Michael Joe Green, Johnny James Brown, and Aletha Johnson v. City of Montgomery, J.J. Allen, and Henry Davis

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/16/2011 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100713 M i c h a e l Joe Green, Johnny James Brown, and A l e t h a Johnson v. C i t y o f Montgomery, J . J . A l l e n , and Henry Davis Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-06-3237.80) THOMAS, J u d g e . M i c h a e l J o e G r e e n , J o h n n y James Brown, a n d A l e t h a J o h n s o n (hereinafter appeal favor from referred collectively t o as " t h e c l a i m a n t s " ) a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t of the City o f Montgomery and J . J . A l l e n Court i n and Henry 2100713 D a v i s , o f f i c e r s e m p l o y e d by t h e Montgomery P o l i c e (hereinafter We referred r e v e r s e and to c o l l e c t i v e l y as Department "the d e f e n d a n t s " ) . remand. T h i s i s t h e s e c o n d t i m e t h i s m a t t e r has b e e n b e f o r e court. of t h i s We this r e c i t e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g f a c t s and p r o c e d u r a l h i s t o r y case i n G r e e n v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009), 1 City o f Montgomery, 55 So. 3d 256 thusly: "On December 6, 2006, Montgomery p o l i c e o f f i c e r s s t o p p e d t h e c l a i m a n t s as t h e y were t r a v e l i n g t h r o u g h Montgomery on I n t e r s t a t e 65. While i s s u i n g the claimants a speeding t i c k e t , the o f f i c e r s s m e l l e d a s t r o n g m a r i j u a n a o d o r and n o t i c e d a l a r g e amount o f c a s h i n a b a g on t h e f l o o r b o a r d b e h i n d t h e p a s s e n g e r s e a t . When a s k e d how much money was i n t h e b a g , t h e c l a i m a n t s r e s p o n d e d , ' a b o u t $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 . ' The o f f i c e r s a s k e d f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e , and t h e c l a i m a n t s d i d not respond. The o f f i c e r s o r d e r e d a K-9 u n i t t o t h e s c e n e t o c o n d u c t an o p e n - a i r s e a r c h . The s e a r c h r e s u l t e d i n a p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f marijuana i n the passenger door. The o f f i c e r s t h e n conducted a f u l l search of the v e h i c l e t h a t produced a s m a l l amount o f m a r i j u a n a and a d d i t i o n a l c a s h . The o f f i c e r s s e i z e d t h e m a r i j u a n a and a l l t h e c a s h , t o t a l i n g $32,353. J o h n n y James Brown, t h e c l a i m a n t c l o s e s t t o t h e m a r i j u a n a , was c h a r g e d w i t h u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of marijuana i n the second degree, a m i s d e m e a n o r . See § 13A-12-214, A l a . Code 1975. I n G r e e n , t h e c i t y o f Montgomery was i d e n t i f i e d as t h e o n l y a p p e l l e e . However, t h e summary j u d g m e n t a t i s s u e i n G r e e n , w h i c h t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d , was a c t u a l l y e n t e r e d i n 1 2 2100713 "The difference between first-degree and second-degree u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n i s whether the marijuana i s f o r p e r s o n a l use. I d . Despite having c h a r g e d Brown w i t h t h e l e s s e r , p e r s o n a l - u s e o f f e n s e , the C i t y [ o f Montgomery] t r a n s f e r r e d t h e seized currency to the federal Drug Enforcement A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ('DEA') p u r s u a n t t o an a r r a n g e m e n t w h e r e b y t h e C i t y w o u l d r e c e i v e 80% o f t h e money and t h e DEA w o u l d r e t a i n 20% o f t h e money as a f e e . T h i s p r o c e s s i s known as ' a d o p t i v e s e i z u r e . ' See 21 U.S.C § 881 ( 2 0 0 2 ) . "The a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e p r o c e s s b e g i n s when s t a t e o r l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s s e i z e p r o p e r t y as p a r t o f a c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n or a r r e s t . G e n e r a l l y , the s t a t e o r l o c a l o f f i c i a l s e i t h e r make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t f o r f e i t u r e i s 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 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g . See I.R.S. M a n u a l 9.7.2.7.3 ( J u l y 25, 2 0 0 7 ) ; A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e Law, P r a c t i c e , and P o l i c y , A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e O f f i c e , 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) a t 38 ( c i t e d i n J o h n s o n v. J o h n s o n , 849 P.2d 1361, 1363 ( A l a s k a 1 9 9 3 ) ) . Once s t a t e o r l o c a l o f f i c i