Ernest Alexander v. City of Birmingham

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2100974 E r n e s t Alexander v. C i t y o f Birmingham Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-900892) PER CURIAM. 1 Ernest Alexander appeals f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t in favor o f t h eC i t y It T h i s c a s e was o r i g i n a l l y a s s i g n e d was r e a s s i g n e d o n May 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 . 1 o f Birmingham ("the c i t y " ) entered i nh i s a c t i o n on O c t o b e r 31, 2011. 2100974 seeking the return of cash seized during a search of his residence. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s the f o l l o w i n g . Jefferson District Alexander's sale of of Department Officer County, June narcotics 5, Alexander's was on taken the deputized R. Walker a joint task agents which of the from revealed $38,675 t o t h e BPD's f a c i l i t y . indicating five was the search into based on the the Birmingham Police s e i z e d i n the search from the D i s t r i c t force ("DEA") e x e c u t e d f i r e a r m , and BPD to investigation warrant, f u r t h e r order residence cash, substance. The an warrant 2009, Court of the BPD Alabama." u n i t and Administration a of part a ("BPD"), s t a t e s t h a t t h e i t e m s Jefferson scales, as drugs. a r e t o be h e l d " u n t i l On issued residence illegal affidavit Court On J u n e 4, i t had Detective years the by officers warrant. i n cash. 2 Enforcement The search marijuana, The 2 cash contact Walker, the who with a had initially alerted controlled been United States i f of digital A d r u g - d e t e c t i n g dog The r e c o r d does not i n d i c a t e what, charges were brought a g a i n s t A l e x a n d e r . 2 from f e d e r a l Drug cocaine, had John earlier the of any, cross- Department criminal 2100974 of Justice DEA as a DEA evidence office of Walker bag, later cashier's Marshal. officer, transported i t to t h e DEA, and took check task-force the s e a l e d the the Birmingham p l a c e d i t i n the cash to a bank, check was then given in a district o v e r n i g h t drop w h e r e he f o r $ 3 8 , 6 7 5 made p a y a b l e The cash was box. issued a to the Unites S t a t e s to federal agent James Langnes. On October t h e c a s h was 26, t o o k no on N o v e m b e r 12, district forfeiture On seized state Alexander 2009, b u t Alexander Circuit Court alleging to § entitled forfeiture 20-2-93, to was served with the to respond and On A u g u s t a 10, the proceeding filed that b a r r e d by of had of been complaint the nonclaims 3 in h i s p r o p e r t y had A l a . Code return a 1975, the and cash statute, the been asserting because initiated. moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , f i r s t a s s e r t i n g t h a t was the judgment default 2010, money. 2011, was complaint of failed he entered 16, pursuant he court regarding the March Jefferson that of Alabama. a c t i o n t o r e c l a i m t h e money. federal forfeiture f i l e d i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court f o r the Northern D i s t r i c t complaint 2009, a c o m p l a i n t f o r c i v i l The no city Alexander's § 11-47-23, 2100974 Ala. Code 1975 (providing that a l l tort claims against m u n i c i p a l i t y are b a r r e d i f not presented w i t h i n s i x months accrual). circuit a lacked the jurisdiction relevant had Next, contended because, that i t said, t h e DEA. i n the In the s e a r c h and alternative, the cash i n i t i a l l y had the over any delivered city i n rem argued Alexander his favor, control, by filed arguing District of the Court. the city. Alexander After After appealed Appellate parte that the search Alexander's motion Ballew, and circuit the who cash to even i f exclusive against the and t h e d o c t r i n e t r a n s f e r r e d to the hearing, of DEA. had issued the by constructive over the the circuit case Jefferson court denied e n t e r e d a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f postjudgment to this So. court jurisdiction, warrant a his review 771 at a l l agents, that, proceeding court a c r o s s - m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n a n d t h u s e x c l u s i v e i n rem virtue had officers, c a s h a t t a c h e d - - p u r s u a n t t o 21 U.S.C. § 881 a d o p t i v e f o r f e i t u r e - - w h e n t h e c a s h was cash federal h a d b e e n s e i z e d b y BPD jurisdiction the the times been i n the p o s s e s s i o n of participated federal city of of 2d a motions were denied, court. summary 1040 judgment ( A l a . 2000). 