Ex parte Efe' Dangerfield et al. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CIVIL (In re: Forrest Frost et al v. Efe' Dangerfield et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/14/2010 N o t i c e : This 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 before 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1090276 Ex p a r t e E f e ' D a n g e r f i e l d e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Forrest Frost et a l . v. Efe' Dangerfield et a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-900923) WOODALL, J u s t i c e . Efe' Dangerfield, Lisa Charles Crumbley, defendants Circuit Court, directing petition t h e Montgomery this McKnight, Carol i n an a c t i o n Court Circuit and i n t h e Montgomery f o ra writ Court Murphy, t o grant o f mandamus their motion 1090276 to dismiss subpoenas and deny the complaint issued Factual August Montgomery (2) i n the case. We grant to quash the p e t i t i o n i n part i ti n part. I. On or, i n the alternative, 6, Circuit Forrest and P r o c e d u r a l Background 2009, a complaint was C o u r t by ( 1 ) Crown M o t o r s , Frost, a director, shareholder, filed i n the Inc. ("Crown"); and o f f i c e r of C r o w n ; a n d i n d i v i d u a l s who w e r e e m p l o y e e s o f C r o w n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e e v e n t s made t h e b a s i s o f t h i s Hatcher, (4) D o n a l d R e u g e r , Schoonover. Hatcher, action, (5) K e v i n Reuger, namely, ( 3 ) Marie Roden, Roden, and a n d (6) T h e r e s a Schoonover were " s e r v i c e a d v i s o r , " " s e r v i c e manager," "body-shop manager," and "office manager defendants f o r t h e body i n the complaint Alabama Department o f Revenue Carol Murphy, Use, and (2) S p e c i a l Business Investigations complaint Crown located Tax sells and certain Named a s officials of the ( " t h e D e p a r t m e n t " ) , n a m e l y , (1) Agent E f e ' D a n g e r f i e l d , Director the following new i n Gadsden, were Supervisor Divisions contained shop," r e s p e c t i v e l y . used Anniston, Lisa 2 McKnight, Charles factual and Crumbley. (4) The allegations: automobiles and F o r t (3) S a l e s , at Payne. dealerships The Gadsden 1090276 dealership two years this On the on behalf sales-tax morning of May Frost. the of For events the approximately made t h e Department, 14, 2009, Dangerfield the p r e m i s e s of Crown's Gadsden a r o u n d n o o n on May 14, governmental Federal the a p p r o x i m a t e l y 35 agencies, had of been including obtained representatives the According to the Department of and premises complaint: "The a g e n t s s e a l e d o f f e v e r y e n t r a n c e / e x i t way with law e n f o r c e m e n t v e h i c l e s and roped o f f the areas with yellow tape. The a g e n t s , a r m e d w i t h f i r e a r m s , s t o r m e d t h e two s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s l o c a t e d on the car l o t . The agents announced t h e i r purpose and ' c o r r a l l e d ' everyone i n t o the f r o n t p o r t i o n of the main b u i l d i n g of the dealership. This included e m p l o y e e s and customers present a n y w h e r e on the premises. O f f i c e p e r s o n n e l were s e g r e g a t e d from everyone e l s e . Females were not a l l o w e d to b r i n g t h e i r p u r s e s w i t h t h e m . No one was p e r m i t t e d t o u s e a c e l l phone or t e l e p h o n e . The agents refused to allow anyone to contact the owner Mr. Frost. E v e r y o n e was t o l d that they could leave only a f t e r t a l k i n g t o an a g e n t . Employees were not permitted to leave f o r lunch. Roden o r d e r e d p i z z a f o r the employees from a local restaurant. Roden was escorted o u t s i d e by a g e n t s t o t h e p i z z a d e l i v e r y v e h i c l e , w h e r e t h e p i z z a was s e a r c h e d b y t h e a g e n t s b e f o r e t h e p i z z a was p e r m i t t e d i n t o t h e d e a l e r s h i p . 