Terry Surles, sheriff of St. Clair County; Richard J. Minor, district attorney of St. ClairCounty; and Bob Riley, Governor of the State of Alabama v. City of Ashville; AmericanLegion, Post 170; and Shooting Star Entertainment Group, LLC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL:01/14/2011 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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, 2010-2011 1080826 Terry S u r l e s , s h e r i f f o f S t . C l a i r County; R i c h a r d J . M i n o r , d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y o f S t . C l a i r County; and Bob R i l e y , G o v e r n o r o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama v. City o f A s h v i l l e ; A m e r i c a n L e g i o n , P o s t 170; and S h o o t i n g S t a r E n t e r t a i n m e n t Group, LLC 1081015 S t a t e o f Alabama v. City o f A s h v i l l e ; A m e r i c a n L e g i o n , P o s t 170; and S h o o t i n g S t a r E n t e r t a i n m e n t Group, LLC Appeals from St. C l a i r C i r c u i t (CV-08-382) On R e h e a r i n g Ex Mero Motu Court 1080826; PER 1081015 CURIAM. This and Court's opinion the following from a ruling of January i s substituted therefor. of the S t . C l a i r ordinance adopted regulating b i n g o games w i t h i n m o t u , we d i s m i s s by the 29, 2010, i s w i t h d r a w n , Circuit City of These a p p e a l s a r e Court upholding Ashville the City. ("the On r e h e a r i n g these appeals because there an City") ex mero i s no j u s t i c i a b l e controversy. Facts On (now July Local 22, money by certain " to the p r o v i s i o n s cities provided body and by nonprofit or other County governing No. History 542, A l a . Const. County, § 2 ( O f f . T h a t amendment, w h i c h a p p l i e s s t a t e s : "The o p e r a t i o n educational, Clair 1 9 9 2 , Amendment Amendments, S t . C l a i r was r a t i f i e d . County, and P r o c e d u r a l lawful This of bingo only games 1901 Recomp.)), to St. Clair for prizes or organizations for charitable, purposes be l e g a l authorization, shall however, i nSt. i s "subject of any r e s o l u t i o n o r o r d i n a n c e by t h e county or towns the governing within their law r e g u l a t i n g such g o e s on t o s p e c i f y t h e a u t h o r i t y 2 bodies of respective operation." the respective j u r i s d i c t i o n s as The amendment of these governing bodies to 1080826; 1081015 regulate bingo Act games. No. 91-710, Bingo A c t , " and an 1993, regulate Ala. Acts the operation Both as where numbers or numbers or On symbols City ordinance City. 22, definitions of No. other "bingo," machine bingo games provides a process Subsequently, and to city 93-687, A l a . A c t s games in "bingo St. a for acquiring American Clair Group, establish LLC such with bingo that entity no Post 170 to operate City ("Post operate and Star"), machine-bingo 3 the bingo and permit. facility," ("Shooting may the forth "machine a permit" a from The licensing, sets and such City games" w i t h i n ordinance permit the ordinance"). regulations for Legion, "machine-bingo of games," provides without council ("the the games a t a " m a c h i n e - b i n g o Entertainment permit County a c a r d are matched 2008-0011 things, ordinance a on o p e r a t i n g "machine The bingo bingo Clair random." the rules games." for at 2008, forth and Among applied of symbols selected Ordinance sets permitting, "St. a c t s d e f i n e " b i n g o " a s " t h a t game c o m m o n l y k n o w n December adopted the a c t a m e n d i n g i t , A c t No. County. bingo 1991, 170"), electronic Shooting applied facility. Star for a On 1080826; 1081015 December 30, 2008, action, n a m i n g as sheriff of essentially believed illegal St. the City defendants Clair filed Post County, a 170, Terry declaratory-judgment Shooting Star, Surles. alleged that S h e r i f f Surles that and "electronic, that he had video, "advised had The and the complaint indicated that or machine bingo" was that when licensees or p e r m i t e e s [ s i c ] s t a r t up m a c h i n e b i n g o o p e r a t i o n s " p u r s u a n t the thus ordinance, sought the p a r t i c i p a n t s w o u l d be a judgment declaring he that the arrested. The to City ordinance " i s i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e l a w s of the S t a t e of Alabama, t h a t e l e c t r o n i c , v i d e o or machine bingo is lawful in St. Clair County, A l a b a m a , and i s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h a t l i c e n s e s or p e r m i t s i s s u e d to [ P o s t 170 and S h o o t i n g S t a r ] a r e c o n s i s t e n t and i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h [ t h e o r d i n a n c e ] , and w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s of the State of Alabama; that any participant playing