4 i s de A novo. motion for Ex a 2100974 summary judgment material fact judgment as i s t o be exists g r a n t e d when and a matter the moving of law. Rule no genuine party issue is entitled 56(c)(3), A l a . R. to Civ. A p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t m u s t make a p r i m a showing fact and law." that Rule 1036, 1038 burden prima 2d "that [it] i s no then 56(c)(3); 1038 shifts showing genuine is entitled see ( A l a . 1992). facie at there Lee issue as to t o a judgment v. City any as the by nonmovant to rebut (footnote 592 the 'substantial evidence.'" omitted). So. evidence of such weight and q u a l i t y that Life of the f a c t Assurance 1989); see District of 592 evidence contends pursuant Court to 547 So. is fair-minded persons t o be p r o v e d . " Florida, § 12-21-12(d), Alexander residence Co. sought 2d "the i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r existence of movant's Lee, "[S]ubstantial P. material I f t h e movant meets t h i s b u r d e n , to a facie a matter of Gadsden, of So. West v. 2d 870, the Founders 871 (Ala. A l a . Code 1975. that the money seized from warrant issued by Jefferson the vested jurisdiction over s t a t e c o u r t and not i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t . the property in T h e r e f o r e , he t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t e x e r c i s e v a l i d i n rem 5 the his the says, jurisdiction 2100974 to find that t h e money should be forfeited to the United States. "'A civil forfeiture against the property 49, ( A l a . C i v . App. 52 Jordan, other itself.'" App. action City of ( A l a . 1999), ex r e l . Brooks, i n rem 739 So. 2 d Gadsden ( A l a . C i v . App. 1998), 760 S o . 2 d 877 Wherry v. S t a t e i s an G a r r e t t v. S t a t e , 2009) ( q u o t i n g 760 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 8 7 5 grounds, Civ. proceeding (citing rev'd v. on i n turn 637 S o . 2 d 1 3 5 3 , 1 3 5 5 (Ala. 1994)). " F e d e r a l a d o p t i o n c a n n o t t a k e p l a c e ... a f t e r a state court has a l r e a d y exercised valid i n rem jurisdiction over the seized property. This c o n c l u s i o n f o l l o w s l o g i c a l l y f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t two c o u r t s cannot have c o n c u r r e n t i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n and that the f i r s t court to acquire i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n does so t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r c o u r t s . See Ex p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d G r a p h i t e Corp., 221 A l a . 3 9 4 , 3 9 7 - 9 8 , 12 9 S o . 2 6 2 , 2 65 (1930 ) (stating that '[t]he well-established rule i s that w h e r e t h e a c t i o n i s i n r e m , ... t h a t c o u r t w h i c h first acquires jurisdiction draws t o i t s e l f the e x c l u s i v e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n t r o l and d i s p o s e o f t h e res')." Green App. v. C i t y o f Montgomery, 55 So. 3d 2 5 6 , 259 (Ala. 2009). "'A c o u r t a c q u i r e s j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y i n an i n rem p r o c e e d i n g when t h e r e s i s v a l i d l y s e i z e d and brought within the control of the court. [ R e p u b l i c N a t ' l B a n k o f M i a m i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 506 U.S. 8 0 ] a t 8 4 - 8 5 [ , 1 1 3 S. C t . 554 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ] . In 6 Civ. 2100974 Alabama, t h e r e s i s v a l i d l y s e i z e d e i t h e r pursuant t o " p r o c e s s i s s u e d b y [a] c o u r t , " s e e § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( b ) , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ; B r o w n & H a g i n C o . v . M c C u l l o u g h , 194 A l a . 6 3 8 , 69 S o . 924 ( 1 9 1 5 ) , o r p u r s u a n t t o o n e o f the e x c e p t i o n s l i s t e d i n § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975 I n o r d e r t o have s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a f o r f e i t u r e c a s e , " t h e c o u r t must h a v e a c t u a l o r c o n s t r u c t i v e c o n t r o l o f t h e r e s when an i n rem f o r f e i t u r e s u i t i s i n i t i a t e d . " Republic N a t ' l B a n k o f M i a m i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 5 0 6 U.S. a t 8 6 [ , 1 1 3 S. C t . 5 5 4 ] . " [ J ] u r i s d i c t i o n , o n c e v e s t e d , is not divested." I d . a t 8 4 [ , 113 S . C t . 5 5 4 ] . ' " Garrett, 760 7 3 9 S o . 