3 a dealership. B u r e a u o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n , c o n v e r g e d on t h e Gadsden d e a l e r s h i p . basis reports. search various of Murphy, Crown's warrant to the o p e r a t e d by immediately preceding action, auditing At i s owned and 1090276 "17. The a g e n t s o b t a i n e d e v e r y o n e ' s name and contact information. With the employees and d e a l e r s h i p management s t i l l c o r r a l l e d i n t h e f r o n t of the showroom, the interviews began. Each i n d i v i d u a l was questioned separately in a private o f f i c e i n the back of the b u i l d i n g . I n d i v i d u a l s who needed t o use the restroom were e s c o r t e d by an agent. "18. A f t e r s e v e r a l h o u r s and a f t e r t h e a g e n t s and officers had obtained the information they wanted, the detainees were informed that a l l employees except office personnel could leave; however, once they left they could not return. S t i l l , b e f o r e a n y o n e was p e r m i t t e d t o e x i t t h e l o t , their motor v e h i c l e was stopped by two state troopers who asked i f there was any 'illegal contraband or paperwork' i n the v e h i c l e . Schoonover was forced to open p e r s o n a l correspondence for i n s p e c t i o n by the state troopers before she was a l l o w e d to leave the premises. "19. A l t h o u g h a l l o f t h e e m p l o y e e s and c u s t o m e r s at the d e a l e r s h i p t h a t m o r n i n g were i n f a c t in c u s t o d y and were h e l d i n c o m m u n i c a d o and n o t f r e e t o l e a v e , no one was informed o f any constitutional right. E v e r y o n e b e l i e v e d t h a t e a c h had t o answer t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r ' s q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e t h e y w o u l d be permitted to leave. "20. During the time the 'house arrest' c o n t i n u e d , c u s t o m e r s were u n a b l e to get t h e i r c a r s r e p a i r e d or s e r v i c e d . W i t h o n l y one exception, c u s t o m e r s were not even p e r m i t t e d a c c e s s to t h e i r v e h i c l e s w h i c h were r e a d y f o r p i c k u p . During the t i m e o f t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e , t h e e n t i r e daily b u s i n e s s o f C r o w n was s h u t d o w n . In a d d i t i o n , the Department s e i z e d v i r t u a l l y every scrap of paper, e v e r y c o m p u t e r and e v e r y f l a s h d r i v e . " 2 1 . The D e p a r t m e n t r e m o v e d e n o u g h d o c u m e n t s a n d f i l i n g c a b i n e t s t o f i l l a t l e a s t two R y d e r [ b r a n d 4 1090276 rental] trucks placed into a vehicle]." and s e v e r a l v a n s . C h e v r o l e t Suburban (Footnote omitted.) A few days later, Computers were [sport-utility the Department o b t a i n e d and e x e c u t e d a n o t h e r s e a r c h w a r r a n t a t t h e Gadsden Pursuant to this main b u i l d i n g On June warrant, a l l documents of the d e a l e r s h i p 3, 2009, Crown were i n the s e i z e d documents. filing, asserting to associate the district attempts The "attempted t h e r e was i t . When C r o w n "no to with were sued Count 1 that Dangerfield, (alleging their same authority, under seeking the r e t u r n mistaken in order counts. file official the which motion in i n bad deny the defendants capacities. rights) alleged Crumbley and "acted faith, interpretation 5 the A l l the and Murphy, to case" with of response. maliciously, a to of due-process McKnight, wantonly, for c o u r t of Etowah County, i t s individual a violation willfully, intentionally," the c o n t a i n e d 11 i n both the a Motion file pending attempted c o u r t and t h e c i r c u i t complaint of However, the Department d i s a l l o w e d that w e r e met attic seized. Return of P r o p e r t y " w i t h the Department, the dealership. of beyond the law, "plaintiffs their and their 1090276 contractual and property rights without C o m p e n s a t o r y damages were Count brought 2 (alleging s o l e l y on sought unlawful behalf of and Process count search of F r o s t the defendants "acted w i l l f u l l y , faith, under Due of law." 1. and was It alleged Crown. seizure) that wantonly, m a l i c i o u s l y , i n bad beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , under a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the law, and destroying conducting an dealership. the denying and for ... unlawful Relief damages, illegally Frost's search sought punitive purpose in and of count and 3 alleged contractual Crown. Under punitive and the 2 interfering Crown's of in the compensatory of a l l property intentional interference with business r e l a t i o n s and that damages, count, and "return rights" premises included with, seized." Count damages, of was Crown brought sought "return of s o l e l y on behalf compensatory of damages, a l l property illegally and was brought that the defendants