or in possession of e l e c t r o n i c or video bingo machines a u t h o r i z e d by [ t h e ordinance] and p u r s u a n t t o p e r m i t s a n d / o r l i c e n s e s i s s u e d by the [ C i t y ] , [ i s ] i n compliance w i t h the laws of the S t a t e of Alabama, i n c l u d i n g i t s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " Both Shooting Star and Post 170 were later realigned as plaintiffs. Sheriff Surles answered the counterclaim for a asserted the C i t y "seeks to that declaratory 4 complaint judgment. allow [Post The 170 and filed a counterclaim and Shooting 1080826; Star] that 1081015 to operate they ... classify declaring that a bingo" devices 65, "machine that the that Star Further, uses are Sheriff proposed illegal by a judgment that Sheriff such are Surles "machine- 1901, a r t .IV, § -27, -30, and -70, and the sought of Const. City, lotteries Surles a instruments the operation by A l a . operation and sought 1 9 7 5 , §§ 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 3 , operations Shooting bingo" bingo" i s forbidden Code lottery/gambling under Alabama law. F u r t h e r , declaration and A l a . illegal as m a c h i n e "gambling devices" sought an or Post gambling declaration 170, and schemes. that the o r d i n a n c e i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l u n d e r Amendment No. 5 4 2 , w h i c h , he argued, to be t a x e d , and A c t No. On required and t h a t intervene as district enforcing 3, of S t . C l a i r to bingo be p l a y e d the ordinance violated 2009, Richard that are A c t No. County, filed J . Minor, i n t h e c a s e as a d e f e n d a n t . attorney state law. of S t . C l a i r Post Const. the a complaint 91-710 and a motion Minor a l l e g e d 170 a n d S h o o t i n g S t a r , 1901, a r t . district C o u n t y , he was c h a r g e d sought t o operate bingo-gaming devices both Ala. on " c a r d s " 93-687. February attorney that that, with he a l l e g e d , t h a t were i l l e g a l under I V , § 6 5 , a n d Amendment No. 5 4 2 . 5 1 0 8 0 8 2 6 ; 1081015 Neither St. the ordinance Clair County, d e v i c e s . The Trial trial trial was court nor Minor appeal notice separate the entered an f o r the to in the purpose Riley intervene authorize On M a r c h 30, upholding The the as court one the a notice also We 1 ordinance. filed and filed a filed a consolidated opinion. s e v e r a l motions appellant those 2009, general 1081015). of w r i t i n g filed an attorney trial in motion to i n t e r v e n e . D i s t r i c t Attorney Minor 1080826). appearance G o v e r n o r Bob seeking no. order r e g u l a t i n g bingo could 2009. n o t i c e o f a p p e a l ( c a s e no. appeals acts contended, h e l d on M a r c h 1 7 , (case of local court granted Minor's S h e r i f f S u r l e s and of the i n these in this appeals Court, or to On February 26, 2009, the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l f i l e d an acknowledgment of s e r v i c e of S h e r i f f S u r l e s ' s answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m a n d , b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e was b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d b y M i n o r , w a i v e d a n y f u r t h e r s e r v i c e a n d r i g h t t o be h e a r d a t t h e t r i a l court l e v e l . The f i l i n g s t a t e d : 1 "Because, at the trial level, the State is r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s m a t t e r by the H o n o r a b l e R i c h a r d J. Minor, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y of the 30th Judicial Circuit, the Attorney General, having accepted s e r v i c e , h e r e b y w a i v e s any f u r t h e r s e r v i c e upon him o f any p l e a d i n g s , d i s c o v e r y and o t h e r m a t t e r s filed in this matter at the trial level, and further w a i v e s h i s r i g h t t o be h e a r d a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l . The A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l r e s e r v e s a l l r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s , i n c l u d i n g a n y n o t i c e o f p l e a d i n g s , r i g h t t o be h e a r d and other matters, on appeal, i f any, in this matter." 