a l s have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t an adoptive seizure i s advantageous, they file a request with federal a u t h o r i t i e s . The a p p r o p r i a t e f e d e r a l agency then d e c i d e s whether t o a c c e p t or r e j e c t the request. I f the a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e request i s accepted, the p r o p e r t y i s taken i n t o the custody of federal agents and federal administrative f o r f e i t u r e proceedings begin. At the s u c c e s s f u l c o n c l u s i o n o f t h o s e 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. " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e s e i z u r e o c c u r r e d on December 6, 2006. The C i t y f i l l e d o u t t h e r e q u i s i t e forms t o b e g i n the a d o p t i v e - s e i z u r e p r o c e s s on December 27, 2006. D u r i n g t h e t i m e t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e T r e a s u r y was r e v i e w i n g t h e 3 2100713 C i t y ' s adoptive-seizure request, the claimants f i l e d a ' C o m p l a i n t and M o t i o n f o r R e l e a s e and R e t u r n o f S e i z e d Money' i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t on December 29, 2006. The DEA f o r m a l l y a d o p t e d t h e s e i z u r e on J a n u a r y 11, 2007, a n d U n i t e d States M a r s h a l s t o o k c u s t o d y o f t h e money on J a n u a r y 23, 2007. "One week l a t e r , t h e C i t y removed t h e c l a i m a n t s ' c i r c u i t court a c t i o n t o f e d e r a l court t o address the claimants' Fourteenth Amendment claim. The claimants subsequently amended t h e i r complaint, d e l e t i n g t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment c l a i m and a s k i n g t h a t t h e c a s e be remanded t o t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t Court. The c a s e was remanded on A p r i l 17, 2007. However on F e b r u a r y 7, 2007, w h i l e t h e c a s e was s t i l l i n f e d e r a l c o u r t , t h e c l a i m a n t s were n o t i f i e d of t h e DEA forfeiture proceeding and made no response. " W i t h t h e c a s e b a c k i n t h e Montgomery Circuit C o u r t , t h e c l a i m a n t s f i l e d on A p r i l 26, 2007, a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e i r case; the c i r c u i t court g r a n t e d t h e m o t i o n t h e same day. A r g u i n g t h a t t h e y had made a c l e r i c a l e r r o r i n t h e c a p t i o n and t h a t t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d have been s t y l e d as a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e s u b s t a n c e o f the motion, the c l a i m a n t s convinced the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o r e i n s t a t e t h e c a s e on A u g u s t 3, 2007. In the period between the dismissal and the reinstatement o f t h e c l a i m a n t s ' a c t i o n , t h e DEA deposited the seized currency in the Asset F o r f e i t u r e Fund. "On A p r i l 24, 2008, t h e C i t y f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t no l o n g e r h a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s e i z e d c u r r e n c y . The c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e C i t y ' s m o t i o n on May 13, 2008. The c l a i m a n t s f i l e d a t i m e l y p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d on September 3, 2008. The c l a i m a n t s f i l e d a t i m e l y n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h t h i s c o u r t on O c t o b e r 15, 2008." 4 2100713 55 So. 3d a t 258-59. In Green, t h i s in s t a t e c o u r t was invoked state government court held that "[t]he claimants' an in i n rem rem attempted to or q u a s i i n rem jurisdiction acquire action a c t i o n , and i t before the jurisdiction." federal Id. at 265. A c c o r d i n g l y , b e c a u s e we h e l d t h a t t h e Drug E n f o r c e m e n t A g e n c y ("the we DEA") had n e v e r a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e r e v e r s e d t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n favor of the court to "so the d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t the s e i z u r e and On remand, probable remanded t h e claimants may cause to the a s s e r t any and f o r f e i t u r e under s t a t e law." the claimants summary j u d g m e n t , a r g u i n g had currency, moved the trial a l l defenses Id. court (1) t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s had cause t o s e i z e the currency and (2) trial for lacked t h a t the State f a i l e d to promptly f i l e a f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n regarding currency, 2 defendants thereby, the to the return claimants currency said, to the requiring claimants. a the the The The S t a t e , not the C i t y , i s the p a r t y w i t h s t a n d i n g t o i n i t i a t e a f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o § 20-2-93, A l a . Code 1975. See S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1025, 1027-28 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a t § 20-2-93 i n c o r p o r a t e s t h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t o u t i n § 28-4-286 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f y i n g t h a t a d r u g - r e l a t e d f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n i s t o be f i l e d i n t h e name o f t h e S t a t e ) . 