2 d a t 52 C i t y o f Gadsden v. the c i t y argues Jordan, So. 2d a t 8 7 5 ) . In the present case, the money--was w i t h i n the city money claims, remained officials federal in The at the outset seized b y DEA because, agents federal administrative-forfeiture argument i s not city's that t h e DEA's possession own o f f i c e r s Michael of and t h e the indicates federal supported investigative Turner and S c o t t by t h e report Salser t h e money. Alexander appeal that, Jefferson (and the r e s - - i . e . , continuous Specifically, BPD that the record. seized control t h e money was through proceeding. on (quoting argued i n the c i r c u i t court a n d now by v i r t u e of t h e s e a r c h warrant District Court, never relinquished) the state exclusive 7 court issued initially jurisdiction maintains by t h e obtained o f t h e money. 2100974 In support things, § of the that argument, language of the 15-5-14, A l a . Code Jefferson District 1975. Court Alexander search The cites, warrant search commanded t h e among itself, warrant BPD officers and and to further order Alabama." from the from The 15-5-14, w h i c h the warrant d r u g t r a d e , " and District Court corresponds of to as w e l l i s s u e d by designated property, s p e c i f i c a l l y , marijuana paraphernalia to "hold i t u n t i l County, directive of provides: added.) Subsections the 15-5-2(2) and (3) "A s e a r c h w a r r a n t may f o l l o w i n g grounds: the be provide: issued on any " ( 2 ) W h e r e [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] was u s e d means o f c o m m i t t i n g a f e l o n y ; o r 8 the seize "When t h e p r o p e r t y i s taken under a search w a r r a n t , i t s h a l l be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c o u r t i s s u i n g the warrant. If the property was stolen or e m b e z z l e d , t h e c o u r t s h a l l c a u s e i t t o be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e o w n e r , on s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o o f o f h i s t i t l e and t h e payment by him of a l l f e e s . I f t h e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d on t h e g r o u n d s s p e c i f i e d i n s u b d i v i s i o n s (2) a n d (3) o f S e c t i o n 1 5 - 5 - 2 , t h e o f f i c e r e f f e c t i n g t h e w a r r a n t must r e t a i n the p r o p e r t y i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n , s u b j e c t t o t h e o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t t o w h i c h he i s r e q u i r e d to r e t u r n the proceedings or of the c o u r t i n which the o f f e n s e i s t r i a b l e i n r e s p e c t to which t h e p r o p e r t y was taken." (Emphasis as " a l l proceeds Jefferson the other one as of § 2100974 "(3) Where [ t h e p r o p e r t y ] i s i n t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f any p e r s o n w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o u s e i t a s a means o f c o m m i t t i n g a p u b l i c offense or i n the possession of another to whom he may h a v e d e l i v e r e d i t f o r t h e purpose of concealing i t or preventing i t s discovery." The that, c i t y counters Alexander's even within i f BPD federal officers control argument w i t h t h e a s s e r t i o n s e i z e d t h e money, when t h e BPD o f f i c e r s t h e money came t r a n s f e r r e d the money t o t h e DEA, t h e DEA a d o p t e d t h e s e i z u r e , a n d t h e U n i t e d States Attorney f o rthe Northern federal District administrative-forfeiture money, a l l o f w h i c h Alexander filed events, a complaint of Alabama proceedings the c i t y states, regarding occurred i n the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t M a r c h 16, 2 0 1 1 , s e e k i n g t h e r e t u r n o f t h e money. on appeal, adoptive federal the c i t y forfeiture, asks this court pursuant c o u r t would have to apply t o which, jurisdiction before Court on the doctrine of says, case. "The authority f o r adoptive seizure, although n o t e x p l i c i t , c o m e s f r o m 21 U.S.C. § 8 8 1 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( A ) , which allows the United States Attorney General, a t the c o n c l u s i o n of f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e proceedings, t o r e t u r n s e i z e d property back t o the s t a t e or l o c a l agency 'which p a r t i c i p a t e d d i r e c t l y i n t h e s e i z u r e or f o r f e i t u r e of the property.' Federal adoption of a s e i z u r e h a s t h e same e f f e c t a s i f t h e s e i z u r e h a d o r i g i n a l l y b e e n made b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . See 9 the In i t s brief the c i t y i n this initiated the 2100974 U n i t e d S t a t e s v . One F o r d C o u p e A u t o . , 272 47 S. C t . 154, 71 L. E d . 