Tobias Anjuan Payne v. City of Decatur

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 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, 2012-2013 2110919 Tobias Anjuan Payne v. C i t y o f Decatur Appeal from Morgan C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-900423) PITTMAN, Judge. Tobias Anjuan Payne a p p e a l s favor o f the C i t y o f Decatur action officer affirm. seeking the return o f t h e Decatur f r o m a summary judgment i n ("the C i t y " ) i n h i s q u a s i i n rem o f $36,030 s e i z e d Police Department f r o m h i m b y an ("the DPD"). We 2110919 F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 0 6 , o f f i c e r A r c h i e L e t s o n , a member o f t h e DPD, p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a r a i d o r g a n i z e d by t h e Morgan C o u n t y Drug T a s k F o r c e a t a r e s i d e n c e i n D e c a t u r . Upon e n t e r i n g t h e r e s i d e n c e , t h e members o f t h e t a s k f o r c e e n c o u n t e r e d other i n d i v i d u a l s . Payne and D u r i n g a pat-down s e a r c h o f Payne, Morgan C o u n t y s h e r i f f ' s d e p u t i e s s e i z e d $3,605 f r o m P a y n e ' s p o c k e t s . Payne was detained obtained a warrant Payne's r e s i d e n c e . in police custody while Officer Letson from the Decatur M u n i c i p a l Court t o search Upon e x e c u t i o n o f t h a t w a r r a n t , officers d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g c o c a i n e t r a f f i c k i n g and c r a c k c o c a i n e p r o d u c t i o n and $36,030 i n c a s h . t h e c a s h and, s e v e r a l d a y s l a t e r , S t a t e s marshal O f f i c e r Letson seized transferred i t to a United at the request of S p e c i a l Agent Fred Gasbarro o f t h e Drug E n f o r c e m e n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ("the DEA"), who a l s o been i n v e s t i g a t i n g Payne f o r i l l e g a l drug activities. On F e b r u a r y 28, 2007, c i v i l - f o r f e i t u r e i n rem were commenced i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Northern District o f Alabama against d i s c o v e r e d a t Payne's r e s i d e n c e served w i t h the f o r f e i t u r e District proceedings Court $36,030 ("the p r o p e r t y " ) . complaint 2 the on A p r i l had 3, f o r the in cash Payne was 2007. On 2110919 S e p t e m b e r 16, 2009, Payne, a c t i n g t h r o u g h c o u n s e l , withdrew h i s c l a i m t o t h e p r o p e r t y and consented t o i t s f o r f e i t u r e . September 23, 2009, the federal d e f a u l t judgment o f f o r f e i t u r e . district court entered On a On A p r i l 26, 2010, t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a r s h a l ' s o f f i c e made p a y m e n t s t o t a l i n g $15,727.42 t o t h e DPD, p u r s u a n t t o " e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g " p r o g r a m s o f t h e DEA. On November 9, 2 0 1 1 , Payne f i l e d Court ("the t r i a l seeking 1 DeSantis / o 0 0 5 )N (2 n n c . court") a i n t h e Morgan complaint the return of the property. against 1 Circuit the City, Payne a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e "[T]he A t t o r n e y General of the United States i s authorized t o cooperate with local and s t a t e p o l i c e departments i n combating the traffic of c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s and i n s u p p r e s s i n g drug abuse. See 21 U.S.C. § 873. To f a c i l i t a t e s u c h c o o p e r a t i o n , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of Justice has e s t a b l i s h e d so-called ' e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g programs' whereby l o c a l o r s t a t e o f f i c i a l s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e DEA a d o p t t h e s e i z u r e o f a n d commence f e d e r a l forfeiture proceedings against property s u b j e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e u n d e r 21 U.S.C. § 881. A f t e r the f e d e r a l f o r f e i t u r e process has been completed and t h e property f o r f e i t e d t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e DEA disburses a large portion of the f o r f e i t e d p r o p e r t y back t o t h e l o c a l or s t a t e law e n f o r c e m e n t a u t h o r i t y , minus a d m i n i s t r a t i v e e x p e n s e s . See 21 U.S.C. § 8 8 1 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . " v. State, 384 Md. 656, 660, 866 A . 