6 1 0 8 0 8 2 6 ; 1081015 file an amicus District curiae Attorney Minor on in case his brief on own of Surles a joint and the State 1080826. or Minor the no. Sheriff Court brief; behalf of This the G o v e r n o r have f i l e d filed behalf the Governor's motion to i n t e r v e n e . u l t i m a t e l y granted and brief brief; Sheriff attorney of general Surles has has filed a Alabama. Discussion On appeal, Governor in the Riley on lotteries the in § construed as b i n g o . This the District issues on were cases rehearing on jurisdiction definition This Court 65 to of this to only Court, determine and Court provided the holding that prohibition C o n s t i t u t i o n must the mero whether be game c o m m o n l y k n o w n before ex and that opinion addressed however, Minor, "bingo" from the g e n e r a l Alabama original appeal; the the encompass the merits certificates motu, of placed the court had the trial and address the underlying action. must sua subject-matter of w i t h p r e c e d e n t of t h i s issued, over Attorney u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y broad Court's judgment of that is conflicts Surles, amendments e x c e p t i n g b i n g o narrowly of argue ordinance ordinance local Sheriff sponte recognize jurisdiction 7 owing to the lack lack of 1080826; 1081015 justiciability. "'"[J]usticiability is jurisdictional," Ex parte S t a t e ex r e l . J a m e s , 711 So. 2d 952, 960 n.2 (Ala. 1998); hence, i f necessary, "this Court i s duty b o u n d t o n o t i c e e x mero motu t h e a b s e n c e o f s u b j e c t matter jurisdiction."' Baldwin County [v. Bay Minette], 854 So. 2d [42] at 45 [(Ala. 2003)](quoting Stamps [v. J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y Bd. of E d u c . ] , 642 So. 2d [941] a t 945 n.2 [(Ala. 1994)]). I f we d e t e r m i n e t h a t a c o m p l a i n t f a i l s t o s t a t e a j u s t i c i a b l e c l a i m , we a r e o b l i g e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t the trial court lacked jurisdiction over that complaint; such a c o m p l a i n t therefore would not r e q u i r e the f i l i n g of a r e s p o n s i v e pleading." Bedsole Goodloe, Although Code v. the 1975, actions §§ the questions, So. 2d Declaratory Act the legal does not abstract 508, -232 rights, propositions, however convenient questions decided for (Ala. 642 Warrior (1963) i t 2d v. (quoting 941 , 944 Blaylock, (emphasis Stamps v. (Ala. 275 added in or Ala. 113, Stamps)). 8 and 114, to decide be to future 865 So. So. of moot these cases."'" 2d 1167, C o u n t y Bd. 152 for advisory have of in Ala. relations give quoting at provides to might Jefferson 1 994 ) , Act"), courts Dep't, 2005). codified status, government Geneva County F o r e s t r y 2003) So. the (Ala. ("the "'"empower opinions, B r u n e r v. 518 Judgment A c t , 6-6-220 t h r o u g h to d e c l a r e parties, 912 turn 2d of 1175 Educ., Town 661, of 662 1080826; 1081015 "This Court has emphasized that declaratoryjudgment actions must 'settle a "bona fide justiciable controversy."' B a l d w i n County v. Bay M i n e t t e , 854 S o . 2 d 4 2 , 45 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ( q u o t i n g G u l f S o u t h C o n f e r e n c e v . B o y d , 369 S o . 2 d 5 5 3 , 557 ( A l a . 1979)). The c o n t r o v e r s y m u s t be ' " d e f i n i t e and concrete,"' m u s t be ' " r e a l a n d s u b s t a n t i a l , " ' a n d must seek r e l i e f b y a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m opposed t o t h e i n t e r e s t o f a n o t h e r p a r t y '"upon a s t a t e o f f a c t s w h i c h m u s t h a v e a c c r u e d . " ' B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 854 S o . 2d a t 45 ( q u o t i n g C o p e l a n d v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 284 Ala. 5 5 8 , 5 6 1 , 226 So. 2d 3 8 5 , 387 (1969)). ' " D e c l a r a t o r y judgment p r o c e e d i n g s w i l l not l i e f o r an 'anticipated controversy.'"' C r e o l a L a n d Dev., I n c . v . B e n t b r o o k e H o u s i n g , L . L . C . , 828 S o . 2 d 2 8 5 , 288 ( A l a . 2002) (quoting City of Dothan v. Eighty-Four W e s t , I n c . , 738 S o . 2 d 9 0 3 , 908 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . " Bedsole, As Surles 912 S o . 2 d a t 5 1 8 . noted above, t h e C i t y ' s c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t h a d i n d i c a t e d t h a t he b e l i e v e d authorized had under "advised machine judgment would be pursuant any f u t u r e 9 the City games and t h a t he [sic] start up ordinance, thus the sought participant playing with a or i n bingo machines a u t h o r i z e d City's complaint describes which illegal to The w o u l d be i n c o m p l i a n c e accompanied by a request, be or permitees arrested. that that c e r t a i n bingo would licensees of e l e c t r o n i c or video ordinance The when operations" declaring possession the that bingo participants the ordinance Sheriff by Alabama law. merely a n t i c i p a t e d conduct assumes that the a n t i c i p a t e d 1080826; conduct 1081015 will validity to of the for be state of is or 854 So. (emphasis judgment Civ. 828 v. 42, 284 added necessary So. 2d 1, 45 Ala. § rights proceedings Dev., Ala. at 114, are claims Anderson, 561, upon a So. a legal for County (quoting 226 when Actions Baldwin ( A l a . 