We agreed to help the nonprofit Institute for Justice, on a pro bono basis, to challenge the Texas civil asset forfeiture statute, which empowers the government to seize property it believes is “contraband”, sell it, and keep the proceeds, all without ever charging anybody with a crime. As co-counsel with the Institute for Justice, we challenged the statute on Constitutional grounds because it places the burden of proof on an owner of the property who claims innocence, rather on the government that seeks to take away that person’s personal property. We also contended that the civil forfeiture statute violates constitutional due process by allowing law enforcement agencies to fund their own operations from forfeiture proceeds. These Constitutional challenges, ultimately, were unsuccessful: The trial court granted summary judgment in the State’s favor, the judgment was affirmed by the 14th Court of Appeals, and in March 2014 a sharply-divided Texas Supreme Court denied review. Texas Supreme Court Justices Willett, Lehrmann and Devine provided a lengthy dissent, highlighting the problems with the modern asset forfeiture scheme and urging the Court to take a fresh look.
