Opinion ID: 1661612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Return of the $1,969.91

Text: Woods's argument for reimbursement of the money taken from his person on the day of his arrest, however, stands on better ground. The authority to detain certain assets suspected of a connection with controlled substances is set forth in the following statutes: § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975: (a) The following are subject to forfeiture: . . . . (4) All moneys, negotiable instruments, securities, or other things of value furnished or intended to be furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled substance in violation of any law of this state; all proceeds traceable to such an exchange; and all moneys, negotiable instruments, and securities used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of any law of this state concerning controlled substances; . . . . (b) Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by state, county or municipal law enforcement agencies upon process issued by any court having jurisdiction over the property. Seizure without process may be made if: . . . . (4) The state, county or municipal law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that the property was used or is intended to be used in violation of this chapter. (c) In the event of seizure pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, proceedings under subsection (d) of this section shall be instituted promptly. (d) Property taken or detained under this section shall not be subject to replevin but is deemed to be in the custody of the state, county or municipal law enforcement agency subject only to the orders and judgment of the court having jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings .... . . . . (h) ... Except as specifically provided to the contrary in this section, the procedures for the condemnation and forfeiture of property seized under this section shall be governed by and shall conform to the procedures set out in sections 28-4-286 through 28-4-290.... § 28-4-286: It shall be the duty of such officer in the county or the attorney general of the state to institute at once or cause to be instituted condemnation proceedings in the circuit court by filing a complaint in the name of the state against the property seized ... to obtain a judgment enforcing the forfeiture.... (Emphasis added.) Statutes authorizing confiscation and forfeiture obviously carry serious implications for rights guaranteed by the federal and state constitutions. For example, in Kirkland v. State ex rel. Baxley, 340 So.2d 1121 (Ala.Civ.App.1976), cert. denied, 340 So.2d 1127 (Ala.1977), the constitutionality of Act No. 1407, § 504, 1971 Ala.Acts 2378, the predecessor of § 20-2-93, was challenged on the ground that it lacked a provision whereby the owner of confiscated property, by posting bond, could reclaim the property pending condemnation proceedings. The owner of a vehicle that had been forfeited through a judicial proceeding contended that the statute, in the absence of such a provision, deprived him of his property without due process. Id. at 1126. The Court of Civil Appeals rejected this contention and upheld the statute. In doing so, however, it stated: The essence of due process requires that the aggrieved party be given a prompt opportunity to adjudicate his claims. Subsection (c) of [Act No. 1407, § 504] requires that, `In the event of seizure pursuant to subsection (b), proceedings under subsection (d) shall be instituted promptly. ' [Emphasis supplied in Kirkland. ].... The necessity of prompt action to adjudicate the merits of the seizure and to effectuate the forfeiture is what is constitutionally required.... In other words, the want of a bond provision in the statute does not render it constitutionally defective so long as it provides interested parties the right to a prompt hearing.... It should be pointed out that our conclusion is supported by the analogous Federal statutory scheme. 19 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., has no mandatory provisions whereby the owner of the property may post bond and obtain his property prior to the hearing. As already stated, the constitutionality of this statute has been repeatedly upheld. What is required under 19 U.S.C. § 1604, is that where judicial proceedings are required, they be brought `immediately.' [Act No. 1407, § 504] requires that judicial proceedings be instituted `promptly.' We perceive no difference in the above quoted language. Here, ... the proceedings were instituted approximately two weeks after the [seizure], which is clearly `prompt' or `immediate.' 340 So.2d at 1126. In Reach v. State, 530 So.2d 40 (Ala.1988), this Court rendered a judgment in favor of the owner of vehicles condemned in proceedings initiated pursuant to § 20-2-93. We held that the commencement of a condemnation action approximately four months after the seizure of vehicles used to transport marijuana failed to afford [the owner] due process of law. Id. at 41. In so holding, we cited with approval Kirkland 's conclusions regarding the necessity of prompt adjudication on the merits of the State's claim to the confiscated property. We found these conclusions particularly compelling in view of the fact that § 20-2-93(d) expressly prohibits an owner from attempting to reclaim his property through replevin. Reach, 530 So.2d at 41. More specifically, we stated that a forfeiture proceeding not `instituted promptly' is ineffectual. Id. In this case, the only evidence contained in the record in opposition to Woods's summary judgment motion was the bare declaration that the money was no longer in Reeves's possession because, Reeves said, it had been turned over to the FBI. Conspicuously absent from the record is evidence of the commencement of any forfeiture proceeding in the four years since the initial confiscation. On the basis of the record before us, we are compelled to hold that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists regarding Woods's claim to a return of the $1,969.91 and that, on that claim, Woods is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ala.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(3). For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court, to the extent that it denied Woods the return of the currency, is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions that the trial court enter a judgment in favor of Woods in the amount of $1,969.91. [2] ORIGINAL OPINION WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.