s abusive seizure practices. That class action asks the court to strike down Texas’ unconstitutional laws that allow the county to profit from forfeitures and burden property owners with proving their own innocence.

Ameal and Jordan’s forfeiture case went to trial in 2023, and we lost. Losing at trial stings, but it often sets the stage just right for the appellate court.

Perseverance paid off. The appellate court agreed with IJ that when the state takes your property, it needs actual evidence of a crime. And, here, the state’s mere speculation didn’t cut it. “The evidence,” the court wrote, “is legally insufficient.” The court reversed, rendered judgment for Ameal and Jordan, and ordered their money returned. It took quite a while, but Ameal and Jordan are finally vindicated.

It’s not the end of the road yet: Despite the appellate court’s ruling, Harris County continues to use delaying tactics to try to hold on to Ameal and Jordan’s savings. But the appellate court made the right call in October, and we will stand by the couple for as long as it takes to secure the return of their savings. And in the meantime, our class action remains pending in the appellate courts, giving us a shot at taking down the state’s entire forfeiture machine.

There’s still work to do, but this is a victory worth celebrating.

James Knight is an IJ attorney.