Legal Opinion · Dissent

Radford v. State

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 17, 1999No. 2980124Published

1DissentMonroe, Judge

Because I would affirm the judgment of the trial court, I must respectfully dissent. I agree with Judge Crawley that § 12-21-13, Ala.Code 1975, which deals with identifying the chain of custody for physical evidence, does not apply in civil forfeiture cases. I could find no other authority requiring that the chain of custody for physical evidence be shown in a civil forfeiture case. Furthermore, I do not believe we should impose such a requirement.

The forfeiture statute, § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975, allows the State to condemn property, money, aircraft, vehicles, and other items used or…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Boshell v. KeithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
  2. Ex Parte HoltonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1991
  3. Bogle v. ScheerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
  4. Pardue v. PotterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1994
  5. State v. SmithCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API