Tulia residents, convicted in an unconscionably flawed drug sting, outside Swisher County Courthouse. Ink illustration by Tori Anne.

This November, you citizens of Lockhart will vote on a referendum to 1) decriminalize marajuana locally and 2) declare that the smell or mere presence of the cannabis plant is no longer reasonable suspicion of a crime that allows a policeman to stop a citizen or to extend a stop; nor does it amount to probable cause to search, seize or arrest. You should strongly consider this. 

Tulia, Texas: A Review

On July 23, 1999, the small, quiet town of Tulia in Swisher County became the center of a massive drug sting operation. Orchestrated by Tom Coleman, an undercover officer hired by the Panhandle Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force, the operation led to the arrest of 46 people, including more than 12% of the town’s Black population. The arrests were made based on Coleman’s testimony, in which he claimed to have bought drugs from the individuals over several months. What made these arrests additionally contentious was the lack of corroborating evidence – no audio or video recordings, and minimal physical evidence of drug transactions. The cases fell apart.  It turned out that Coleman simply made it all up.

The arrests disproportionately affected the African American community in Tulia, raising immediate concerns about racial profiling and injustice. Several of the defendants were specifically targeted because they were dating white girls. Many of those arrested received harsh sentences based on Coleman’s testimony alone. For instance, one individual was sentenced to 90 years in prison for allegedly selling $20 worth of cocaine. The credibility of Coleman’s testimony and his background became central issues. It was later revealed that Coleman had a problematic record, including accusations of lies, theft and harassment in previous law enforcement positions. A very bad apple, in spite of then-Texas Attorney General – now U.S. Senator – John Cornyn naming Coleman as Texas Law Man of the Year for his work in Tulia.

The Tulia case garnered national attention, leading to widespread outrage and calls for justice reform. Civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and the ACLU, became involved, advocating for the defendants. By 2003, investigations into the procedures of the drug sting led to significant doubts about the legitimacy of the convictions. This culminated in then-Texas Governor Rick Perry pardoning 35 of the defendants in 2003, after some had served several years in prison. The very conservative Texas Legislature passed a law requiring corroboration of undercover buy/busts largely based on Deuteronomy 19:15 (“One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed.”).

The fallout from the Tulia scandal prompted a reevaluation of the Texas Regional Narcotics Task Force System. These task forces were criticized for their unconstitutional methods, lack of oversight, and the profit incentives provided by federal grants and civil asset forfeiture that encouraged high numbers of arrests and seizures, and which led to abuses of power like those seen in Tulia. The controversy significantly impacted public and governmental trust in these task forces and sparked a broader debate on the war on drugs and its implementation at the local level. 

In response to the matter, Perry dismantled state participation in the Texas Regional Narcotics Task Force System. The program had ballooned to a $200 million sham. The systematic abuses were so great that neither the governor’s office nor the Texas Rangers and DPS were willing to continue their participation. Around 700 narcotics officers were reassigned or terminated. By 2007, funding and support for these task forces was gone, leading many to further disband or integrate into other local law enforcement agencies or border patrol entities. 

The Tulia case became a poster child for drug war abuses, throwing wide open a public and private reevaluation of and investigation into the selective and racially disparate enforcement of the drug laws, the illegitimacy of the asset forfeiture funding mechanisms, the dysfunction of multijurisdictional narcotics task forces and the requirements of the 4th Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.

In short, Tulia became powerful evidence of the need to end a war on drugs that is policed by profile and for profit.

Consider the Lockhart Initiative

There are several reasons for voters in Lockhart to take the marijuana initiative seriously:

1. Because this initiative will save lives. It mitigates harm. The single metric that determines how many policemen and citizens will be injured or killed by each other in a stop gone sideways is the number of police encounters. This initiative will reduce police encounters. Your local police will no longer need to risk their lives by stopping or searching someone for having a plant that is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco.

    

2. Because marijuana is no longer contraband. As of 2024, marijuana is legalized for medical use in 38 states including Texas under certain restrictions, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. For recreational use, 24 states plus Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana. The federal government is removing marijuana from Schedule 1 contraband status. Hemp, the plant whose flowers we call marijuana, is now legal in all 50 states in the United States. The legalization of the plant across the country followed the signing of the 2018 Farm Bill, which federally legalized the production of hemp and removed the plant from the controlled substances list, provided it contains less than 0.3% THC. The presence or smell of this plant is no longer evidence of a crime.

    

3. Because this initiative will reduce civil asset forfeiture. The practice of civil asset forfeiture allows law enforcement agencies to seize assets they have suspicion to believe are contraband, including cash and cars and to keep these assets to fund themselves unless a citizen can prove that these assets are “clean.” As it is, an officer can search and confiscate your car and cash by declaring that he or she smells marijuana, even if no marijuana is subsequently found. Your cash is presumed guilty. Since 2015, the police have taken more assets from citizens than burglars have. Billions of dollars. This funding mechanism, policing for profit, relies on marijuana being designated as contraband. This initiative makes clear that it is not and disallows the city to search and seize based on its presence.

    

4. Because this initiative will remove the smell of marijuana as a pretext for stopping and searching someone for being black or brown or tattooed or otherwise looking like an “alien.” African Americans comprise nearly one-third of all Texans arrested for marijuana possession offenses, despite comprising only 13 percent of the state’s total population. The overall arrest data shows a significant portion of marijuana arrests disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic communities, as demonstrated by the Tulia case. This initiative reduces the risk of profiling.

    

5. Because this initiative can help insulate the city from civil rights liability under section 1983 of the U.S. Code. The case law is clear. Law Enforcement cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that it cannot distinguish between legal and illegal cannabis, between contraband and not contraband. If it does, it loses immunity from suit for an unconstitutional violation of the 4th Amendment. If your police stop, search, seize or arrest a citizen based on the mere presence or smell of “marijuana,” your city, and so you the taxpayers, will be liable for damages for constitutional harm. This initiative recognizes that the city, as a matter of ordinance and policy, acts constitutionally in its enforcement of the law.

    

6. Because it’s time.

No more Tulias.

BY JEFF FRAZIER