2003) 558, controversy wherein 14.'" the However, justiciable accrued v. Copeland 2d 385, 387 will for not Land Dev., 288 West, A l i e Inc. (Ala. Inc., bona fide thwarted or v. So. an "anticipated Bentbrooke 2002 ) 738 for a declaratory-judgment Land is a to "Thus, ' [ d ] e c l a r a t o r y 285, 1999)). as i n Copeland)). Creola Eighty-Four App. "'legal Volume proceedings controversy."'" have demanded...." 2d J e f f e r s o n County, Dothan determination, controversy must Judgments, Minette, L.L.C., opinion a u t h o r i z i n g such conduct. "'"A which sought Declaratory (1969) advisory i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s a s s e r t i n g adverse facts decision an judicial justiciable. are v. for ordinance there Bay place, appropriate be must take (quoting 2d 903, justiciable Hous., City 908 [so as] (Ala. controversy action i s present affected of to where warrant under the D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment s t a t u t e s . ' " C r e o l a 828 152 So. So. 2d at 2d 288 at (quoting 662). 10 Town o f Warrior, 275 1080826; 1081015 "A c a s e i s j u s t i c i a b l e when t h e p a r t y ' " h a s b e e n i n j u r e d i n f a c t . " ' K i d ' s Care, I n c . v. Alabama Dep't o f Human R e s . , 843 S o . 2 d 1 64 , 166 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v . 2 0 1 8 R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 S o . 2 d 1025, 1027 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ) . Moreover, a j u s t i c i a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y r e q u i r e s t h e p a r t i e s t o seek remedies f r o m h a v i n g s u s t a i n e d damage a s o p p o s e d t o s e e k i n g advice from t h e Court." Birmingham Bd. o f Educ. v. Boyd, 877 S o . 2 d 5 9 2 , 594 ( A l a . 2003). In the instant action, there controversy; parties, Thus, there n o r have any l e g a l the resolution City's ("[A]ny attempt damage an a n t i c i p a t e d or injury to the been t h w a r t e d or affected. seeks only -- action Ex p a r t e no only rights of a yet realized nonjusticiable. 2008) has been exists advice controversy. Johnson, to obtain not the Such an a c t i o n i s 993 S o . 2 d 8 7 5 , 884 ( A l a . a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment as t o a h y p o t h e t i c a l f u t u r e c o n t r o v e r s y i s beyond t h e s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction of the c i r c u i t c o u r t was w i t h o u t v o i d and w i l l subject-matter not support these 1 0 8 0 8 2 6 -- ON REHEARING 29, 2 0 1 0 , WITHDRAWN; O P I N I O N 1 0 8 1 0 1 5 -- ON REHEARING 29, courts."). 2 0 1 0 , WITHDRAWN; O P I N I O N Therefore, jurisdiction; appeals, the t r i a l i t s judgment i s w h i c h we now d i s m i s s . EX MERO MOTU: O P I N I O N OF JANUARY SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. EX MERO MOTU: O P I N I O N OF JANUARY SUBSTITUTED; 11 APPEAL DISMISSED. 1080826; 1081015 Cobb, C . J . , and L y o n s , Woodall, Stuart, concur. Murdock, Bolin J . , concurs i n the result. a n d Shaw, J J . , d i s s e n t . 12 and P a r k e r , J J . , 1080826; 1081015 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e (concurring i n the I concur i n the r e s u l t . of Alabama ex r e l . A r t h u r So. (Murdock, 3d , n.1 J., concurring See R e d t o p M a r k e t , I n c . v . Green, and result). [Ms. 1 0 6 0 8 5 5 , D e c . accompanying specially). 13 text 30, State 2010] ( A l a . 2010) 1080826; 1081015 SHAW, J u s t i c e I (dissenting). respectfully original dissent o p i n i o n and d i s m i s s i n g mero motu. In our o r i g i n a l unanimously held that No. 2008-0011 applicable law bingo Outreach, these appeals opinion i n this ordinance") and that the Specifically, i n the ordinance definition of bingo withdrawing the d e f i n i t i o n ("the unconstitutional. of to found this on r e h e a r i n g e x case, of "bingo" failed Court's to ordinance this i n Ordinance comply was we h e l d t h a t Court with therefore the d e f i n i t i o n i m p e r m i s s i b l y d e v i a t e d from i n Barber v. Cornerstone I n c . , 42 S o . 3 d 65 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . 2 that Community Subsequently, this C o u r t , ex mero motu a n d b e f o r e t h e i s s u a n c e o f c e r t i f i c a t e s o f judgment and i n these ordered light of briefs this Greyhound Park, 3d appeals, placed these addressing Court's Inc., ( A l a . 