On July 24, 2008, plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, against the City of Tenaha. The plaintiffs were all individuals who were traveling on public roads in or near Tenaha, Texas, when, they say, they were illegally stopped and their property seized. They sued under the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures) and Fourteenth Amendments (equal protection), made actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs were represented by lawyers from Legal Aid, the American Civil Liberties Union (Racial Justice Program, Criminal Law Reform Project, Texas chapter, and national), and from private practice. They asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary relief including compensatory and punitive damages as well as legal costs.

The plaintiffs claimed that law enforcement officials in and around the City of Tenaha had developed an illegal practice of targeting, stopping, detaining, searching, and often seizing property from people who appear to be non-white or who are traveling with non-white passengers. The named plaintiffs claimed that they had been victims of such stops.

The plaintiffs sought a class certification of similarly situated persons consisting of: (1) people who were, or appeared to be, members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their company, and (2) were or would be traveling in, through, or near Tenaha since July 27, 2006, and (3) were, or were subject to being stopped and detained and/or arrested by one or more of the defendants without an articulable suspicion of criminal activity, to find valuable property or money.

The individual plaintiffs were allegedly stopped without warrants or legal justification and were then either detained or threatened with detention, and had property seized in amounts varying from $3,969 to $50,000. Plaintiffs were allegedly falsely prosecuted for crimes such as money laundering. One couple was allegedly told that their children would be put in foster care if they did not sign papers authorizing the seizure.

On August 29, 2011, the Court (Judge T. John Ward) granted in part the plaintiff's motion for class certification. Morrow v. Washington, 277 F.R.D. 172 (E.D. Tex. 2011). The Court granted the class certification for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, but did not certify the class for Fourth Amendment search and seizure claims or for monetary relief. In the opinion, the Court cited to recordings from cameras in the police vehicles at the time of the stops. The Court drew an adverse inference from the failure of Tenaha's law enforcement agencies to collect and report racial profiling evidence, as required by Texas law. The Court also drew an adverse inference from two defendants' invocation of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, during deposition. The Court modified the class definition, because it found that there was "articulable suspicion" for the stops (albeit not reasonable suspicion). The modified definition of the class consisted of (1) people who were, or appeared to be, members of racial or ethnic minority groups and those in their company, and (2) were, or would be, traveling in, through, or near Tenaha at any time after November 1, 2006, and (3) were subject to being stopped by one or more defendant for an alleged traffic violation. The defendants twice sought a discretionary interlocutory appeal of the class certification, but were twice denied.

On August 6, 2012, plaintiffs and defendants filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a consent decree. The Consent Decree is extensive, with key terms including the following:

• All traffic stops shall be recorded in full by both video and audio recordings.
  
• Defendants shall maintain written documentation with details about the traffic stop, detention, canine sniff, search, seizure, and/or forfeiture.
  
• Defendants will not use canines for routine traffic stops.
  
• Written notice shall be provided to a person before a canine sniff, before a consent search, and before the seizure of property. Before conducting a consent search, an officer must obtain written and oral video and audio recorded consent for the search.
  
• Defendants will track all asset forfeiture incident to traffic stops, and all such revenue will all be donated to non-profit organizations, used for audio and video equipment, or used for the annual training required by this decree.
  
• Internal review procedures will be instituted every quarter, and an impartial monitor will address compliance.

Defendants also agreed to pay litigation costs (attorneys' fees and notice to the class).

On February 19, 2013, the Court (Judge Gilstrap) granted preliminary approval of the consent decree. Following a fairness hearing, the court granted final approval of the consent decree on August 8, 2013. The court appointed a monitor on October 9, 2013, who proceeded to file quarterly status reports.

On August 7, 2017, the plaintiffs moved to extend the duration of the Consent Decree, which was set to expire the next day. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had a "poor record of compliance," necessitating an extension of the consent decree. There was a hearing on this motion on November 1, 2018, after which the parties renegotiated the settlement agreement. They filed a joint motion to approve the amended agreement on December 13, 2018, which the court approved. The agreement was substantially similar to the originally consent decree, but extended the duration to the next two years with the opportunity for the plaintiffs to file for additional extensions.

This case is ongoing with some litigation over attorneys fees as of April 17, 2020. The amended settlement is set to expire in early 2021.

Emily Goldman - 03/02/2013
Virginia Weeks - 05/16/2018
Alex Moody - 04/17/2020


compress summary