Alabama Couple Awarded $1 Million Over Warrantless Raid Of Their House That Saw Cops Walk Off With All Their Cash
from the violations-so-blatant-even-a-court-couldn't-excuse-them dept
Very rarely do you see anyone prevail in court when any form of forfeiture is in play. The forfeiture litigation deck is firmly stacked in favor of the government, which rarely needs anything approaching actual proof to walk off with someone’s property.
It’s even more rare to see someone awarded damages in a civil lawsuit against law enforcement officers. In most cases, qualified immunity terminates the lawsuit. If qualified immunity is not awarded, agencies and governments are often swift to offer plaintiffs no-fault settlements that allow the accused to walk away from the lawsuit without having to admit any wrongdoing, much less pay out of their own pockets for their misdeeds.
This case contains both rarities. Not only does it involve regular people securing some sort of justice for their violated rights, but the underlying set of rights violations included officers walking out the home they’d raided without a warrant with all the valuables they could get their hands on, including $4,000 in cash.
Here’s how the raid went down, as recounted by C.J. Ciaramella for Reason back in 2019.
On January 31, 2018, a Randolph County sheriff’s deputy showed up at the home of Greg and Teresa Almond in Woodland, Alabama, to serve Greg court papers in a civil matter.
Greg, 50, wasn’t home, but his wife Teresa told the deputy he would be back before long. About two hours later, after Greg had returned home, he heard loud knocking on the door. He remembers shouting “hang on” and walking toward the door when it suddenly flew open. The next thing he knew he was on the floor—ears ringing, dazed, wondering if he’d just been shot.
Several deputies from the Randolph County Sheriff’s Department had kicked in his front door and thrown a flashbang grenade at his feet. The officers handcuffed and detained the couple at gunpoint, then started searching their house. The deputy from earlier had reportedly smelled marijuana, and so a county drug task force was descending on the Almonds’ home, looking for illegal drugs.
The supposed odor of marijuana eventually led the deputies to a small marijuana plant, a few scattered leaves, and a single prescription pill that was not located in its bottle. The home invasion also led deputies to other stuff they wanted, but had no legitimate reason to take. They took the cash they found in the house, a wedding ring, some guns, a coin collection, and a couple guitars.
To the Sheriff’s Office, the $4,000 probably seemed insignificant. But it was pretty much all they had. They were in the middle of refinancing an agricultural loan to ensure their chicken farm remained solvent. Thanks to being forced to spend most of two days in jail, they missed their refinancing deadline. That ultimately resulted in the couple losing their house. They were residing in an insulated shed by the time the court took up their lawsuit.
More than four years after the raid, the couple has finally secured some form of justice. The $1 million in damages awarded by the jury will likely be appealed by the sheriff’s department, but for now, that’s what a jury has said the couple is entitled to.
The judge overseeing the case issued an order [PDF] along with the directed verdict, stating that the “rarity” of a directed verdict in a civil rights lawsuit necessitates some explanation.
The explanation reveals just how much of a blatant violation of rights this raid was. Deputy Kevin Walker had no excuse for his actions.
During trial, Judge Amy Newsome testified that she never issued a telephonic warrant to Defendant Walker, or to the drug task force, on January 31, 2018, for a search of the Plaintiffs’ home. She also testified that she did not tell Walker that he had a warrant. In addition, Defendant Walker testified that Judge Newsome did not tell him that he had a telephonic search warrant, although she did tell him that he probably had enough for a warrant.
He also acknowledged that the requirements for a telephonic warrant were not satisfied, that he did not have a search warrant, and that it was a warrantless search. Given this undisputed testimony, even when considered in the light most favorable to Defendant Walker, the search of the Plaintiffs’ home was without a warrant, even a defective one, and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. No reasonable jury could have concluded otherwise as there was no question of fact on this issue.
Yeah. That’s inexcusable. And yet, Walker had an excuse: good faith. He attempted to avail himself of the good faith warrant exception. But, as the judge points out, good faith relies on someone believing a valid warrant has actually been issued, not just thinking they could probably obtain one at some point in the future. On top of that, the good faith exception invoked by the deputy only applies in criminal trials, not civil trials. Even if it did apply in this content, Walker would still lose. (Emphasis in the original.)
But even if the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule can apply in the civil context, the good faith exception still would not apply in the circumstances of this case. First, per Judge Newsome and Defendant Walker, there was no warrant, telephonic or written, and thus there was nothing upon which Walker could rely in good faith. In other words, because Defendant Walker knew that he did not have a warrant at the time of the incident, the good faith exception does not apply.
