Paxton sues Dallas officials for amending charter to prohibit police from enforcing drug laws

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has sued Dallas officials for adopting a city charter amendment “that would illegally decriminalize marijuana-related offenses and prohibit police from enforcing Texas law.”

On Nov. 5, Dallas voters approved more than a dozen propositions on the ballot to amend the city charter. One was Proposition R, which prohibits Dallas Police officers from making marijuana-related arrests under certain conditions; prohibits them from issuing citations for marijuana possession or considering marijuana odor as probable cause for search or seizure; mandates that marijuana-related arrests be the “lowest enforcement priority;” and prohibits city funds or personnel from being used to test for cannabis-related substances.

Proposition R passed by a vote of 66% to 33% after a controversial citizenship led initiative added it to the ballot. On Tuesday, the Dallas City Council held a special session and voted to approve the city charter amendments, including Proposition R.

After the vote, interim Dallas Police Chief Michael Igo issued a chief’s update, Document, 24-0021, stating “effective immediately, Dallas Police officers will not enforce possession of marijuana, four ounces or less, or consider the odor of marijuana as probable cause for search and seizure, except as part of a violent felony or felony narcotics arrest."

“The current policy regarding possession of marijuana, two ounces or less, is now obsolete,” he says, adding that his update is a formal notification until a general order update is released.

“Regardless of your thoughts and or opinions regarding the passing of the amendment, we must remain focused on our duties and obligations to the Dallas Police Department,” Dallas residents, and “maintain professionalism and composure,” he said.

Paxton sued in the District Court of Dallas County. The mayor, mayor pro tem, all city council members, the interim city manager and Igo are named as defendants.

The lawsuit argues that amending the city charter by adopting Proposition R violates state laws and the Texas Constitution.

The city charter amendment violates and is preempted by Section 481.121 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which criminalizes possession of marijuana in any amount, the 51-page lawsuit argues.

It also violates and is preempted by Section 370.003 of the Texas Local Government Code, which states, “The governing body of a municipality, the commissioners court of a county, or a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, county attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney may not adopt a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs, including Chapters 481 and 483, Health and Safety Code, and federal law.”

The Texas Constitution, Article XI, Section 5, also prohibits municipalities from adopting ordinances that are contrary to or inconsistent with laws the state legislature enacts, according to the brief.

“As a result, Proposition R is unconstitutional,” the lawsuit argues.

“Cities cannot pick and choose which State laws they follow,” Paxton said. “The City of Dallas has no authority to override Texas drug laws or prohibit the police from enforcing them. This is a backdoor attempt to violate the Texas Constitution, and any city that tries to constrain police in this fashion will be met swiftly with a lawsuit by my office.”

The lawsuit asks the court to grant a temporary and permanent injunction and declare the charter amendment enacted under Proposition R null and void. It also asks the court to order defendants to fully enforce drug laws and not discipline any city employee that enforces them. It also asks the court to order Dallas police officers to not follow Igo’s order.

In response, the Dallas City Council released a statement, saying, "The city is aware of the lawsuit filed by the State of Texas regarding Proposition R and will respond to the lawsuit at the appropriate time.”

The lawsuit follows five others Paxton filed against other cities that adopted “illegal marijuana decriminalization policies that promote crime, drug abuse, and violence.” City and political subdivision leaders must follow the law and enforce prohibitions against illicit narcotics, Paxton argues.