2 5 2100713 defendants opposed judgment, a r g u i n g pursuant the claimants' motion that the currency for a summary had been v a l i d l y t o § 20-2-93, A l a . Code 1975, a n d t h a t seized the a c t i o n f i l e d b y t h e c l a i m a n t s met t h e r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r t h a t s t a t u t e that the State file defendants argued, currency. The a the trial forfeiture action court proceeding sought denied because, disposition the claimants' the of the summary- judgment m o t i o n . The trial complaint, the court held a hearing on t h e c l a i m a n t s ' a t which i t heard ore tenus evidence. hearing, on J a n u a r y 26, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l judgment i n f a v o r trial later court of the defendants. Following court entered In i t s judgment, t h e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e defendants had had cause t o s e i z e t h e c u r r e n c y . The t r i a l a probable court also determined t h a t t h e s e i z e d c u r r e n c y had been t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e C i t y t o t h e DEA, t h a t t h e c u r r e n c y h a d t h e n b e e n t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y the United States Marshals Service, and t h a t t h e DEA c o n d u c t e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g , in by had resulting the f o r f e i t u r e of the currency. The the t r i a l claimants filed a postjudgment motion, arguing that c o u r t had n o t a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e whether t h e S t a t e 6 2100713 had promptly filed a forfeiture p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n was d e n i e d 59.1, A l a . R. C i v . P. this action. The claimants' by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . See R u l e The c l a i m a n t s subsequently appealed to court. The tenus trial court entered i t s judgment a f t e r hearing ore evidence. "'"'[W]hen a trial court hears ore tenus testimony, i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d f a c t s are p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So. 2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) . '"The p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e and may be overcome where t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence presented to the t r i a l court to s u s t a i ni t s j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v. Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77, 79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s of law or the i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n of law t o the f a c t s . ' Waltman v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086." R e t a i l D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f Inc., 985 court reviews Childree, So. 2d 924, 929 questions ( A l a . 2007). of 972 So. 2d 771, 778 law de Additionally, this novo. (Ala.2006)("This 7 Club, See Wright Court v. accords 2100713 the t r i a l court's ruling a q u e s t i o n of no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as law."). On a p p e a l , t h e c l a i m a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e t r i a l by not ordering the claimants say, forfeiture return proceedings The to trial judgment whether the State of the failed pursuant currency to court erred because, promptly t o § 20-2-93. court did not specifically the State had promptly 3 filed We institute agree. state a the in its forfeiture a c t i o n o r w h e t h e r t h e c u r r e n c y had b e e n f o r f e i t e d u n d e r s t a t e law; however, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d s t a t e t h a t the currency had The c l a i m a n t s c o u c h p a r t o f t h e i r a r g u m e n t on a p p e a l as a c h a l l e n g e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e i r summaryjudgment m o t i o n . 3 " ' [ W ] e do n o t r e v i e w a t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f a s u m m a r y - j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f o l l o w i n g a t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . See G r a y s o n v . H a n s o n , 843 So. 2 d 146 ( A l a . 2002); Superskate, I n c . v. N o l e n , 641 So. 2d 231, 233 ( A l a . 