279 (1926)." Green v. Bingham, Civ. App. "In the City [Ms. of Montgomery, 2100676, Jan. 2012), this court 55 6, So. 2012] 3d U.S. 321, at 259. In So. 3d Ex parte , (Ala. wrote: G r e e n [v. C i t y of M o n t g o m e r y ] , i we adoptive-seizure process works: described "'The adoptive-seizure process begins when state or local authorities seize property as part of a criminal i n v e s t i g a t i o n or a r r e s t . Generally, the state or local officials either make a determination that forfeiture is not p o s s i b l e under s t a t e law or c o n c l u d e t h a t i t i s a d v a n t a g e o u s t o them t o t r a n s f e r the matter to f e d e r a l a u t h o r i t i e s f o r a f e d e r a l administrative f o r f e i t u r e proceeding. See I . R . S . M a n u a l 9.7.2.7.3 ( J u l y 25, 2 007); A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e Law, P r a c t i c e , a n d P o l i c y , Asset Forfeiture Office, Criminal Division, U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of J u s t i c e , V o l . I (1988) at 38 (cited in Johnson v. Johnson, 849 P.2d 1361, 1363 (Alaska 1 9 9 3 ) ) . Once s t a t e or l o c a l o f f i c i a l s h a v e determined that an adoptive seizure is advantageous, they file a request with federal authorities. The appropriate federal agency then decides whether to a c c e p t or reject the request. If the adoptive-seizure request i s accepted, the property i s taken into the custody of f e d e r a l a g e n t s and f e d e r a l administrative forfeiture proceedings begin. At the s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n of those p r o c e e d i n g s , u s u a l l y 80% o f t h e f o r f e i t e d p r o p e r t y i s g i v e n back to the s t a t e or l o c a l agency.' 10 how 2100974 "55 So. 3d We note "filled i n " and that Treasury Edney that, 258 reviewed Green, v. City Montgomery police detained a t t h e Montgomery adopted from the c i t y ' s s e i z e t h e money on b e h a l f t h e DEA." seizure by 246, v. 248 court $119,000 (D. Haw. police officer federal adoptive-seizure Department F. whether Supp. 270 seized and another airport. officers of the i t would 55 S o . 3 d a t 2 5 8 . officers Edney After In (M.D. A l a . approximately man who had been the seizure, "the authorizing the c i t y to o f t h e DEA a n d t o t r a n s f e r t h e m o n e y I d . a t 273. the federal States for 960 The f e d e r a l t h e DEA h a d a d o p t e d t h e s e i z u r e thus, States Green, o f Montgomery, i n cash that police t o determine seizure. $ 2 8 0 , 000 to 2009)]." Montgomery the United the request the adoptive 1997), DEA [ ( A l a . C i v . App. o u t t h e r e q u i s i t e forms t o b e g i n t h e process accept [256,] district States See a l s o Currency, 1992) ( i n a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e 7 93 F. case, f o r f e i t u r e " and t r a n s f e r r e d 11 United Supp. a Honolulu " r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e DEA a d o p t t h e s t a t e DEA). found of the currency at issue: had j u r i s d i c t i o n . i n United court the currency seizure to the 2100974 In this case, adoptive-seizure fruition. there i s no e v i d e n c e indicating that the p r o c e s s was e v e r b e g u n , much l e s s b r o u g h t t o A BPD o f f i c e r p r o v i d e d the affidavit from which t h e Jefferson D i s t r i c t Court issued the warrant, which stated the BPD was t o h o l d "until further order County, Alabama." report, t w o BPD issue. The money drug-detecting any items from seized pursuant the D i s t r i c t According officers was to the discovered taken dog a l e r t e d t o the warrant Court DEA's and s e i z e d t o t h e BPD's Jefferson investigative t h e money a t At that l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r who h a d b e e n d e p u t i z e d sealed of facility, on t h e money. t h e money i n an e n v e l o p e a n d d e p o s i t e d that where a point, a a s a DEA i t with agent t h e DEA. T h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was a d e c i s i o n made by any s t a t e or l o c a l officials that p o s s i b l e u n d e r s t a t e l a w o r ... t h a t them to transfer the matter federal administrative to "forfeiture i t [was] a d v a n t a g e o u s t o federal evidence district circuit indicating that attorney, court, authorities forfeiture proceeding." 