And the cases Walker cites are inapplicable to the facts here: Taylor, Moorehead, Henderson,
and Ganzer all involved situations where written warrants were issued, not situations where a warrant was never issued in the first place. And secondly, as a matter of law, given the undisputed facts concerning the non-existence of a warrant, it was objectively unreasonable for an experienced law enforcement officer to believe that he could search an occupied home when no warrant existed, when no judge told him that he had a warrant, when he was merely told that he had enough for a warrant, and when none of the formalities or requirements associated with a telephonic or written warrant were followed.
As the court notes in this order, it fully expects Walker to raise the other form of good faith in a future motion, indicating that while a jury has already said the couple is owed $1 million in damages, the court has yet to issue an order blessing that payout. Hopefully, if nothing else, this utter failure to salvage a blatantly unconstitutional search will urge Walker’s employers to cut a check, rather than continue to embarrass itself in court.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, alabama, civil asset forfeiture, good faith, greg almond, kevin walker, qualified immunity, randolph county, teresa almond, warrantless search, warrants
Comments on “Alabama Couple Awarded $1 Million Over Warrantless Raid Of Their House That Saw Cops Walk Off With All Their Cash”
I feel like the requirement to have a high school diploma to be a deputy in Alabama combined with the level of public education is terrifying
Re:
Red states are intentionally terrifying.
Re: Re:
They thrive on the inability to spell the difference between “terrifying” and “terrific”.
Even if he DID have a warrant.
Would finding what they found really enable the police to steal all of the couple’s valuables in Alabama?
If no, there’s still no leg to stand on. If yes… that’s way more than civil asset forfeiture or the War on Drugs. Alabama needs to fix its laws.
Re:
<< Alabama needs to fix its laws.>>
Alabama first needs to stop inbreeding.
Re:
Should any warrant grant the privilege of any of the activities performed there? Should any reasonable person, let alone law enforcement, behave in such ways?
(Apparently the answer is yes, it’s totes cool, according to People Who Matter.)
Re:
Alabama is liable to “fix their laws” so the next pig that does this gets away with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Notice how this author writes ceaselessly about obscure instances where courts have held that police could’ve done better in very unique, difficult circumstances.
But he never – not once – writes anything about any of the tens of millions positive and wholesome interactions that take place annually between law enforcement and civilians in the US.
This anarchist author, who hopes for chaos and carnage to overwehelm your own neighborhoods and communities, has a shameless and iredeemable anti-police bias.
Re:
‘But what about all the people they don’t tob, murder, beat or falsely imprison?’
When American police extend the benefit of the doubt to minority or poor communities you wish to see extended to them and are actually subjected to some degree of accountability for abuses of power, then you can complain about negative coverage, until then, stop licking the boot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
There are literally tens of millions of wholesome, problem free interactions between police at every level and citizens across the entire country every year.
This author is obsessed with finding one or two examples per week out of tens of millions annually where police might’ve made mistakes or not done the best work possible and presenting them as if they’re evidence of some widespread problem.
There is no systemic bias in policing in the US. There is no culture of exploitation and abuse. The vast majority of interactions between law enforcement and civilians are lawful and kind and do Lady Justice proud.
This author is a maniacal, antisocial malcontent who wants everyone to experience the suffering and disorder that characterizes his own pathetic life.
Re: Re: Re:
Damn, I originally thought you were satirizing a dumb person.
Re: Re: Re:
Awwww put a sock in it.
Americans drive millions of miles every day aross this country and no ne ever writes about all tose “successes”, do they? But let a car crash into another, and there will be at least a blip on some news source.
With the increasing frequency f corrupt actions by sworn LE I am glad to read about one set of victims getting their due, and the miscreant corrupt LE officers gettig their hands gently slapped even if only fir whoe.
NOW, when the court ORDERS the involved croojed LE to tur in their badges and sidearms and serve some time for the rand theft they perpetrated, maybe this sort of occurrence will be even MORE rare. This would be a good thing. I would rather survive an entire year and NEVER come across one such report as this.
We NEED to hear of these incidents especially when the ones caught with their hands in the cookie jar get some serious consequences in result of their fraud. And the dirty coppers NEED to see thee things i their daily press when they happen, too.they serve as an encouragement that they cannot get away with murder, or theft.
Re:
But he never – not once – writes anything about any of the tens of millions positive and wholesome interactions that take place annually between law enforcement and civilians in the US.
Maybe you can set up a site to devote to it, given your apparent passion, instead of whining like a toddler.
Re:
Notice how this author writes ceaselessly about obscure instances where courts have held that police could’ve done better in very unique, difficult circumstances.