2 d 143, 145-46 3 2110919 property 1975, had been seized pursuant t o § 20-2-93, A l a . Code a n d t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e t u r n o f t h e p r o p e r t y because no initiated dismiss state forfeiture proceeding had been The C i t y as r e q u i r e d b y § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) . the complaint and a t t a c h e d relating t o t h e i n rem f o r f e i t u r e district promptly moved t o t o i t s motion court. Payne f i l e d proceeding documents i n the f e d e r a l a response t o the C i t y ' s motion, asserting t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t c o u l d n o t v a l i d l y have assumed i n rem jurisdiction over the property because, he insisted, the p r o p e r t y was s u b j e c t t o t h e p r e e x i s t i n g i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the s t a t e c o u r t by v i r t u e o f t h e w a r r a n t i s s u e d t o s e a r c h h i s residence. Payne a t t a c h e d t o h i s r e s p o n s e t h e s e a r c h the a f f i d a v i t f o r the warrant, warrant, a n d t h e r e t u r n on t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e warrant. The had trial presented, pleadings, for court n o t i f i e d the p a r t i e s t h a t , because and i t had c o n s i d e r e d , matters they outside the i t w o u l d t r e a t t h e C i t y ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s as one a summary judgment. summary judgment. granted the C i t y ' s Payne Following motion filed a for a 4 a cross-motion hearing, summary for a the t r i a l court judgment, denied 2110919 Payne's m o t i o n , subject-matter and dismissed jurisdiction, Payne's c o m p l a i n t for lack of s t a t i n g the f o l l o w i n g : "[T]he court has reviewed the pleadings, the e v i d e n t i a r y m a t e r i a l s , and t h e l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s and a l s o has c o n s i d e r e d t h e arguments of c o u n s e l . T h e r e a r e no g e n u i n e i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l d i s p u t e d f a c t . [ P a y n e ] f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n f o r r e t u r n o f s e i z e d p r o p e r t y (money) a f t e r a U n i t e d States District C o u r t had already acquired and e x e r c i s e d i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n and had e n t e r e d an o r d e r t h a t condemned and f o r f e i t e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n question. As a m a t t e r o f l a w , t h i s c o u r t has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action." Standard of Review "An o r d e r g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i s r e v i e w e d de novo, a p p l y i n g t h e same s t a n d a r d as the trial c o u r t a p p l i e d . A m e r i c a n Gen. Life & A c c i d e n t I n s . Co. v. Underwood, 886 So. 2d 807, 811 (Ala. 2 0 0 4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , ' [ t ] h i s c o u r t r e v i e w s de novo a t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e , because o n l y a q u e s t i o n of law i s p r e s e n t e d . ' S c o t t B r i d g e Co. v. W r i g h t , 883 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Ala. 2003) . Where, as h e r e , t h e f a c t s o f a c a s e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y undisputed, t h i s C o u r t must d e t e r m i n e whether the t r i a l c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d the law t o the undisputed f a c t s , a p p l y i n g a de novo s t a n d a r d of review. C a r t e r v. C i t y o f H a l e y v i l l e , 669 So. 2d 812, 815 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . " Continental 1034-35 Nat'l Indem. Co. v. ( A l a . 2005). 5 Fields, 926 So. 2d 1033, 2110919 Discussion In a l l m a t e r i a l r e s p e c t s , t h i s case i s i d e n t i c a l t o E r v i n v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 3d ( A l a . 