2010), whether decision appeals on r e h e a r i n g the t r i a l i n Tyson [Ms. 1 0 9 0 5 4 8 , F e b r u a r y v. court, in Macon County 4, 2 0 1 0 ] So. had s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over the We h e l d t h a t t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f b i n g o i n t h e o r d i n a n c e deviated from the d e f i n i t i o n of bingo i n Barber because " e l e c t r o n i c b i n g o g a m i n g , " w h i c h t h e o r d i n a n c e a u t h o r i z e d , was not "bingo." We s t a t e d : " [ T h e o r d i n a n c e ' s ] d e f i n i t i o n o f ' m a c h i n e b i n g o game' i n d i c a t e s t h a t p l a y e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d i n t e r a c t i o n w i l l a c t u a l l y b e p e r f o r m e d b y a m a c h i n e . ... T h i s i s n o t t h e game o f b i n g o " 2 14 1080826; claims 1081015 of the parties. jurisdiction for withdraws the Court's Concluding reasons impermissible unrelated original declaratory-judgment the to in trial Tyson, opinion action request that and this now court the majority holds case f o r an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n . lacks that presents the an I respectfully disagree. I. It sought is a correct that declaration some as to portions the conduct, namely, the operation facilities to yet pursuant occurred. the Such of ordinance. actions (Ala. this action was regarding held Bay that anticipated factual That are n o n j u s t i c i a b l e because an of action certain below future c e r t a i n gaming machines i n B a l d w i n C o u n t y v. Court the legality Specifically, 2003), of conduct not i t not maintainable. Minette, a had 854 So. 2d 42 declaratory-judgment sought a declaration scenario: "The C o u n t y d o e s n o t d e s c r i b e an e x i s t i n g dispute that is 'definite and concrete,' or 'real and s u b s t a n t i a l . ' C o p e l a n d v . J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 284 A l a . [ 5 5 8 , ] 5 6 1 , 226 So. 2 d [ 3 8 5 , ] 387 [ ( 1 9 6 9 ) ] . Nowhere does t h e C o u n t y a l l e g e t h a t t h i s , o r any similar, s c e n a r i o has, i n fact, occurred. I t merely argues that such a s c e n a r i o could occur. I t does not i n v o l v e a d i s p u t e w i t h a n y p e r m i t e e [ s i c ] who would be a f f e c t e d by c o n f l i c t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s . In other words, the County a l l e g e s nothing more t h a n an 15 and 1080826; 1081015 'anticipated controversy,' for which '[d]eclaratory judgment p r o c e e d i n g s w i l l not l i e . ' Creola Land D e v . [ , I n c . v. B e n t b r o o k e Hous., L.L.C.,] 828 So. 2d [ 2 8 5 , ] 288 [ ( A l a . 2002 ) ] . " 854 So. 2d at 46. However, claims at conduct. the 4 I 3 disagree issue in First, the there p l a i n language of the conclusion underlying appears the case to be Declaratory that dispute that, Judgment A c t , § 6-6-220 e t of ordinance through a declaratory-judgment person ... whose r i g h t s , s t a t u s , affected by franchise may validity arising contract, status or or a statute, or h a v e d e t e r m i n e d any under franchise other may other municipal test and obtain a the Code validity "[a]ny legal relations question instrument, under Ala. action: ordinance, the the anticipated no a municipality a l l involve 1975, an seq., with of contract, or construction statute, declaration l e g a l r e l a t i o n s thereunder." are Ala. or ordinance, of rights, Code 1975, Additionally, actions seeking a judgment declaring whether certain conduct v i o l a t e s criminal laws, we have r e c e n t l y noted, are i m p e r m i s s i b l e . See T y s o n v . M a c o n C o u n t y Greyhound Park, Inc., supra, d i s c u s s e d in Part I I , i n f r a . 3 I n f a c t , as d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , t h i s C o u r t i n o u r o p i n i o n d i d not address such a n t i c i p a t e d conduct. 4 16 original 1080826; § 1081015 6-6-223 (emphasis Evans, 642 2d Second, 2d 435 See, 5 e.g., ( A l a . 1994); City the d i s p u t e i n t h i s Barber Piedmont factual enacted scenario i s valid and i s currently merely proposed. scheme put in The place Fields, case i s whether i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l on i t s f a c e , n o t w h e t h e r or v. of or conduct ordinance was operation; i t i s and The So. the ordinance some f u t u r e legal. in effect 624 v. ( A l a . 1993). 532 So. added). not C i t y has begun o p e r a t i n g i t s r e g u l a t o r y by the ordinance, and entities have a c t u a l l y a p p l i e d f o r t h e p e r m i t s a u t h o r i z e d by t h e o r d i n a n c e . Sheriff Surles ordinance I see and District Attorney Minor contend that the unfold in i s unconstitutional. no factual development that needs to o r d e r t o make r i p e f o r r e v i e w t h e s i m p l e d e t e r m i n a t i o n w h e t h e r the ordinance originally conduct a d d r e s s e d by t h i s pursuant The word municipality. 