seized." Count behalf of 4 alleged Crown. conversion It alleged willfully, wantonly, maliciously, authority, under a mistaken i n bad faith, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the 6 solely "acted beyond law on and their for 1090276 the purpose "virtually of converting every scrap flash drive within of Crown's paper, property," every i t spossession." computer Relief that and a l lp r o p e r t y Count brought 5 illegally (seeking on b e h a l f every sought under count 4 i n c l u d e d c o m p e n s a t o r y damages, p u n i t i v e damages, and of i s , "return converted." return of chattels in specie) was o f Crown and s o u g h t t h e r e c o v e r y o f Crown's property. Count brought "all 6 (class on b e h a l f others defendants claims alleging unlawful similarly "acted was Roden, Schoonover, of Hatcher, Reuger, detention) and situated." willfully, It wantonly, alleged that maliciously, in the bad f a i t h , beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, Hatcher, Reuger, situated." damages class and for the Roden and Relief and claim sought punitive alleging purpose of falsely Schoonover under damages. false and count Count arrest, 7 6 imprisoning others was compensatory contained and similarly count a similar 8 alleged conspiracy. Count 9 sought a judgment declaring w a r r a n t s under which the Department 7 (1) t h a t the search conducted the searches of 1090276 the premises any e f f e c t w h a t s o e v e r and were i s s u e d w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y and i n violation of the d e a l e r s h i p of omissions" the were defendants' Crown's l a w " ; (2) or omissions interfered and (4) t h a t similarly Count Reuger, and "defendants' of contractual/property Hatcher, the void, violation " c o n s t i t u t [ e d ] the f a l s e search that "null, in acts relationships; of were the law; rights acts and that (3) with without the and and denied business the defendants' acts or omissions i m p r i s o n m e n t , d e t a i n m e n t , and a r r e s t Roden, and Schoonover and a l l others situated." 10 s o u g h t warrants," to enjoin as w e l l "the enforcement as a l l f u r t h e r o f any actions future i n alleged v i o l a t i o n of the p l a i n t i f f s ' r i g h t s i n contract, property, and liberty. Finally, behalf c o u n t 11 o f Crown o n l y . (request I t sought, pursuant R . C r i m . P., the return the dealership. Gadsden f o r return of property) of a l l property Rule 3.13 to Rule that was provides, was 3.13, A l a . removed in from pertinent part: "A p e r s o n aggrieved by an u n l a w f u l search and s e i z u r e may move t h e c o u r t f o r t h e r e t u r n o f t h e property s e i z e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t he o r s h e i s e n t i t l e d to l a w f u l possession of the property which 8 on 1090276 was illegally seized. The judge shall receive e v i d e n c e on any i s s u e of fact necessary to the d e c i s i o n of the m o t i o n . I f the motion i s granted, the p r o p e r t y s h a l l be restored. I f a motion of r e t u r n o f p r o p e r t y i s made o r comes on f o r h e a r i n g after an indictment or i n f o r m a t i o n is filed, i t shall be treated also as a motion to suppress evidence." On August directing bring the with 20-21, 2009, defendants the to plaintiffs appear for issued subpoenas depositions, and to them: "1. Any and a l l d o c u m e n t s , n o t a t i o n s , m e m o r a n d [ a ] , data entries, e-mails, reports, video recordings, audio recordings, i n t e r v i e w notes, and a l l A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f R e v e n u e p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h were u s e d d u r i n g the past f i v e years to conduct searches and s e i z u r e s f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s , a n d / o r any t y p e o f business. ... "2. Any and a l l d o c u m e n t s , n o t a t i o n s , m e m o r a n d [ a ] , data e n t r i e s , e-mails, r e p o r t s , t e x t messages, photographs, video recordings, audio r e c o r d i n g s , and i n t e r v i e w n o t e s , g e n e r a l l y and s p e c i f i c a l l y , f o r t h i s case. ... "3. A c o p y o f any and a l l e - m a i l s s e n t , o r r e c e i v e d b y , a n y a n d a l l g o v e r n m e n t e m p l o y e e s who were part of the planning, conducting and/or implementation of the search and seizure o p e r a t i o n s w h i c h o c c u r r e