3 d a t 258 ( a n d a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d t h e r e i n ) . no t h e BPD, the Jefferson o r any other state 12 [was] n o t agent G r e e n , 55 S o . Likewise, there i s the Jefferson County for a district or o f f i c i a l County court filed or a 2100974 request is no f o r t h e DEA t o a d o p t t h e s e i z u r e . evidence agency" d e c i d e d whether evidence money indicating about because the m o n e y i n t h e DEA the money t o a bank States Marshal. actions adoptive-seizure fact, that federal one p e r s o n , overnight John Walker, insufficient doctrine to i s applicable deposited later items u n t i l agent. that the i n this case. In t h e money i n t h e of the Jefferson further took establish that depositing d r o p b o x was a v i o l a t i o n other seized of the T h e c h e c k was t h e n g i v e n t o a f e d e r a l are The made o u t t o t h e U n i t e d C o u r t ' s command t h a t l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s and federal "control" drop box and then and had a check the evidence indicates overnight "the appropriate there to accept or reject the request. submitted indicates came Walker's that In addition, District h o l d t h e money order from t h e c o u r t . "'The [ s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t ] m o v a n t h a s t h e i n i t i a l burden o f making a prima f a c i e showing t h a t there i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t ; i f t h e m o v a n t makes t h a t s h o w i n g , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f each element o f t h e c l a i m c h a l l e n g e d by t h e movant.' H a r p e r v . W i n s t o n C o u n t y , 892 S o . 2 d 3 4 6 , 3 4 9 ( A l a . 2004) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . However, i f t h e movant does not s a t i s f y h i s i n i t i a l burden, ' t h e n he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t . No d e f e n s e t o a n i n s u f f i c i e n t showing i s r e q u i r e d . ' Ray v. M i d f i e l d Park, I n c . , 293 A l a . 6 0 9 , 6 1 2 , 308 S o . 2 d 6 8 6 , 688 (1975) (emphasis added)." 13 2100974 White Sands 1054-55 L.L.C. record i n this matter vested issued 739 2d a t 51-52. So. evidence federal from or which had that jurisdiction to I I , LLC, fact the and ruling that property 998 as So. 2d 1042, jurisdiction a Court, state matter case; court thus that we argues the the money at Alexander's a complaint claim for to a seeking judgment of the court was barred known as t h e n o n c l a i m s a 14 a court erred tort in of h i s claim. to the m u n i c i p a l i t y found by § 11-47-23, A l a . Code statute. as of city. the return of i t sa c c r u a l , the c i r c u i t court action issues the c i r c u i t conversion, of t o meet i t s no g e n u i n e circuit c l a i m had not been p r e s e n t e d divested failed conclude that the sufficient that been entitled that Garrett, law, a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r also of the over had were of of the c i t y there see to present jurisdiction Therefore, s i x months Alexander's that District failed i t was asserted Because that find, that i n entering Alexander indicates city obtained i n this matter of law. also The of demonstrating material within case by t h e J e f f e r s o n court issue erred PRS i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t upon t h e i s s u a n c e warrant burden v. ( A l a . 2008). The this Group, that 1975, 2100974 The any nonclaims claim torts against shall be statute provides, a municipality presented to in pertinent for the damages g r o w i n g clerk for or the claim accrual thereof, be of nonclaims claim For against purposes the a municipality that out municipal w i t h i n s i x months from the barred. part, i s defined of payment statute, shall a tort as: "Any c l a i m a g a i n s t a g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y , f o r m o n e y damages o n l y , w h i c h any p e r s o n i s l e g a l l y e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r as damages c a u s e d by b o d i l y i n j u r y or property damage c a u s e d by a n e g l i g e n t o r w r o n g f u l a c t o r o m i s s i o n c o m m i t t e d by any employee of the governmental e n t i t y w h i l e a c t i n g w i t h i n the scope of his employment, under circumstances where the g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y , i f a p r i v a t e p e r s o n , w o u l d be l i a b l e to the claimant f o r s u c h damages u n d e r the laws of the State of Alabama." § 11-93-1(5), A l a . Here, Code Alexander's property. The 1975. complaint complaint does damages f o r b o d i l y i n j u r y not allege bodily the rem not proceeding Bingham, (stating and So. that money s e i z e d 3d the at not or return an at a traffic claim s t o p was of Green, an 55 seeking i n rem money i t does Because this in seized for damage. sounding action 15 a of h i s property, and claimant's return damage; i n d e e d , property action ; the assert or p r o p e r t y injury Alexander seeks only seeks i s an tort. See So. 3d the return or quasi in at in 265 of rem 2100974 action). Because Alexander's complaint does not s t a t e a c l a i m s u b j e c t t o t h e n o n c l a i m s s t a t u t e , § 11-47-23 in this So. 2d case. 1225, sovereign 1227 Dep't (stating o f Pub. that Safety, 883 the d o c t r i n e i n a p p l i c a b l e to the p l a i n t i f f ' s t h e s e i z u r e and r e t e n t i o n o f h i s c e l l u l a r personal physical return of the seized Accordingly, Alexander's items, not the c i r c u i t complaint was damages court barred of claim telephone d o c u m e n t s " b e c a u s e t h e p l a i n t i f f was " s e e k i n g conversion"). that ( A l a . 