5 complies with to the Alabama law. C o u r t was the not whether ordinance violated "person" under A l a . Code 1975, Indeed, any Alabama t h i s Code s e c t i o n § 6-6-220. issue future law, 6 includes the a S h e r i f f S u r l e s and D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y M i n o r contended t h a t such future conduct would be illegal, but this Court's o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n , n o t i n g t h a t no a c t u a l b i n g o m a c h i n e s h a d y e t b e e n i n s t a l l e d o r o p e r a t e d , i . e . , t h a t s u c h c o n d u c t was m e r e l y 6 17 1080826; issue 1081015 was whether Alabama law. w h i c h we constitutional law, and i n our p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n case, the City complies attorney seeking by Piedmont action against declaring Piedmont, which purported This Court constitutional. judgment declaring Piedmont's illegal that ordinance lottery. occurring pursuant analysis. Indeed, So. judgment a with to So. 2 d 435 ( A l a . 1994) . the district local whether to an 437. actual an conduct did not comply w i t h the o r d i n a n c e ; n e v e r t h e l e s s , the o r d i n a n c e was unconstitutional Whether American on material for in d i s c u s s e d i n t h a t case conduct not court's "bingo" provided The gaming, the certain was trial of a ordinance allow bingo definition ordinance identical filed a f f i r m e d the at is to held the 2d This ("Piedmont") unconstitutionally 642 to the caselaw. in a virtually of declaratory-judgment was written, C i t y o f P i e d m o n t v . E v a n s , 642 that enacted as T h i s i s a pure q u e s t i o n of law f o r the answer law, illustrated In ordinance, compare the t e x t o f the o r d i n a n c e a g a i n s t our body o f statutory action: the i t s face. Legion, anticipated, d i d not address machine or gaming a c t i v i t y . Post the 18 170, and propriety Shooting of any Star actual 1080826; 1081015 Entertainment ordinance, whether Group, LLC, operate machines as d e s c r i b e d i n t h e w h i c h we o r i g i n a l l y h e l d w o u l d b e i m p e r m i s s i b l e , o r they description operate of games bingo that found strictly i n Barber d e t e r m i n a t i v e as t o whether t h e o r d i n a n c e create more solidify their t h e bounds controversy, ordinance into being City and extent an e x a m i n a t i o n "abstract the because with the be i s l a w f u l , would not and would not because such conduct would not of the ordinance "real and i n this the law. when t h e o r d i n a n c e ("A f a c i a l challenge a statute or ordinance itself, the a the controversy complies not of the controversy, of the l e g a l i t y to would the parties, Further, proposition" with This was e n a c t e d . from substantial" case i s whether controversy came S e e , e . g , Tobe v . o f S a n t a A n a , 9 C a l . 4 t h 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 8 4 , 892 P . 2 d 1 1 4 5 , 1 1 5 2 (1995) an between conduct i s immaterial. convert an adversity comply to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l v a l i d i t y of considers o n l y t h e t e x t of t h e measure not i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to the p a r t i c u l a r circumstances individual."). ordinance I thus to occur c o n t r o v e r s y " ; such facts s e e no n e e d f o r c o n d u c t p u r s u a n t in order to create a of to "realized are not material. This c o n c l u s i o n i s demonstrated i n Chorba-Lee 19 Scholarship 1080826; Fund, 1081015 Inc. (Ala. the action newly Jefferson argued [Ms. In that Amendments to a as to the No. Jefferson 3d charities Jefferson regulations Amendment 1901, So. nonprofit County validity of promulgated by Specifically, 1901, Const. 2010] in declaration sheriff. Const. Ala. 30, several bingo-gaming County Ala. Sept. establishments seeking issued 1090585, Chorba-Lee, bingo-gaming an certain Hale, 2010). operating filed v. the charities 386 (now County, § Local 2 (Off. Recomp.)), gave r e g u l a t o r y power over b i n g o gaming e x c l u s i v e l y to local m u n i c i p a l i t i e s or purporting to provide such the county. regulatory t h e y a r g u e d , were i n c o n f l i c t with Certain power local acts to the sheriff, A m e n d m e n t No. 386 and 7 were thus u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . It i s unclear facilities in fact, sheriff, they whether the a f t e r the the [we]re municipality sheriff's charities arguing that operating that c h a r i t i e s operated their ha[d] did they under regulations not did a enacted not acquire have license a bingo to or went into effect; permits do so permit gaming "so from long issued ordinance." the by as a So. A c t No. 8 0 - 6 0 9 , A l a . A c t s 1980, as a m e n d e d b y A c t No. 9 4 - 3 9 3 , A l a . A c t s 1 9 9 4 , a n d l a t e r b y A c t No. 9 9 - 4 1 5 , A l a . A c t s 1999. 