d d u r i n g 2009 a t Crown Motors, I n c . , Gadsden, AL." On September dismiss the R. P. Civ. 1, complaint, The same 2009, the defendants filed a p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) and day, the defendants 9 filed a motion to (2), A l a . motion to 1090276 quash t h e subpoenas. denied both Circuit referred Court quash November t o as seeking a writ the of immunity'" (Ala. [Ms. 1 0 8 0 9 8 1 , "A "the petitioners") against to dismiss reviewable October writ writ that on i m m u n i t y filed them on this various motion issue only i s to upon "The b u r d e n of establishing sought with Prop. Ex parte a clear , drastic a a showing ___ . the a compel r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o the immunity rests claim So. 3d mandamus will on a b y mandamus. 16, 2009] of grounds "'grounded legal Metropolitan the defendants Immunity of a motion i s properly extraordinary relief court or, i n the alternative, to grant t h e i r 2009). judgment the t r i a l subpoenas. denial Simpson, 19, 2009, the claims II. The 1 5 , 200 9, o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g t h e M o n t g o m e r y to dismiss immunity grounds to October On motions. (hereinafter petition On and summary of a sought." clear I d . at legal right to the petitioner." Ex parte & C a s . I n s . C o . , 974 S o . 2 d 9 6 7 , 972 ( A l a . 2007). The "the claims of the p l a i n t i f f s respondents") are asserted 10 (hereinafter against referred t o as the petitioners in 1090276 both their official petitioners dismissal, agent rely and on namely, two types (1) a b s o l u t e Absolute State Discussion of State defendant i n any c o u r t 14. I t i s settled The grounds f o r i m m u n i t y a n d (2) S t a t e - State Dep't (Ala. 2002) their official State summarily through (a s u i t itself grant beyond c a v i l that official o f Human Patterson f o r damages the p e t i t i o n v. Gladwin official Corp., "[i]njunctive officials cannot Burgoon v. State officials an a c t i o n On t h i s in against b a s i s , we c a n as t o t h e d i s m i s s a l o f c o u n t s 1 those against Const. 1901, capacities. against and cannot proceed). as a c t i o n s example, State with the n e v e r b e made a Ala. c a p a c i t i e s i s , i n essence, i n their Claims R e s . , 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 2 - 3 3 counts seek damages from t h e capacities. However, c e r t a i n a c t i o n s a g a i n s t regarded shall of law or equity." 8 to the extent petitioners Official-Capacity o f Alabama s u e d f o r damages i n t h e i r Alabama For as immunity n e c e s s a r i l y begins "[t]hat the State the immunity State Immunity principle be of capacities. immunity. A. § individual the State State officials f o r purposes 835 S o . 2 d 1 3 7 , 142 o f § 14. (Ala. a c t i o n may b e m a i n t a i n e d 11 arenot 2002). against a 1090276 state official [in his o f f i c i a l a c t i n g beyond the St. Clair So. 2d actions [Ala. a Code how We will respectively, 1. § 287 address ... their 22 6, in turn and sovereign at 19. A 14 the 250 128 Judgments Act construction So. 9 and injunctive 296, prohibited i n a given counts contend that the of situation." 2d 10, 677 , which 67 9 seek, relief. afforded We may 9 "for acting in 20 (emphasis to f a l l w i t h i n the exception judgment at a l l circumvent state o f f i c i a l s capacities," petition, declaratory is, actions." Petition, agree. party count [respondents] to consequently, " f a i l s the p u r p o r t e d in as Declaratory seeking illegally." 294, regarded 230, immunity afforded representative from § Ala. is Relief petitioners a d d e d ) , and, 272 applied p u r p o s e s , m e r e l y an a t t e m p t b y the not seq.], be Ala. declaratory Declaratory The 6-6-220 e t i t should Graham, (1971). Also those "brought under the and v. Town o f R i v e r s i d e , (1961). 