2013) . search [Ms. 1101555, M a r c h 22, 2013] Ervin's So. c a s h was s e i z e d p u r s u a n t to a w a r r a n t i s s u e d by a s t a t e c o u r t ; t h e m u n i c i p a l police d e p a r t m e n t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e c a s h t o t h e DEA; t h e U n i t e d States f i l e d a complaint of the cash; i n federal d i s t r i c t court seeking Ervin was f o r f e i t u r e proceeding; served with notice forfeiture of the f e d e r a l E r v i n moved t o w i t h d r a w h i s c l a i m f o r the cash and c o n s e n t e d t o i t s f o r f e i t u r e ; t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t court entered a final judgment forfeiting the cash to the United States; the m u n i c i p a l i t y u l t i m a t e l y r e c e i v e d a share of the c a s h p u r s u a n t t o DEA's " e q u i t a b l e Ervin subsequently court seeking filed a complaint sharing" p r o g r a m ; and i n an A l a b a m a circuit t h e r e t u r n o f t h e c a s h a n d a d v a n c i n g t h e same a r g u m e n t s t h a t Payne h a s a d v a n c e d h e r e . In E r v i n , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d favor of the m u n i c i p a l i t y , concluding a summary j u d g m e n t i n "that the federal d i s t r i c t c o u r t had ' p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n ' over the cash because transferring § the 20-2-93 cash to d i d not prohibit the United 6 States the City i n order from to 2110919 institute forfeiture Supreme Court action [seeking collateral by o f Alabama the So. 3d a t affirmed, return of stating the cash] a t t a c k i n s t a t e c o u r t on a f i n a l a federal forfeited proceedings." court. property, ... As the successor In that rejecting Ervin's arguments seized pursuant to a state search that The "Ervin's amounts to a judgment entered in title to the the [municipality] i s e n t i t l e d j u d i c a t a b e n e f i t o f t h a t f i n a l judgment." . to theres So. 3d a t . the cash h a d been w a r r a n t and t h a t municipal law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s had i m p r o p e r l y t r a n s f e r r e d the cash to f e d e r a l o f f i c i a l s , stated: o u r supreme c o u r t "Even i f a l l t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s were c o r r e c t , t h e y amount o n l y t o an a t t a c k on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t court t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e r e s i n an i n rem a c t i o n , n o t an a t t a c k on t h e subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n of the f e d e r a l court over a f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n brought under f e d e r a l law. As s u c h , t h e y come t o o l a t e a n d a r e b e i n g a d v a n c e d i n t h e wrong c o u r t . See P o r s c h e C a r s N o r t h A m e r i c a , I n c . v. P o r s c h e . n e t , 302 F.3d 248, 256 ( 4 t h C i r . 2002) (distinguishing between objections to subject-matter jurisdiction and o b j e c t i o n s t o a c o u r t ' s e x e r c i s e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e r e s i n an in rem a c t i o n , a n d e x p l a i n i n g t h a t , as w i t h i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' i n ... c i v i l forfeiture c a s e s , f o r y e a r s c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n may be w a i v e d ' a n d c i t i n g c a s e s in s u p p o r t ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. N i n e t e e n Thousand E i g h t H u n d r e d F i f t y F i v e ($19,855.00) D o l l a r s i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y [Ms. 2:12-CV-14 6-WKW, Nov. 19, 2012], F. Supp. 3d , n.6 a n d 7 2110919 a c c o m p a n y i n g t e x t (M.D. A l a . 2012) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t o b j e c t i o n s t o i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n may be w a i v e d i f not t i m e l y a s s e r t e d ) . " Ervin, So. 3d a t (emphasis added). B a s e d on t h e a u t h o r i t y o f E r v i n , we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t of the t r i a l court. notwithstanding had That court reached the r i g h t the f a c t that i tmistakenly concluded that i t "no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h i s after "a U n i t e d exercised States District i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n Court had ... and h a d e n t e r e d condemned and f o r f e i t e d t h e p r o p e r t y result, action" acquired an o r d e r and that i n question." "An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t when t h e t r i a l court has r e a c h e d t h e r i g h t the wrong r e a s o n . However, t h i s the 'wrong r e a s o n ' p r e v e n t e d a p a r t y from p r o p e r l y his case or p r e j u d i c e d h i s r i g h t s . " v. HealthSouth Corp., (citation omitted). 979 r u l e should result for So. In the present 2d action. Payne p r e v e n t e d i n any way rights 8 784, 796 ( A l a . 