Civil Forfeiture & Standing - Ex Parte State of Alabama

Ex parte State of Alabama, [Ms. 1150559, Sept. 16, 2016] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2016). (Stuart, Acting Chief J., Bolin, Parker, Main, and Wise, JJ., concurring; Murdock, Shaw, and Bryan, JJ., dissenting). The Court grants certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals (Okafor v. State, [Ms. 2140649, Feb. 12, 2016] __ So. 3d __, __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2016)) to determine whether it erred in reversing the Madison Circuit Court's summary judgment for the State in an action pursuant to The Drug Profits Forfeiture Act of 1988, § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975.

Citing Ex parte Collier, 413 So. 2d 403 (Ala. 1982), Jones v. State, 946 So. 2d 903 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006), and Kevin Sharp Enterprises, Inc. v. State ex rel Tyson, 923 So. 2d 1117 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), the Court concludes the Court of Civil Appeals erred in reversing the Madison Circuit Court's summary judgment because Okafor, as the party objecting to the allegedly unlawful search and seizure, failed to present substantial evidence of a possessory interest in the premises which were searched. Ms. *6-14.

Curiously, the dissenting opinions assert that the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari – concerning the standing issue – was not the basis upon which the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the Madison Circuit Court's summary judgment. The only issue addressed by the Court of Civil Appeals was whether, in a civil-forfeiture matter, evidence seized as the fruit of a Miranda violation is admissible (Ms. *18, Shaw, J., dissenting), but the Court denied certiorari review of the State's challenge to that issue.

Related Documents: Okafor


Contact Us Today

  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.