1975, statute Aland 334 are official scope of h i s a u t h o r i t y or a c t i n g C o u n t y v. 333, c a p a c i t y ] , i f the nature not characterize 'exceptions' of claims t o § 14 seeking 12 "claims as falling [when] t h e y a r e , damages." within in effect, Alabama Dep't of 1090276 Transp. v. 2008). There does not through Thus, 2. Harbert against "the t o be bases of -- enforcement ... of The their of Supplemental brief a t 7. the of We constitution "Sec. 42. departments has the duties of Our one except 831 , 844 under or count count more of -- 5 (Ala. seek 9 that counts 1 damages. dismissed. any petitioners to e n j o i n investigation capacities, 2d "declared" of Montgomery County exercise So. of the request i n count added.) proceeding 990 Relief essence (Emphasis the Inc., 9 s h o u l d have been Injunctive The form a l l of which count Court i s nothing also 8, Int'l, no 10 future i s an injunction search warrants." contend that jurisdiction [Department] falling "the in a officials within the enforcement of revenue petitioners in their Circuit ... civil from criminal laws." official agree. provides: Legislative, established. executive and judicial "The p o w e r s o f t h e g o v e r n m e n t of the State of Alabama shall be divided into three distinct d e p a r t m e n t s , e a c h o f w h i c h s h a l l be c o n f i d e d t o a s e p a r a t e body of m a g i s t r a c y , t o w i t : Those w h i c h a r e l e g i s l a t i v e , to one; those which are executive, to a n o t h e r ; and t h o s e w h i c h a r e j u d i c i a l , t o a n o t h e r . " 13 the 1090276 "Sec. 43. S e p a r a t i o n of Powers. "In the government of t h i s s t a t e , except i n the instances i n this Constitution hereinafter expressly d i r e c t e d or p e r m i t t e d , the l e g i s l a t i v e department shall never e x e r c i s e t h e e x e c u t i v e and judicial powers, or e i t h e r of them; the e x e c u t i v e s h a l l never e x e r c i s e the l e g i s l a t i v e and j u d i c i a l powers, or e i t h e r of them; t h e j u d i c i a l s h a l l n e v e r e x e r c i s e the l e g i s l a t i v e and e x e c u t i v e powers, o r e i t h e r o f t h e m ; t o t h e e n d t h a t i t may be a g o v e r n m e n t o f l a w s and n o t o f men." Ala. Const. The 1901, Department "charged with enforcing] Inc., 684 (emphasis is agency Alabama's So. 2d an and for [statutorily tax 1283, laws." 1287 The vacuum the City relief prosecution in futuro. constitute a clear branch v. [and M.A.D., See A l a . C o d e " t o s e r v e and (relating 1975, execute with A l a . Code 1975, § 15-5-1 e t s e q . law § 32¬ generally warrants). from To Mobile obtained i n accordance requested i n count exemption executive of s u p e r v i s i n g of designated purposes]." issuance of search -- of ( A l a . 1996). a l l search warrants See A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , the added). I t s agents have a u t h o r i t y any to 42-43 the g e n e r a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y § 40-2-11(1). 8-8. §§ 10 seeks criminal countenance intrusion 14 upon -- in a factual investigation such the a request authority of and would the 1090276 executive branch Consequently, all the count claims counts their B. the legal individual capacities, from (Ala. So. of 2000)." C r a n m a n , 792 are not 835 immunity majority in this and of constitution. 4, 5, property 11, short, against s h o u l d have to the from In complaint 3, the been extent those petitioners Individual-Capacity against stand 2d this So. in agents So. entitled 131, 405-06 Court 835 not i n Ex So. In their enjoy absolute Instead, capacities 133 restated (Ala. 2000), parte 2d Butts, a t 133. i f they 15 have the "enjoy (Ala. 2002). "The in [and] 775 Dep't law State of parte adopted So. "'acted only Ex U n d e r t h e Ex (Ala. 2000), restatement, immunity their B u r g o o n v. Alabama S t a t e succinctly 392, 2 d 392 to 2d do in ground. damages. individual Claims petitioners better seeking was Burgoon, the on State suits Human R e s . , C r a n m a n , 792 a forth immunity from s u i t . " qualified the capacities Department's agents i n t h e i r of of official claims capacities qualified 43 have been d i s m i s s e d . Immunity individual immunity § capacities. State-Agent The set counts return official of should in their except seek 10 t h a t were the p e t i t i o n e r s dismissed, in violation 2d by 173 parte agents willfully, 1090276 maliciously, fraudulently, Douglas], So. 874 exercising 2d [their] [1046], ... 2003)]." (Ala. bad 1052 faith,' [(Ala. Giambrone 2003), or Ex p a r t e H u d s o n , 866 vehicle motion by in the [1115, 1118 defense should Ex Retardation, because not 2d not the appropriate ... as be reserved 8 80 837 to until 2d 393, Alabama So. State-agent 2d question the 398 808, Ex of judgment State fact specific. See 908 (Ala. 2005); Ex p a r t e C i t y parte Alabama Retardation, supra. Also, 16 2d Dep't a stage, of (emphasis added) Mental agent set a t 205, of & This was forth so or was in the is generally So. Mental in reviewing is acting faith," o f T u s k e g e e , 932 Ex such Health manner So. ... p a r t e Alabama Dep't Mental i n the e x a m p l e s i n C r a n m a n , " H o w a r d , 887 of (Ala. 2002)). a 205 and summary-judgment 813-14 whether existence ( A l a . 