Summary
Justice Boyd, joined by Justice Guzman, concurs in the denial of a petition for review concerning Texas civil forfeiture law. The concurrence discusses whether the forfeiture statute is unconstitutional because it places the burden on an owner to establish the innocent-owner defense, while concluding that the case is not an appropriate vehicle to reconsider existing precedent or address broader civil-forfeiture concerns.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Texas's civil forfeiture statute is unconstitutional because it does not require the State to prove that the property owner knew or should have known of the property's illegal use.
- Whether El-Ali's abandonment of reliance on the statutory innocent-owner defense created mootness, standing, or other procedural and jurisdictional barriers to his constitutional challenge.
- Whether the Texas Constitution's due course of law provision provides materially different protection from the federal Due Process Clause in this case.
Holdings
- The court should not resolve the constitutional issues in this case because El-Ali abandoned reliance on the innocent-owner defense, refused to offer evidence supporting his innocence, and thereby presented significant procedural and jurisdictional obstacles to review.
- Because El-Ali identified no material difference between the Texas due course of law provision and the federal Due Process Clause on the issue presented, the court would treat the provisions as equivalent.
Key quotations
“But courts resolve cases, not just issues, and this case presents a particularly poor opportunity to resolve the issues that disturb the dissent.” (824)
“Even if Ali's reliance on the enactment of the article 59.02(c) defense is sufficient to distinguish Richards, it creates significant procedural and jurisdictional issues.” (825)
“I simply conclude that this is not "an appropriate case" in which to address them.” (825)
Factual background
The State sought forfeiture of property under Texas's civil forfeiture statute. El-Ali argued that forfeiture was unconstitutional unless the State proved that he knew or should have known of the illegal use of the property. Although the statute provided an innocent-owner defense, El-Ali offered no evidence to support his claimed innocence and expressly abandoned reliance on that defense in the trial court, while challenging the constitutionality of the defense on appeal.
Procedural history
Zahir El-Ali challenged the constitutionality of Texas civil forfeiture provisions, arguing that the State should have to prove that the property owner knew or should have known of the illegal use. Texas's statute contained an innocent-owner defense, but El-Ali refused to present evidence supporting that defense and amended his pleadings to abandon reliance on it. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition for review, and Justice Boyd, joined by Justice Guzman, concurred in that denial.