2003) i m m u n i t y was "regarding and C f . Gore v. Alabama i s not a p p l i c a b l e for the their erred in ruling the nonclaims by statute. For the reasons circuit court further proceedings set forth i s reversed, Alexander's and above, this consistent with request f o r an the judgment this the i s remanded cause of for opinion. attorney fee on appeal is denied. R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Moore, Bryan and Thomas, J . , concur. J J . , concur i n the writing. Pittman, J . , dissents, with 16 writing. result, without 2100974 PITTMAN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . This appeal requires this principles 3d 256 we s e t out (Ala. Civ. -- which search dealt and pursuant main to my and property ("DEA") -- answers between property there seized Bingham, during [Ms. 2012) a warrantless Enforcement when p r o p e r t y t r a n s f e r r e d to i n the seized three So. f e d e r a l Drug the inquiry the 55 ( A l a . C i v . App. seized during are parte 3d later property of Montgomery, Ex also apply that judgment, and t r a n s f e r r e d to and distinction City So. a warrant opinion warrant 2009), 2012] with later Administration i n G r e e n v. App. 2 1 0 0 6 7 6 , J a n u a r y 6, court to determine whether the not to The drawing to a warrantless distinction; therefore, I respectfully DEA. negative, pursuant reasons is seized a a search search. draw In such a dissent. I First, 2-93, this court Ala. Code 1975, "neither expressly law-enforcement federal Notably, determined nor agency authorities," subsection (d) the i n Green, statute applicable impliedly prohibits from 55 of transferring So. 3d at supra, 261 a that § to 17 seizures, state or local seized property (emphasis § 20-2-93 makes i t c l e a r 20¬ to added). that the 2100974 statute applies to without property a warrant. The main "taken or detained" opinion does with not c i t e or § 20-2- 93(d). II. The b a s i s f o r t h e m a i n o p i n i o n ' s d e c i s i o n t o r e v e r s e t h e summary City") judgment i n favor i s unclear. a transfer of the City t o t h e DEA o f t h e p r o p e r t y s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e s e a r c h r e s i d e n c e was i n v a l i d b e c a u s e i t was a c c o m p l i s h e d (stating overnight Court's and (emphasis suggests the that without seized items added)). until On Birmingham P o l i c e Department the cash in a c t o r , then DEA w i t h o u t So. 3d the of the J e f f e r s o n f u r t h e r order hand, process " a d o p t i v e - f o r f e i t u r eprocess") state the the other that i fa particular of law a court order. "depositing d r o p b o x was a v i o l a t i o n as a m a t t e r command t h a t l a w - e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s other ("the On o n e h a n d , t h e m a i n o p i n i o n i m p l i e s t h a t of E r n e s t Alexander's at of Birmingham (which had been [DEA] District h o l d t h e money from the court" t h e main opinion i tdesignates as f o l l o w e d by t h e ("BPD") o r some o t h e r nonjudicial t h e p r o p e r t y c o u l d have been t r a n s f e r r e d t o a court order. 18 2100974 A. The requirement recognized that, legislated that property stated unlike there of some a court other states, be a " j u d i c i a l i s delivered to t h e DEA order. In Green, Alabama turnover under § we has not order" before 20-2-93(d). We that "subsection (d)(3) [ o f § 20-2-93, which p e r m i t s a s t a t e , county, or m u n i c i p a l law-enforcement agency t o ' t a k e c u s t o d y o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d remove i t t o an appropriate l o c a t i o n f o r d i s p o s i t i o n i n accordance w i t h l a w ' ] does n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A l a b a m a l a w . C f . D e S a n t i s v . S t a t e , 384 Md. 6 5 6 , 8 66 A . 2 d 143 (Md. C t . App. 2005) (holding that a Maryland f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o t h e Alabama f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e does n o t r e q u i r e s t a t e and l o c a l officials to obtain a judicial turnover order before d e l i v e r i n g c u r r e n c y t o t h e DEA)." 