2003) Dep't 201, immunity m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad " e x e r c i s i n g ... Mental the discovery.'" So. parte the "willfully, So. assert appropriate Youth Servs., (quoting 887 determination the to of Atmore, is typically to d i s m i s s which normally following City 2d not 2003). "'[A] Howard v. So. [v. '[were] judgment i n t h e manner s e t f o r t h examples i n Cranman.' (Ala. in the 2d 895, Health & grant or 1090276 denial of a motion to d i s m i s s , the q u e s t i o n the allegations the pleader's any set of circumstances Ex parte of favor, Alabama there has yet of defense, trial are i t appears of strongly in the that Youth been facts v i e w e d most could pleader that would e n t i t l e Matthews, development the complaint Dep't ( q u o t i n g Nance v. Because the " ' i s w h e t h e r , when Servs., 297, So. 2d (Ala. at 398 no discovery and, to State-agent-immunity the 299 relief.'" So. d i d not 2d 880 to 622 central court [him] prove therefore, e r r i n denying d i s m i s s the c l a i m s a g a i n s t the p e t i t i o n e r s 1993)). the motion in their no to individual capacities. The counts only 3, conclusion regards 5, 11 the in relief capacities officials official 2 6, to t h i s 4, petitioners such caveat 2010] and their from is act for individual State and capacities." So. 3d parte , the Dickson, (Ala. 17 is claims in from the request for property in "This represent Ex of capacities. officials meaningless. for return the A their so, State [Ms. 2010). individual because State only in their 1090111, March 1090276 III. Finally, erred the p e t i t i o n e r s i n denying among other Discovery their things, contend "[a]ny the t r i a l court t o quash subpoenas, which motion seek, and that a l l documents, notations, memorand[a], data e n t r i e s , e - m a i l s , r e p o r t s , v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s , audio and recordings, specifically [and] i n t e r v i e w for this notes" case, as prepared well as "generally " a l l Alabama Department o f Revenue p o l i c i e s , p r a c t i c e s and p r o c e d u r e s were used during the past seizures from According to the p e t i t i o n e r s , the individuals, respondents practices, found that and p r o c e d u r e s i n the Alabama things as t h e documents, by, 1975, listed among § However, they things, any have type has the petitioners 18 no and business." "policies, from Procedure." contend r e c o r d i n g s , and a r e p r o t e c t e d from the p r i v i l e g e 12-21-3.1. of and a p a r t of Criminal e-mails, searches already disclosed to Department i n the subpoenas other to conduct ... s e p a r a t e Rules a t 12. years and/or the brief, notes five which that those Reply such interview disclosure a f f o r d e d by A l a . Code 1090276 Section 12-21-3.1, which r e l a t e s to the enforcement o f f i c e r s pertinent and "subpoena of investigative reports," provides, part: "(a) Neither law enforcement i n v e s t i g a t i v e reports nor the testimony of a law enforcement o f f i c e r may be s u b j e c t t o a c i v i l o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s u b p o e n a e x c e p t as p r o v i d e d i n s u b s e c t i o n ( c ) . " ( b ) Law e n f o r c e m e n t i n v e s t i g a t i v e r e p o r t s a n d related investigative material are not public records. Law enforcement investigative reports, records, f i e l d notes, witness statements, and other i n v e s t i g a t i v e w r i t i n g s or r e c o r d i n g s are p r i v i l e g e d communications p r o t e c t e d from d i s c l o s u r e . " ( c ) U n d e r no c i r c u m s t a n c e may a p a r t y to a c i v i l ... p r o c e e d i n g d i s c o v e r m a t e r i a l w h i c h i s n o t a u t h o r i z e d d i s c o v e r a b l e by a d e f e n d a n t i n a c r i m i n a l matter. N o n c r i m i n a l p a r t i e s may u p o n p r o p e r m o t i o n and order from a court of record: Secure p h o t o g r a p h s , d o c u m e n t s and tangible evidence for examination and c o p y i n g o n l y by o r d e r o f a c o u r t i m p o s i n g s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a n d q u a