HOUSTON - The Institute for Justice is representing a Houston man in hopes of enforcing a Fourth Amendment principle: “You cannot interrogate drivers and search their cars without any justification and get away with it.”
Earlier this month, Christie Hebert, an IJ attorney, wrote about the case of Alek Schott, who was driving home to his family when a Bexar County sheriff’s deputy pulled him over for drifting over the fog line, even though Hebert writes that footage from Schott’s personal dashcam “shows that never happened.”
“And the deputy didn’t behave like someone interested in enforcing traffic laws,” writes Hebert. “Instead, it quickly became clear that the deputy had pulled Alek over to fish for evidence of a potential crime.”
Hebert writes that the deputy held Schott on the side of the highway for more than an hour. His vehicle was ransacked. No drugs were found.
Court records show IJ filed a suit on behalf of Schott on June 1 in the U.S. District Court for Western Texas, San Antonio Division, seeking both compensatory and punitive damages from Bexar County.
“When Alek was finally released to continue his drive home, his truck was a mess because the deputies had dumped the items from every bag and compartment onto the truck floor,” the suit states. “But Alek’s experience was not just a one-off occurrence. Rather, Bexar County has a policy and custom, as carried out by BCSO deputies, of using traffic stops as a tool to conduct searches and seizures without any reason to suspect drivers of crimes.
“Alek therefore brings this lawsuit to vindicate his Fourth Amendment right and to stop Bexar County and its law-enforcement officers from abusing their power by conducting baseless searches and seizures via traffic stops.”
Court records show Bexar County filed a motion to dismiss on July 5, asserting that Schott’s dash-camera footage does in fact support that his vehicle drifted to the left and onto the fog line, making him “subject to a valid traffic stop.”
“Plaintiff’s original complaint does not allege sufficient facts that could establish municipal liability against Bexar County,” the motion states. “Plaintiff’s claims against Bexar County therefore should be dismissed…”
Case No. 5:23-cv-00706