55 nor In S o . 3d a t 2 6 1 . The m a i n o p i n i o n d o e s n o t c i t e does i t o v e r r u l e Green o r d i s a v o w t h e r e a s o n i n g fact, holding the § t h e main opinion cites that a j u d i c i a l language turnover of the search 20-2-93(d), of Green. no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e i m p l i e d order i s required other warrant itself. The m a i n opinion states: "The search warrant [which commanded the BPD o f f i c e r s t o s e i z e d e s i g n a t e d p r o p e r t y and t o 'hold i t u n t i l f u r t h e r order from the D i s t r i c t Court of Jefferson County, Alabama,'] corresponds to the directive o f § 15-5-14, [ A l a . Code 1975,] which provides: 19 than 2100974 the officer effecting warrant must r e t a i n t h e p r o p e r t y i n possession, subject to the order of c o u r t t o w h i c h he i s r e q u i r e d t o r e t u r n proceedings or of the court i n which offense i s t r i a b l e i n respect to which p r o p e r t y was t a k e n . " So. 3d a t . Actually, restrictive 93(d). "hold the than The language "retain order search whereas the search of e i t h e r warrant the s e i z i n g until further order 15-5-1 requires § or a of an action overturned trial by court warrantless search § 20-2-93(d), once later grants Further, [issuing] officer to" a trying the court to to later related I submit t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between that, a the subject an a c t i o n w h o s e p e r f o r m a n c e i s f o r b i d d e n w i t h o u t and officer the s e i z i n g i n h i s possession, court i s more § 15-5-14 o r § 20-2- directs issuing criminal offense. the warrant the property of of the language [the property] [c]ourt," the his the the the the a performed, court motion order, to in a criminal is subject suppress the order to as, f o r example, being when a of a fruits case. s e c t i o n 1 5 - 5 - 1 4 m u s t be r e a d which provides, a court i n conjunction i n pertinent part: " P r o p e r t y t a k e n o r d e t a i n e d u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n .. . i s deemed t o be i n t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e s t a t e , c o u n t y or m u n i c i p a l law enforcement agency s u b j e c t o n l y t o 20 with 2100974 the orders and judgment of the court having j u r i s d i c t i o n over the f o r f e i t u r e proceedings. When p r o p e r t y i s s e i z e d under t h i s chapter, the state, county or m u n i c i p a l law enforcement agency may: "(1) Place the property " ( 2 ) Remove t h e d e s i g n a t e d by i t ; under property seal; to a place "(3) Require the state, county or m u n i c i p a l law enforcement agency t o take c u s t o d y o f t h e p r o p e r t y a n d remove i t t o an appropriate location for disposition in accordance w i t h law " As the emphasized property has language been seized during a warrantless the custody a court scheme § 20-2-93(d) (whether pursuant search), that property of law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s , order. thus c o n t r o l over reading in allows state statutory officials evident f r o m a mere set aside order. s t a t u t o r y w a r r a n t - a n d - f o r f e i t u r e scheme d i s t i n g u i s h e s case F.2d warrant broader being court search to warrant-and-forfeiture t h a n m i g h t be the in manner of e x e r c i s i n g c o n t r o l i s , however, s u b j e c t t o upon a l a t e r of i t i s subject or The 966 language warrant case. this the a i s d e e m e d t o be but law-enforcement seized property to once in this Our of Alabama's indicates, from 989 Scarabin v. Drug Enforcement (5th C i r . 1992), the primary 21 Administration, a u t h o r i t y upon w h i c h 2100974 Alexander acquired relies for his jurisdiction state-issued argument by and (b) r e l i n q u i s h e d such the Circuit the state court "had the U n i t e d S t a t e s Court determined statute that that, under e x c l u s i v e c o n t r o l over of i s s u i n g the search warrant 993. never The virtue that procured of (a) property for at court his In S c a r a b i n , F.2d state over jurisdiction. 