LAUDERDALE COUNTY, Ala. (WHNT) — A new motion has been presented in the case of a lawsuit filed in May against five people employed by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.
According to court documents, on July 2, the defense of five DCNR employees named in a lawsuit filed by three Lauderdale County landowners has asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was originally filed on May 20 by Dalton Boley, Regina Williams and Dale Liles. The three paired up to sue Chris Blankenship, Charles Sykes, Chad Howell, Jarrod Poole and Bradley Hasamear (formerly identified as an unknown game warden officer), saying their private properties were searched without a warrant or consent.
The document said the case seeks to “vindicate” the three defendants to be free from unreasonable searches of their land. “Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) officers, relying on a statute, see Ala. Code § 9-2-65(a)(6), have repeatedly entered Plaintiffs’ land without consent or a warrant,” the lawsuit says.
You can read the full original complaint here.
In the motion to dismiss, filed on July 2, the defense says that DCNR’s ability to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of [its] duty is a vital tool for doing so.”
The motion states that the three fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Below are the arguments listed in the dismissal motion.
Binding precedent defeats the plaintiff’s unreasonable search claim against all defendants
In the complaint filed, the landowners claim that Ala. Code § 9-2-65(a)(6) violates § 5 of the Alabama Constitution because it allows searches of private property without consent or a warrant.
The defense says Alabama’s open-fields doctrine states that “§ 5’s protection never extends to ‘open fields or pasture land beyond the curtilage of the home or business establishment.’” Citing Oliver, 466 U.S. at 181, the defense says the plaintiffs cannot “transform their open fields into protected curtilage by posting ‘No Trespassing’ signs or erecting fences.”
This then backs up the claim that the department and its officers can search land without a warrant or consent without violating [the plaintiff’s] rights.
“The open-fields doctrine confirms the Department and the Officers’ right to enter Plaintiffs’ property under §9-2-65(a)(6). Because—under longstanding precedent—Defendants thus did not violate Plaintiffs’ protection from unreasonable searches of their possessions, the Court should dismiss their official-capacity constitutional claim against all Defendants,” the motion says.
Plaintiffs’ trespass claims against the officers fails
This section says the officers involved are entitled to a dismissal of the claims, saying that peace officer immunity under § 6-5-338 and State-agent immunity bars the claims, as well as saying the claims “fail on the merits because §9-2-65(a)(6) expressly authorizes the Officers’ entry.”
Officers Howell, Poole, and Hasamear are immune
The motion says that, per the Alabama Constitution, “[T]he State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity.” This extends to State agents sued in their individual capacities when they are doing one of the five:
- Formulating plans, policies, or designs
- Exercising judgment in the administration of a State department, such as allocating resources
- Performing a statutory duty as prescribed
- Exercising judgment in enforcing the State’s criminal laws
- Exercising judgment in the exercise of duties related to releasing prisoners, counseling or releasing persons of unsound mind, or educating students
This section of the dismissal motion says that the officers named are entitled to the immunities listed because the amended complaint says that the officers are State agents. The Alabama Supreme Court has also held that conservation enforcement officers qualify as peace officers under §6-5-338. Ex parte Duvall, 782 So. 2d 244, 247 (Ala. 2000).
Plaintiffs’ trespass claims fail on the merits
“Throughout the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs recognize that §9-2-65(a)(6) allows the Officers “[t]o enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duty.” E.g., Doc. 60 ¶ 4. And because these trespass claims arise under statutory and common law, id. at 32, ¶181, the Legislature can modify them as it sees fit, see State v. Grant, 378 So.. 3d 576, 581 (Ala. 2022) (citing ALA.CODE §1-3-1). So this statutory right to enter Plaintiffs’ properties dooms their trespass claims, even if they could succeed on their constitutional claim,” the motion to dismiss says.
The motion also says that Boley’s previous trespass claim regarding William’s property fails for another reason, stating that, to maintain his trespass claim, Boley must allege “an interest in the exclusive possession of his property[.]” However, Boley says he merely has a license to use William’s property, not a possessory interest in it.
Overall, the conclusion of the motion to dismiss says the court should dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, saying the “[b]inding precedent requires this Court to reject their unreasonable-search claim. And State-agent immunity bars their trespass claims, which fail on the merits regardless.”
The motion to dismiss was then set for a hearing on August 27. You can read the full motion to dismiss below.
The post Attorneys for five DCNR employees sued by Lauderdale Co. landowners claim State-agent immunity, ask court to dismiss lawsuit appeared first on WHNT.