What the fuck is ‘obscure’ about some dumb fuck cop not having a warrant and being called out on it? He didn’t have a warrant, knew it, admitted it, yet went forward anyway.
There’s nothing obscure about a basic fucking requirement not being followed, you fucking shitstain.
Re:
Yeah, there’s very few stories about people doing their jobs properly compared to stories about corrupt idiots costing their employers a million dollars.
The reason is that basic competence isn’t newsworthy, but expensive incompetence is. The fact that sometimes cops manage to do the right thing occasionally doesn’t mean they get away with when they’re not.
Re: Re:
He sounds like the assholes you run across on some workplaces who get livid when you point out that the stupid shit they pull off at work is actively hurting the company.
Re:
Quitcherbellyaching deputy walker aka “anonymous coward”, the only agenda here is to expose thieves and liars like you so you don’t tarnish the reputation of honest law enforcement. Law enforcement doing the right thing shouldn’t be news because honesty should be the expected norm, and law enforcement behaving badly should news because criminal behavior needs to be exposed so it can be ended, so of course bad things we need to know about will
be news before the good expected things…
Ah justice.
By cops. Dead.
By you. Hopefully not before you die of old age.
It is good that they got at least some justice in the end. It’s unacceptable that they had to have they life ruined and had to suffer for 6 years to see it happen.
nothing like the protection racket
so……why isn’t this blue lies mafia criminal in jail?
oh.. that’s right! government protects government! not WE THE PEOPLE!
Looks like a plain old home invasion to me, which I expect is something they could get QI for since, you know, cops.
Man, davec’s going to have a conniption when he reads this one.
80's buddy cop movie pitch
The cops have to raid 250 homes to raise enough for the settlement or the mayor shuts down the department. Will the loose cannon and uptight rookie be able to fabricate enough evidence to save the department? Will the nosey internal affairs thwart them at the last minute?
Re:
This is where I was no longer able to hold suspension of disbelief.
Re: Re:
Suspension of disbelief is such a woke concept. The modern Republican will properly terminate disbelief.
Re:
The adversary should be the magistrate that actually reads the warrant applications and ask questions. The twist should be that at the end, the Feds raid the department and close it down anyway because of what they did during the movie. The problem is as others have pointed out, that last part requires too much suspension of dis-belief.
Right now, I just want to see this couple on My Lottery Dream Home, telling the American public exactly how they came into their windfall. “Yep, the justice system actually provided some justice for once.”
Exclusionary Rule??
Last I heard the courts had created enough limitations, carve-outs, and exceptions to the exclusionary rule that it was essentially dead.
This article:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule
goes into a bit of detail on the many exceptions, including that “the rule does not apply in civil cases.” Even in most criminal cases, it seems the courts these days can almost always finds ways around whatever little may be left of the exclusionary rule.
Some of the oft-abused exceptions mentioned in the linked article:
“… the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.”
“Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure.” otherwise known as evidence laundering.
“… inevitable discovery…”
Just to list a few.
“There is no systemic bias in policing in the US. There is no culture of exploitation and abuse.”
This is flat fucking delusion. Dude, this statement is a sign of mental illness. It is factory and probably Wrong. Not just a little wrong, completely wrong.
I have personally experienced the wrong and I’m Caucasian (tho with long hair). I’ve done IT for PD and I know how they’re trained. What you just said was the equivalent of “The sun rise in the West this morning” levels of wrong.
Damn you’ve been into the Kool-Aid.
Re:
He just a troll trying to rile people up for the lols. Just flag and ignore.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
So you–a hippie or peacenik [long-haired freaky person]–got what you probably had coming and now you’re whining about systemic oppression and bias in policing. 👌🏻
Civil Asset Forfeiture
Any government that has civil asset forfeiture as a law is a tyrannical government that should be disbanded by it’s citizens by whatever means is necessary.
prosecution
The police should be prosecuted for theft. Even if the search had been lawful, the property that they took was not contraband or evidence of a crime. They could not reasonably have believed that the had the legal authority to take it.
Police and exprisoners
Need help in Anniston, Oxford, Talladega, cleburn, and Clay county with drone monitoring, trespassing, illegal harvesting of game animals and humans! Any helpful information on what agency needs to investigate
Media restriction
This article points out the 4th amendment! Anniston, Alabama is excluded, correct? Like surrounding counties we are under marshall law then, correct? We can kills these zombies like on our video games, right? Got mad in drink or something, so can I kill these human zombies??? Help? Don’t know what’s real or fake???? Help???? My eyes!!!!
Youtube reference to this....
Hey Tim! You’ve been referenced by Lehtos Law again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaX4TMwVmbM