129 So. 3d 1017
Ala. Civ. App.2012Background
- DPS director Bingham and Trooper Seymour petition for mandamus to dismiss the Kidd/Martinez action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Claimants seek return of cash seized by state troopers under § 20-2-93, alleging improper handling and transfer to the DEA.
- DPS allegedly transferred seized funds to the DEA for federal forfeiture and the DEA allegedly returned most of the funds to DPS as an admin fee.
- Trial court denied the motion to dismiss; DPS filed mandamus petition.
- Court held federal adoptive-forfeiture doctrine gave the federal courts in rem jurisdiction, depriving state court of jurisdiction.
- Decision directs trial court to grant the DPS motion and dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adoptive-forfeiture grants federal jurisdiction | Kidd/ Martinez rely on Green to keep state court active | DPS contends Edney/Green apply; federal adoptive-forfeiture governs | Yes; federal in rem jurisdiction preempts state court. |
| Whether federal authorities adopted the seizures here | Adoption occurred via later involvement; state seizure suffices | Adoption can occur even without initial federal involvement | Yes; adoption need not involve initial seizure to confer jurisdiction. |
| Whether Montgomery Circuit Court had in rem jurisdiction | Filed in rem action before federal adoption | Adoption occurred before filing, so no in rem jurisdiction | No; federal in rem jurisdiction precluded state court jurisdiction. |
| Whether mandamus proper relief | Judicial error in dismissing should be corrected | Dismissal required due to lack of jurisdiction | Mandamus granted; writ issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edney v. City of Montgomery, 960 F. Supp. 270 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (adoptive-forfeiture doctrine; federal adoption equals original seizure)
- Green v. City of Montgomery, 55 So.3d 256 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (adoptive-seizure process; jurisdiction based on timing of state action)
- United States v. One Ford Coupe Auto., 272 U.S. 321 (1926) (adoption of seizure treated as if seizure by United States)
- Ex parte Integon Corp., 672 So.2d 497 (Ala. 1995) (mandamus standard; subject-matter jurisdiction reviewable)
- Ex parte Liberty Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 888 So.2d 478 (Ala. 2003) (subject-matter jurisdiction reviewable on mandamus)
- Ex parte Flint Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 805 (Ala. 2000) (mandamus and jurisdiction principles)
- Consolidated Graphite Corp., 221 So. 262 (Ala. 1930) (concurrent in rem jurisdiction; first jurisdiction wins)