The Wayne County Sheriff’s Office is seizing thousands of cars and other property belonging to residents who have not committed crimes in violation of their constitutional rights, according to a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday.

"Innocent property owners find themselves ensnared in this system," the lawsuit asserts, leaving them to face the "permanent loss of their car or other property, even when someone else is alleged to have committed a crime without the property owner's knowledge or consent."

Take Melisa Ingram.

The 50-year-old single mother in Southfield, one of two metro Detroit plaintiffs named in the lawsuit and who made their case outside the Detroit courthouse, now rides a bus 40 minutes each way to work because authorities took her car, which she lent to her former boyfriend to look for a job.

Authorities accused her boyfriend of crimes, which let them keep her vehicle, but no crime was ever proven.

"My car was seized twice by Wayne County sheriff's deputies in 2018 and July 2019," the BlueCross/BlueShield worker said. "I'm fighting back because I don't want anyone else to have to go through the pain and suffering I've gone through."

Both James Martinez, a spokesman for Wayne County, and Maria Miller, a spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office, declined to comment.

A state law enacted last year prohibits law enforcement from permanently seizing cash and other property seized in drug cases unless the defendant is convicted or the value of the money and property is more than $50,000.

But Wednesday's lawsuit — which was filed by Barton Morris in Royal Oak and the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Virginia — is part of a broader effort by the nonprofit organization, which has a $28-million annual budget and a mission to champion libertarian causes nationwide through the courts.

The Institute for Justice was founded in the early 1990s, in part with money donated by businessman Charles Koch. In addition to property cases, the institute also litigates tax, public financing, and school voucher issues.

The institute believes this is an especially opportune time to bring cases challenging forfeiture as a conservative-leaning Supreme Court shows an increasing interest in them, and the organization argues, there has been a 1,000% increase in federal forfeiture cases.

"Civil forfeiture is one of the greatest threats to property rights in the nation today," Institute for Justice attorney Wesley Hottot said. "It allows police and prosecutors to seize and then permanently take people's property without even charging them with a crime. You don't have the kind of protections that you would have in a normal criminal proceeding."

He added: There's no guarantee of legal representation; no guarantee of a speedy trial. Instead, authorities make an allegation and take the property. They then hold it for ransom — or sell it as a way to address thin budgets.

In two years alone, Hottot said, the county has forfeited at least 2,600 cars, and the amount of money that agencies received from forfeiture — seizing and selling property connected to alleged crimes — was more than $1.2 million.

"Regardless of politics," the lawyer added, "all Americans should be concerned that the government has the power to strip people of their property based on nothing more than one officer's subjective opinion that it's somehow connected to a crime."

Read more:

After man charged with stealing $697K, he planned to party at Super Bowl

Gretchen Whitmer signs bills to limit asset forfeiture in drug cases

In Ingram's case, the lawsuit claims deputies accused the boyfriend of trying to pick up a prostitute and seized the car. He wasn't arrested or charged with a crime, and he denied the allegation. Ingram had to pay $1,355 to get her car back. She needed the car to get to work and night school.

This summer, after telling her boyfriend to never use her car for anything illegal, especially to see a prostitute, she lent him her car again so he could go to a friend's barbecue. Again, she said, the same deputies stopped him — and seized it.

This time, authorities said he had gone to a house that was connected to drugs — or prostitution.

Again, there was no arrest, and authorities wanted $1,800, plus other fees to get the car back. Ingram, who filed for bankruptcy protection, said she has surrendered her interest in the car to her lender and was denied the chance to retrieve her personal belongings from the vehicle.

She said she also broke off her relationship with her boyfriend.

The other plaintiff named in the lawsuit, Robert Reeve, said that in addition to the seizure of his car — a 1991 Chevrolet Camaro — that he bought for $5,500 and spent more than $9,000 enhancing, with an air-intake scoop, audio equipment and wheels, deputies took $2,280 in cash from him.

Reeve, a 29-year-old who fixes up cars and works in construction, said this summer he went into a gas station to buy a bottle of water and police confronted him about a stolen skid steer he was using on a job that they said was stolen from Home Depot.

Reeve was held, but not arrested or charged with a crime.

However, authorities still seized Reeve's Camaro, took the cash in his pocket, which he was planning to use to buy a 2002 Ram truck later that day, and two cellphones.

"I feel like I was robbed," said Reeve, a Detroiter, who, with his wife, has five children, ages 23, 18, 17, 16 and 5. "I'm fighting back because I don't want nobody else to have to go through this."

Reeve said he's has tried to get his property back, but authorities won't take his calls.