966 the warrant search Fifth that of Appeals Louisiana the r e s by the s e i z e d c o u r t b a s e d i t s d e c i s i o n on the a law, virtue funds." Louisiana provided: "'When p r o p e r t y i s seized pursuant to a search w a r r a n t , i t s h a l l be r e t a i n e d u n d e r t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e j u d g e . I f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y i s n o t t o be u s e d [ a s ] evidence o r i s no l o n g e r n e e d e d a s e v i d e n c e , i t s h a l l be d i s p o s e d o f a c c o r d i n g t o l a w , u n d e r the d i r e c t i o n of the judge.'" Id. at 994 emphasis added). disposition judge" of (quoting The Louisiana imposes a sine-qua-non that 15-5-14 o r § 20-2-93. allow transfer later Code o f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y be seized property 2-93 La. the subject does j u d i c i a l order. Proc. Ann. "under the d i r e c t i o n c o n d i t i o n upon the not being of exist seized overturned i n the property upon C f . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 22 art. s t a t u t o r y requirement R e a d i n c o n j u n c t i o n , §§ transfer to Crim. the 167; that of the disposition language of 15-5-14 and but make issuance § 20¬ that of a $490,920 i n U n i t e d 2100974 States Currency, (declining property to 911 the motion government and property B. to the the compliance of the property with had custody denied property to for f r o m whom i t h a d that a court local official possible under federal the matter administrative official Green, or that ... to been process. required seized pursuant with i t s suggestion process" i t [was] requested So. 3d that at the 23 258), DEA transfer (a) that [was] adopt that the a not advantageous authorities (b) by concludes "'forfeiture federal The order i s indicating that of seized). forfeiture proceeding,'" 55 federal return main o p i n i o n evidence decided [Alabama] law transfer (quoting no the s u f f i c i e n t to allow The federal district the "adoptive-forfeiture to f e d e r a l agents. or to is inconsistent seized to state over cross-motion m i g h t be presented local physical 1996) over judicial-forfeiture the city ... a warrant the state a (S.D.N.Y. t r a n s f e r to f e d e r a l agents of p r o p e r t y nonjudicial state actors that the 723-24 jurisdiction court parties with of i n the main o p i n i o n a state-issued that turn granted Compliance implication for had to state to 720, federal transfer because attorney's the Supp. exercise despite authorities, F. for a 3d at state or So. a seizure, and 2100974 (c) that opinion the DEA holds a c c e p t e d the that "the request. city failed Accordingly, to meet the i t s burden d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t t h e r e w e r e no i s s u e s of genuine f a c t " whether obtained ... "the federal [whether] because the the city court state had had been presented no evidence a d o p t i v e - f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e s s "was to fruition." So. Notwithstanding prescriptive outlined one can a infer, the agents residence cross-deputized DEA, case. Nevertheless, failing to that events facts that and b y t h e DEA to the that nonjudicial actors main only of a BPD years e a r l i e r c a r r i e d out by forfeiture that see participated compliance property court ... or jurisdiction" main o p i n i o n order 55 the with So. 3d as court at force 258, of BPD search the officer treats Green task of had been t r a n s f e r r e d the funds in fact, who followed fault this city for be i f , as a l s o i n d i c a t e d i n the will a process the in can seized pursuant 24 the in i t i s i n c o n s i s t e n t to a to i n d i c a t i n g that a joint s u c h a p r o c e s s was, demonstrate opinion, the d e s c r i p t i v e terms, DEA as . of the of of e v e r b e g u n , much l e s s b r o u g h t fact that from and Alexander's at sequence in purely officers 3d jurisdiction divested main authorize to that an a warrant. adoptive I have 2100974 no problem authorize with a requirement an a d o p t i v e forfeiture of whether the p r o p e r t y or seized requirement court. that only a court of property -- search, to a that but I think warrant such s h o u l d be m a n d a t e d b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , At present, there i s no s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t will irrespective has been s e i z e d pursuant i n a warrantless order n o t by a this i n § 20-2-93. III. Finally, I differentiate, warrantless Making believe i t f o r purposes searches property and seized i s searches d o c t r i n e than property warrantless pursuant searches, an thereby to search a to between warrant. more easily v i a theadoptive-forfeiture seized pursuant officers policy forfeiture, i n a warrantless t o f e d e r a l agents law-enforcement public of adoptive transferrable give bad t o a warrant will only i n c e n t i v e t o conduct more undermining the Fourth Amendment. Based on the foregoing reasons, judgment o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t 25 Court. I would affirm the

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.