7 20 1080826; 3d 1081015 at . conducted In was any o f no event, consequence regulations promulgated 3 8 6. the regulatory by t h e s h e r i f f Here, activity different bingo analysis gaming amendments a u t h o r i z i n g actually Stated being was being whether the v i o l a t e d A m e n d m e n t No. s i m p l y f o c u s e d on w h e t h e r i s required the issue comply such i n the instant i s whether with adds Chorba-Lee case. the attempts the l o c a l regulation. conducted differently, gaming complied w i t h a p p l i c a b l e law. as i n C h o r b a - L e e , regulate bingo to our a n a l y s i s Instead, this Court's analysis No is whether constitutional Whether bingo nothing to demonstrates to the gaming analysis. that, i n the u n d e r l y i n g d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , no conduct is necessary constitutionality to aid in determining the of the ordinance. II. Further, found i n Tyson 1090548 , see here no v. County Macon February ("Tyson"). VictoryLand Circuit I In Tyson, 4, jurisdictional Greyhound 2010] So. Macon C o u n t y a g a i n s t John M. Tyson, 21 Park, 3d like those I n c . , [Ms. ( A l a . 2010) G r e y h o u n d P a r k , I n c . , d/b/a ( " V i c t o r y L a n d " ) , commenced Court bars an a c t i o n i n t h e Macon Jr., individually and i n 1080826; his 1081015 official the Governor's injunctive sought a facility from Task declaration were l e g a l , them. d i d n o t have action as s p e c i a l p r o s e c u t o r Force and d e c l a r a t o r y seizing Court of capacity seeking the State. that Illegal relief. Gaming, Specifically, certain gaming seeking VictoryLand machines a ti t s as w e l l as an i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g Tyson contended subject-matter to enjoin This on a n d commander o f Court that t h e Macon jurisdiction over Tyson Circuit a civil the enforcement of the c r i m i n a l stated on appeal: "The general rule i s that a court may n o t interfere with the enforcement of c r i m i n a l laws through a c i v i l action; instead, the party aggrieved by such enforcement shall make h i s c a s e i n t h e prosecution of the criminal action: "'It i s a p l a i n p r o p o s i t i o n of law that e q u i t y w i l l not e x e r t i t s powers m e r e l y t o enjoin criminal or quasi criminal prosecutions, "though the consequences t o the complainant of allowing the prosecutions t o p r o c e e d may b e e v e r s o grievous and irreparable." Brown v. B i r m i n g h a m , 140 A l a . [ 5 9 0 , ] 6 0 0 , 37 S o u t h . [ 1 7 3 , ] 174 [ ( 1 9 0 4 ) ] . " H i s remedy a t l a w i s plain, a d e q u a t e , a n d c o m p l e t e b y way o f establishing and h a v i n g h i s innocence adjudged i n the c r i m i n a l court." I d . ' " B o a r d o f Comm'rs o f M o b i l e 318, 61 S o . 9 2 0 , 923 ( 1 9 1 3 ) . 2d D e c l a r a t o r y J u d g m e n t s § 57 judgment w i l l generally not only effect would be to 22 v . O r r , 181 A l a . 308 , S e e a l s o 2 2 A Am. J u r . ( 2 0 0 3 ) ('A d e c l a r a t o r y be g r a n t e d w h e r e i t s decide matters which laws 1080826; 1081015 properly should be decided in a criminal action.'). "'The general rule that courts of equitable jurisdiction will not enjoin criminal proceedings or prosecutions applies ... to prosecutions which are m e r e l y t h r e a t e n e d o r a n t i c i p a t e d as w e l l as t o t h o s e w h i c h have a l r e a d y b e e n commenced. The rule extends to ... searches and s e i z u r e s i n the course of i n v e s t i g a t i o n of crime " ' I t i s not a ground f o r i n j u n c t i v e relief t h a t the p r o s e c u t i n g o f f i c e r has e r r o n e o u s l y c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t e on w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d so as t o i n c l u d e the act or a c t s which i t i s the purpose of the p r o s e c u t i o n to p u n i s h . ... " ' I f the s t a t u t e , or interpretation t h e r e o f , on w h i c h t h e p r o s e c u t i o n i s b a s e d i s v a l i d , the f a c t t h a t the enforcement thereof would materially injure the complainant's business or property constitutes no ground for equitable i n t e r f e r e n c e , and i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r a s k i n g a c o u r t of e q u i t y to a s c e r t a i n in advance whether the business as conducted is in violation of a penal statute ' "43A C.J.S. omitted)." Tyson, Tyson exercising So. 3d Injunctions at further § 280 (2004) the danger (footnote . recognized equitable jurisdiction ... of interfer[ing] "a court with o r d e r l y f u n c t i o n i n g of the e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h w i t h i n i t s zone 23 the of 1080826; 1081015 discretion set in violation f o r t h at So. 3d § 43 at of . of the We the separation-of-powers Alabama held in Constitution of doctrine 1901 " Tyson: "The c o m p l a i n t i n t h i s a c t i o n does not p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n i n which the p l a i n t i f f acknowledges t h a t his c o n d u