Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Philadelphia of Violating Property Rights

Three Philadelphia residents filed a class action lawsuit against the city of Philadelphia this week alleging that the city’s law enforcement has been falsely seizing property from its residents using the city’s civil forfeiture mechanism the plaintiffs term “robo-forfeiture” and violating residents’ constitutional property rights.

Lead plaintiffs allege in their class action lawsuit that law enforcement initiates the city’s civil forfeiture mechanism by listing the property itself as “guilty.” At that point, the class action lawsuit continues, the city’s district attorney’s office sues the property and requires property owners to appear in court to prove their innocence. The plaintiffs also allege that the district attorney’s office retains the proceeds of the sale or use of the property for its own use.

The plaintiffs argue, “While Pennsylvania law authorizes civil forfeiture, the Philadelphia DA’s office has turned this tool into a veritable machine, devouring real and personal property from thousands of residents, many of whom are innocent, and converting that property into a $5.8 million-average annual stream of revenue.”

One of the names plaintiffs, Norys Hernandez, alleges in the class action lawsuit that her home, which she owned with her sister who lived in it with her children, was seized after her nephew was arrested outside of the home for possession and sale of minute quantities of drugs. Hernandez alleges that the district attorney’s office pursued civil forfeiture, or “robo-forfeiture,” against Hernandez and refused to let her enter the home.

“The Named Plaintiffs, Christos Sourovelis, Doila Welch, and Norys Hernandez, are all innocent owners of property in Philadelphia,” the class action lawsuit says. “Although none of them have been charged with any crime,” the complaint continues, “they all stand to lose their property through civil-forfeiture proceedings initiated by the Philadephia D.A.’s Office.” The plaintiffs claim the city’s use of civil forfeiture violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

In a statement made by the district attorney’s office this week, the office noted that the distribution and use of drugs in the city are important problems to remember in light of the class action lawsuit. “Not only do such activities pose great harm to those individuals addicted to drugs and their families, they also can become nuisances to the larger community,” said the statement.

The district attorney’s office also claimed that its “Public Nuisance Task Force” does not pursue forfeiture for most drug properties when the property owner agrees to work to prevent future drug activities in and around their property. The office said in those cases the Task Force and property owner settle and no forfeiture of property occurs. The office concluded, “In all these efforts, we follow applicable law to protect the rights of all those involved — not only drug dealers and those associated with them, but the law-abiding citizens who are negatively affected by them.”

Plaintiffs are represented by William H. Mellor, Scott G. Bullock, Darpana M. Sheth and Robert P. Frommer of Institute for Justice, and David Rudovsky of Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg LLP.

The City of Philadelphia “Robo-Forfeiture” Class Action Lawsuit is Christos Sourovelis, et al. v. City of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04687, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.