1 994); see a l s o L i n d v. U n i t e d Parcel S e r v i c e , I n c . , 254 F.3d 1281, 1283-84 (11th C i r . 2 0 01).'" B e i e r s d o e r f e r v. H i l b , R o g a l & H a m i l t o n Co., 953 So. 2d 1196, 1205 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g M i t c h e l l v. F o l m a r & A s s o c s . , LLP, 854 So. 2d 1115, 1116 (Ala. 2003)). A f t e r denying the c l a i m a n t s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g and t h e n e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e . T h e r e f o r e , we w i l l a d d r e s s o n l y t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t was i n e r r o r , n o t w h e t h e r i t s h o u l d have 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 t h e c l a i m a n t s . 8 2100713 been forfeited through t h e DEA's administrative-forfeiture proceedings. In Green, their we d e t e r m i n e d complaint that, i n the t r i a l when t h e c l a i m a n t s court, the t r i a l filed c o u r t had a c q u i r e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the currency, thereby e x c l u d i n g the DEA from Because and exercising because Green, 55 So. 3d a t 265. c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n the t r i a l jurisdiction. over the currency, concurrent prohibited, jurisdiction i d . a t 259, any a t t e m p t e d c o n d u c t e d b y t h e DEA was i n e f f e c t u a l . the trial forfeiture the over the currency i s forfeiture proceeding I d . a t 265. Therefore, c o u r t c o u l d n o t have r e l i e d on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g c o n d u c t e d b y t h e DEA t o d e t e r m i n e c u r r e n c y had been Although the that forfeited. trial court erred in relying on the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e - f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g c o n d u c t e d b y t h e DEA t o d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e c u r r e n c y had been f o r f e i t e d , affirm the t r i a l t h i s c o u r t may c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on any v a l i d l e g a l ground. See Unum L i f e I n s . Co. o f A m e r i c a v . W r i g h t , 897 So. 2d 1059, 1082 (Ala. 2004)(quoting Chevrolet, turn General Motors Corp. v. Stokes I n c . , 885 So. 2d 119, 124 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n Liberty Nat'l Life I n s . Co. v . U n i v e r s i t y 9 o f Alabama 2100713 H e a l t h S e r v s . Found., P.C., 881 ("'This a trial valid [ c ] o u r t may legal whether ground that rejected, affirm by presented ground the was trial So. 2d 1013, by 1020 court's the court."'"). j u d g m e n t on record, considered, or ( A l a . 2003)) regardless even i f Therefore, t u r n to the q u e s t i o n whether the currency has "any of been was will we i t now forfeited p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f § 20-2-93. The c u r r e n c y was 2-93(a)(9), type whatsoever obtained law which of defendants state f o r f e i t u r e may p r o p e r t y was the or seizure of indirectly, pursuant to § "[a]ll or d e r i v e d concerning s e i z e d the which provides, enforcement allows constituting, directly, this subject to f o r f e i t u r e property from, f r o m any any pursuant to § be s e i z e d w i t h o u t p r o c e s s has probable used or i s intended controlled-substances of c o n t r o l l e d substances." currency laws. cause t o be The subject to i f the " m u n i c i p a l law to that the used i n v i o l a t i o n of" believe S e c t i o n 20-2-93(c) under s u b s e c t i o n 10 any 20-2-93(b)(4), provides t h a t , " [ i ] n the event of s e i z u r e pursuant to s u b s e c t i o n t h i s s e c t i o n , proceedings any proceeds violation i n pertinent part, that property agency of 20- (b) o f (d) o f t h i s s e c t i o n 2100713 [ i.e., forfeiture proceedings ] shall be instituted promptly." As 566 this c o u r t e x p l a i n e d i n S t a t e v. C h e s s o n , 948 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2006): "'"The mandate i n [§ 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975,] t h a t f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s be i n s t i t u t e d p r o m p t l y i s necessary to the s t a t u t e ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . " ' Adams v. S t a t e ex r e l . W h e t s t o n e , 598 So. 2d 967, 969 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) ( q u o t i n g R e a c h v. S t a t e , 530 So. 2d 40, 41 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . Furthermore, a forfeiture proceeding that is not instituted p r o m p t l y i s i n e f f e c t u a l . Adams, 598 So. 2d a t 969. 