c t i s p r o h i b i t e d by a s t a t u t e and then challenges the e n f o r c e a b i l i t y of the s t a t u t e . To the c o n t r a r y , V i c t o r y L a n d s t r e n u o u s l y m a i n t a i n s i t s innocence. E n t e r t a i n m e n t of a c i v i l action for injunctive and declaratory relief under such c i r c u m s t a n c e c a n n o t be c o u n t e n a n c e d l e s t t h e trial c o u r t b e c o m e i n v o l v e d i n a r o l e t h a t s h o u l d be left to the fact-finder in a criminal proceeding f o l l o w i n g a p l e a of not guilty." So. 3d at Thus, filed to i n Tyson, the target i t s conduct to was interfere with legal, the its discretion in enforcing ran afoul equity of a possible a declaratory-judgment action seeking whether sought . of several generally prosecutions; entertained properly be will that for well and the law. established not enjoin decided purpose in a separation-of-powers doctrine of Such requested exercise action, deciding or we of held, quasi-criminal action will matters that action; of A l a . Const. 24 as l e g a l p r i n c i p l e s : that criminal criminal relief branch's a declaratory-judgment the probe a determination the executive criminal and 1901, not be should that the § 43, bars 1080826; a court 1081015 from executive i n t e r f e r i n g with branch operating Certain clearly are a s p e c t s of Surles, declaring and the and Tyson. enforcement from e x e r c i s i n g function. Court the i n Tyson trial That judgment the Ala. This recognized court's said, declaring l i m i t e d grant Const. St. Clair No. 93-687, St. Clair 1901 of presented t y p e of the Local Amendments a l l also Ala. question of 25 are the Const. 542, 1901, 91-710; and only a within A m e n d m e n t No. governing claims within sought falls a These this claims. No. o r i g i n a l opinion a pure i t i s not to scheme law action (Off. Recomp)); Act. regulatory of law-enforcement ordinance p r o v i d e d by judgment C i t y went even judicial Minor City's a the preventing such and below operation The relief entertain action seek impermissible; authority (now County. lawful. Surles, whether enact a d d r e s s e d i n our was City, County, § 2 to as power to the to i t s discretionary i s p r e c i s e l y the the discretion. conduct--the injunctive of Specifically, a l l attempted anticipated sought of declaratory-judgment e l e c t r o n i c m a c h i n e b i n g o - - w o u l d be further functioning i t s zone under Minor whether orderly within impermissible City, the bingo claims Act in we i n these appeals; t h i s Court law that raises none o f the 1080826; 1081015 concerns expressed i n Tyson. does n o t i n v o l v e by the parties facts of t h i s place, to law i s at expressed issue. enjoin conduct Indeed, the conduct Further, the t r i a l criminal or taking such court's Tyson, in does such presented i n this not possess fashion. i n T y s o n h a v e no a p p l i c a t i o n Finally, an a c t i o n matter, t h e power Thus, these determine whether the r e g u l a t o r y using relief the t r i a l to l i m i t two i n this under the D e c l a r a t o r y a quasi-criminal Although the C i t y sought such i n j u n c t i v e under enforcement law. no a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l o n e o f t h e many c l a i m s court, as t o w h e t h e r c e r t a i n a l o n e , does n o t i n v o l v e prosecutions. as criminal powers such a d e c l a r a t i o n v i o l a t e the criminal case r e v e a l determination, equitable a determination would a n d no Specifically, law concerns case. Judgment A c t t o scheme o f t h e o r d i n a n c e falls w i t h i n t h e a u t h o r i t y g r a n t e d b y Amendment No. 5 4 2 , A c t No. 9 1 ¬ 710, a n d A c t No. interfere with enforcing original and that bingo the d i s c r e t i o n afforded criminal its operate 93-687 t o r e g u l a t e laws. opinion--that the t r i a l to r e s t r i c t court The d e c i s i o n the executive this the ordinance erred i n holding executive-branch 26 d o e s n o t ab Court initio branch i n reached i n i s unconstitutional otherwise--did discretion not in conflict 1080826; 1081015 w i t h § 43. Whether any d e c l a r a t o r y - j u d g m e n t a c t i o n a d d r e s s i n g t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o r l e g a l i t y o f an o r d i n a n c e c o u l d future operate whether issue § 43 to restrict would bar i n our o r i g i n a l executive such future branch i n the discretion--or restriction--was not an decision. III. I s e e no j u r i s d i c t i o n a l decision from in this withdrawing matter; b a r r i e r to this therefore, the o r i g i n a l appeals. Bolin, J . , concurs. 27 opinion I Court's original respectfully and dismissing dissent these

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.