2007) for dismissing Payne's a r g u m e n t , and he was from p r e s e n t i n g prejudiced. presenting case, the C i t y argued the o f r e s j u d i c a t a as a b a s i s to that where L l o y d N o l a n d Found., I n c . doctrine responded not apply not h i s c a s e ; n o r were h i s 2110919 We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s m i s t a k e n c o n c l u s i o n that i t lacked subject-matter in rem action was mostly j u r i s d i c t i o n over Payne's q u a s i likely d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e Bingham, So. 3d prompted by this court's [Ms. 2100676, J a n u a r y 6, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . I n Bingham, we 2012] issued a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t " t o dismiss at f o r lack of subject-matter jurisdiction," So. 3d , the c l a i m a n t s ' a c t i o n seeking the r e t u r n of cash t h a t had been seized from them, transferred f o r f e i t e d to the United States. court h a d no subject-matter quasi i n rem action acquired (and exercised) claimants' property proceeding 3d a t As We c o n c l u d e d jurisdiction "[b]ecause in to the of the jurisdiction at the time the claimants i n t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t , " and that the c i r c u i t a federal court rem DEA, claimants' had already over the f i l e d an i n rem Bingham, So. . E r v i n makes clear, however, this court employed an incorrect subject-matter-jurisdiction rationale for granting the p e t i t i o n due t o be "entitled and i s s u i n g the w r i t ; dismissed, the claimants' a c t i o n was i n s t e a d , b e c a u s e t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y was to the res j u d i c a t a b e n e f i t " of the f e d e r a l court's 9 2110919 final judgment of court e m p l o y e d t h e p r o p e r r a t i o n a l e , i t w o u l d have concluded that the right City dismissal of judicata. a the So. Montgomery claimants' had a to petition dismiss Ex p a r t e LCS, 3d for a on writ . legal the of C i v . App. In order basis of on the doctrine 3d 55, 56 to res is review of the 12 So. this mandamus a l s o Ex p a r t e Ocean R e e f D e v e l o p e r s I I , LLC, (Ala. Had ... predicated Inc., at clear complaint method by w h i c h t o s e e k motion judicata." See of "[A] appropriate of forfeiture. an denial of res (Ala. 2008). 84 So. 3d 900 2011). to reconcile d e c i s i o n i n E r v i n , we our recent caselaw with the d i s a v o w t h e r a t i o n a l e o f B i n g h a m and we a c c e p t t h e C i t y ' s i n v i t a t i o n t o o v e r r u l e A l e x a n d e r v. C i t y o f Birmingham, Alexander, Circuit 99 So. the 3d claimant C o u r t on been s e i z e d officers of (Ala. filed M a r c h 26, t h a t had the 1251 an 2011, f r o m him Civ. action seeking and App. in 2012). the the Jefferson return of t r a n s f e r r e d to the Birmingham P o l i c e Department. The district final judgment forfeiting he argued, the federal cash to the United entered a States, but, 10 by claimant on had 2010, cash DEA acknowledged t h a t p r e v i o u s l y , court A u g u s t 10, In a federal the court 2110919 had no a u t h o r i t y t o e x e r c i s e i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n because the s t a t e c o u r t h a d h a d p r e e x i s t i n g i n rem j u r i s d i c t i o n of i t s having execution court the warrant f o r the search r e s u l t e d i n the s e i z u r e of the cash. entered Birmingham. judgment, present issued a summary judgment i n favor sufficient that The whose circuit of the C i t y A m a j o r i t y of t h i s court concurred concluding by v i r t u e of to reverse the the m u n i c i p a l i t y had "failed to e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t o f i n d , as a m a t t e r o f law, t h a t t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t had o b t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e money a t i s s u e o r t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t h a d b e e n d i v e s t e d o f jurisdiction." 99 erroneously permitted state on a f i n a l and court d i d not give So. 3d at 1256. the claimant's "collateral judgment e n t e r e d the C i t y That Ervin, So. 3d a t attack i n by a f e d e r a l c o u r t " of Birmingham "the res j u d i c a t a b e n e f i t " o f t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t ' s f i n a l judgment o f See conclusion forfeiture. . Conclusion Based trial on the a u t h o r i t y of E r v i n , t h e judgment of the court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 11 without writing.

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.