'The t e r m " p r o m p t l y " has b e e n c o n s t r u e d t o mean within a reasonable time i n l i g h t of a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s . ' S t a t e v. $17,636.00 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y , 650 So. 2d 900, 901 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . "This Court has addressed the issue of p r o m p t n e s s u n d e r t h i s s t a t u t e . I n W i n s t e a d v. S t a t e , 375 So. 2d 1207 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 9 ) , and E l e v e n A u t o m o b i l e s v. S t a t e , 384 So. 2d 1129 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), this Court ruled that instituting f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s t h r e e and o n e - h a l f weeks and four weeks, respectively, after a seizure is p e r m i s s i b l y p r o m p t . T h i s C o u r t has a l s o h e l d t h a t a 14-week d e l a y b e t w e e n t h e s e i z u r e and t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g was n o t e x c e s s i v e . Moynes v. S t a t e , 555 So. 2d 1086, 1088-1089 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989). However, i n Adams, 598 So. 2d a t 969, t h i s C o u r t f o u n d t h a t a d e l a y o f 10 weeks b e t w e e n t h e s e i z u r e o f t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s d i d n o t meet t h e p r o m p t n e s s r e q u i r e m e n t o f § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, when t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d no r e a s o n f o r t h e d e l a y . T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t , w i t h o u t l e g i s l a t i v e g u i d a n c e , 'the f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h c a s e may c a u s e [the] i s s u e [ o f p r o m p t n e s s ] t o be d e c i d e d on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s . ' Adams, 598 So. 2d a t 970." 11 2d 2100713 948 So. 2d a t 568-69. State, 845 So. I n $3,011 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y 2d 810, 814 s t a t e d t h a t , " [ a ] s the Floyd, 667 So. 2d ( A l a . C i v . App. Supreme C o u r t 56 2002), t h i s noted ( A l a . 1995),] '[w]hat cases addressing the 7 t o 10 months, i s s u e . ' 667 So. court i n L i g h t f o o t [v. i s "prompt" d e c i d e d on t h e f a c t s o f a g i v e n c a s e , b u t a f a i r l y frame,' i . e . , l e s s than v. short time ' i s e v i d e n t from 2d at 66 is the (collecting cases)." In t h i s c a s e , t h e d e f e n d a n t s s e i z e d the c u r r e n c y from the c l a i m a n t s on December 6, 2006 -- more t h a n the i t s judgment d e n y i n g t r i a l court entered complaint seeking the f o u r - y e a r p e r i o d , the r e t u r n of State never r e l a t i n g to the currency. the DEA, filed During a forfeiture proceedings action i n state court. the therefore, ineffectual. forgive currency. claimants' this action conducted by on the under the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t i t d i d not need t o f i l e a forfeiture Green, the before Presumably, the S t a t e , r e l y i n g administrative-forfeiture was the four years the DEA its lacked However, jurisdiction over administrative-forfeiture G r e e n , 55 So. State's delay 3d a t 264-65. in filing 12 a as we held the currency; proceeding E v e n i f we forfeiture in was were t o action in 2100713 state court u n t i l which we held forfeiture after that we r e l e a s e d o u r o p i n i o n i n G r e e n , i n t h e DEA's proceeding was attempted ineffectual, administrative- we still conclude t h a t t h e S t a t e had promptly i n s t i t u t e d action relating between t h i s entry t o the currency. court's judgment. that the State i n s t i t u t e d during that period. the State forfeiture 18 months passed c o u r t ' s r e l e a s e o f o u r o p i n i o n i n Green and t h e of the t r i a l indicating Over a could not at this There i s no e v i d e n c e a forfeiture proceeding Thus, a n y f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g time would undeniably requirement i n § 20-2-93(c) "promptly." t o meet t h e See C h e s s o n , 948 So. 2d a t 568-69. Because currency t h e DEA when i t attempted a forfeiture currency, currency. to jurisdiction conduct instituted over the administrative- and because t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r o m p t l y proceeding the claimants Therefore, t h e a c t i o n be d i d n o t have f o r f e i t u r e proceedings, file that fail f i l e d by i n state court are e n t i t l e d we r e v e r s e to a related t o the return of the t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t a n d remand t h e c a u s e t o t h a t c o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o enter a judgment i n f a v o r o f t h e c l a i m a n t s . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 13 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.