l i f i c a t i o n s as may be necessary to p r o t e c t a chain of custody of evidence; or protect the prosecutors', law enforcement officers', or investigators' work product; or to p r e v e n t the l o s s or d e s t r u c t i o n of documents, objects, or evidence. Such discovery o r d e r may be i s s u e d b y a c o u r t o f r e c o r d u p o n p r o o f by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y w i l l suffer undue hardship and that the records, p h o t o g r a p h s or w i t n e s s e s are u n a v a i l a b l e from o t h e r reasonable sources. "(d) D i s c o v e r y o r d e r s p r i o r to the d i s p o s i t i o n of the c r i m i n a l matter under i n v e s t i g a t i o n are not f a v o r e d a n d s h o u l d be g r a n t e d o n l y u p o n s h o w i n g t h a t t h e p a r t y s e e k i n g d i s c o v e r y has s u b s t a n t i a l need o f t h e m a t e r i a l s and i s u n a b l e , w i t h o u t undue h a r d s h i p , 19 law in 1090276 to obtain means." (Emphasis The the substantial equivalent by other added.) scope o f d i s c o v e r y is c o n t r o l l e d by Rule in pertinent by a defendant 1 6 . 1 , A l a . R. C r i m . i n a c r i m i n a l case P., w h i c h provides, part: "(e) I n f o r m a t i o n n o t d i s c o v e r a b l e . E x c e p t as provided i n ( a ) , ( b ) , and ( d ) , t h e d i s c o v e r y or i n s p e c t i o n o f r e p o r t s , memoranda, w i t n e s s l i s t s , or o t h e r i n t e r n a l s t a t e / m u n i c i p a l i t y d o c u m e n t s made b y the p r o s e c u t o r or t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s agents, or by law enforcement agents, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of s t a t e m e n t s made b y s t a t e / m u n i c i p a l i t y w i t n e s s e s o r prospective state/municipality witnesses, i s not authorized." (Emphasis added.) Subsections (a), ( b ) , a n d (d) r e q u i r e t h e s h o w i n g o f "good c a u s e " by t h e d e f e n d a n t discovery of certain specified as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o materials. concede t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f § 12-21-3.1. The respondents Respondents' brief, at 25. A petition review to determine discretion matters, an f o r a w r i t o f mandamus i s t h e " p r o p e r means o f whether i n ordering a trial discovery, and i n i s s u i n g d i s c o v e r y abuse o f t h e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s 20 court has [exceeded]i t s i n resolving orders discovery ... s o a s t o by e i t h e r p a r t y . " prevent Ex p a r t e 1090276 Mobile To F i x t u r e & Equip. be entitled Co., suffer are See ( A l a . 2004) hardship and The showing "good (§ a l s o Ex have r e q u i r e d by notations, accumulated by the the t o be seeks ( A l a . 1993). of § 12-21-3.1, evidence, records, that photographs reasonable Sexton, requires sources." So. 2d 1251, "showing a 904 [he] of undue no allegation Rule much a or of the discovery of the and interview memoranda, during statute, less f o r the 16.1 the -- its notes investigation. court exceeded i t s d i s c r e t i o n motion to quash the subpoenas. in denying That o r d e r i s vacated. summary, the dismissal of petitioners also scope the r e q u i r e d by IV. In 360 other parte Department trial the p e t i t i o n e r s ' due that made as documents, Therefore, 358, unavailability"). of h a r d s h i p cause" and 12-21-3.1 respondents -- 2d substantial u n a v a i l a b l e from (Emphasis added.) 1252 "by undue h a r d s h i p or w i t n e s s e s So. to m a t e r i a l s w i t h i n the a p a r t y must d e m o n s t r a t e will 630 granted in to the petition a l l their Conclusion requests official extent is granted for capacities. to the extent i t damages from the The petition is i t seeks d i s m i s s a l of counts 21 9 and 1090276 10 i n their entirety. The p e t i t i o n 4, 5, a n d 11 t o t h e e x t e n t the p e t i t i o n e r s is the granted seek individual to the extent motion respects, i n their they that i s granted as t o c o u n t s return of property capacities. a vacatur the p e t i t i o n from The p e t i t i o n of the order t o quash t h e subpoenas i s r e q u i r e d . 3, denying In a l l other i s denied. P E T I T I O N GRANTED I N PART AND DENIED I N PART; WRIT I S S U E D . Cobb, C . J . , and S m i t h , Parker, 22 a n d Shaw, J J . , concur.

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.