Michael Joe Green, Aletha Reynolds, and Johnny James Brown v. City of Montgomery (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-06-3237) Application For Rehearing Overruled.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/25/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2009 2080048 M i c h a e l Joe Green, A l e t h a Reynolds, and Johnny James Brown v. C i t y o f Montgomery Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-06-3237) Court On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . On ("the application f o r rehearing, the C i t y o f Montgomery C i t y " ) t a k e s i s s u e w i t h o u r h o l d i n g t h a t t h e Montgomery Circuit Court acquired i n rem o r q u a s i i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n 2080048 when M i c h a e l Joe Brown ("the Return of Green, Aletha claimants") f i l e d a proposition 1030, and "Complaint Seized Property" i n that M a d e w e l l v. Downs, 68 F.3d the Reynolds, court. Johnny James f o r Release The City and cites 1043-44 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 9 5 ) , f o r that " [ a ] m o t i o n f o r r e t u r n o f p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o Mo. Rev. S t a t . § 542.301 i s more a n a l o g o u s t o a m o t i o n f o r r e t u r n o f p r o p e r t y p u r s u a n t t o Fed. R. C r i m . P. 41(e) t h a n t o a s t a t e f o r f e i t u r e o r o t h e r i n rem p r o c e e d i n g . ... [ a n d ] an a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o F e d . R. C r i m . P. 41(e) does n o t d e p r i v e t h e DEA o r t h e federal court of jurisdiction over a civil forfeiture action." Initially, we note that Madewell i s an anomaly among f e d e r a l c a s e s t h a t have a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d by appeal. at See o u r o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l submission, ( q u o t i n g D e S a n t i s v. S t a t e , 384 Md. 143, 148 (Md. Ct. App. 2005)). this So. 656, 664, 866 Moreover, the 3d A.2d Madewell is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because the c l a i m a n t i n Madewell sought r e t u r n of the p r o p e r t y i n the m o t i o n t h a t was, c o n t e x t of motion criminal case, via a as t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e E i g h t h C i r c u i t o b s e r v e d , more l i k e P., a o r what we suppress" the evidence. a R u l e 4 1 ( e ) , Fed. R. i n Alabama would See R u l e 3.13, C o m m i t t e e Comments t h e r e t o . 2 call Crim. a "motion A l a . R. C r i m . P., to and 2080048 "'In c o n t r a s t t o the i n personam n a t u r e o f c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s , a c t i o n s i n rem have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been viewed as c i v i l proceedings, with jurisdiction d e p e n d e n t upon seizure of a p h y s i c a l o b j e c t . ' [ U n i t e d S t a t e s v. One A s s o r t m e n t o f ] 89 F i r e a r m s , [465 U.S. 354] a t 363 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] , c i t i n g C a l e r o - T o l e d o [v. P e a r s o n Y a c h t L e a s i n g C o . ] , 416 U.S. [663] a t 684 [ ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] ." U n i t e d S t a t e s v. U r s e r y , 518 U.S. The a p p l i c a t i o n Thompson, P.J., 267, 289 (1996). for rehearing i s overruled. and Pittman, concur. 3 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

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.