Court rules that Texas county must return $41K seized from trucker as civil forfeiture action

This week, a Texas court sided with a trucker in a civil forfeiture case, ruling that Harris County must return tens of thousands of dollars seized after a 2019 traffic stop.

On October 7, 2025, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ordered Harris County to return $41,680 in seized cash to Mississippi resident Ameal Woods and his partner Jordan Davis.

The cash was seized from Woods during a civil forfeiture action that occurred in Texas in 2019.

Civil forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to seize cash if it is believed to be connected to criminal activity, even if no charges or citations are issued.

Traffic Stop For Following Too Closely Led To Seizure Of Cash

On May 14, 2019, truck driver Ameal Woods was driving a rental car when he was stopped by officers with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) on eastbound I-10 in the Houston area for following too closely. Woods later told police he was in a rental car because the air conditioning in his truck was not working.

During the traffic stop, police found bundles of cash in the trunk of the rental car. Woods stated that he was purchasing trucking equipment in the Houston area with the money, which included funds from Jordan Davis as well as from other family members.

HCSO searched the car and “did not find any trucking magazines or trucking sales literature in the vehicle that might corroborate Woods’s stated intent to purchase trucking equipment.” Police also noted that “Woods’s breathing was slow and labored and that Woods was avoiding eye contact,” according to court documents.

The cash was seized for suspected connection to illegal activity, but Woods was not charged or ticketed.

A police dog trained to detect the odor of drugs but not currency alerted to the seized cash, officials said, suggesting that the cash had been in contact with drugs.

HCSO’s Deputy Sandoval later testified that “Woods told him that Woods’s cousin’s boyfriend was “involved in the drug world,” and “that [Woods] was being paid to come to Houston with this money because the trucking business was slow back home where he was from.”

In 2023, a Texas jury sided against Woods, ruling that the civil forfeiture of the cash was justified.

Not Enough Evidence To Seize Cash, Court Rules

During this week’s ruling, the appeals court found insufficient evidence of criminal activity and reversed the jury’s findings.

“Even taking Deputy Sandoval’s testimony at face value, it does not amount to an admission by Wood that he intended to use the money to purchase any illegal drugs, let alone one of the five specific drugs defined as a Controlled Substance. Rather, Deputy Sandoval recounted what could have just as easily been two, unrelated discussions about Woods’s knowing people who are involved in drug trafficking and Woods’s plan to come to Houston to conduct business related to the trucking business. Because mere knowledge of someone involved in drug trafficking is just as consistent with innocent conduct as commission of one of the enumerated offenses, the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury’s finding that the cash was “intended to be used in the commission of the possession of a Controlled Substance,”” the court concluded.

The nonprofit law firm Institute for Justice (IJ) assisted Woods and Davis in their appeal.

“Cash is not a crime,” said Arif Panju, managing attorney of the IJ’s Texas office. “Today the First Court of Appeals entered judgment for Ameal and Jordan and ordered their life savings returned. That’s a decisive win for due process and a sharp rebuke to civil forfeiture based on hunches.”

“This ruling makes clear that the government can’t take people’s property without evidence of a crime,” said James Knight, attorney at the IJ. “Ameal and Jordan fought back, and today’s decision restores what was theirs and strengthens protections for everyone who carries cash.”