Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Radford v. State
Citations: 783 So. 2d 8; 1999 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 635; 1999 WL 722675Docket: 2980124
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; September 17, 1999; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An appeal has been filed by Willa Radford regarding a forfeiture action initiated by the State under Ala.Code 1975 § 20-2-93(a)(5). The court ruled on September 14, 1998, that Radford's vehicle was used in a violation of the Alabama Controlled Substances Act, leading to its forfeiture. The case arose from an undercover operation on January 6, 1998, where Officers Samuel Jackson III and Chris Blevins responded to a tip about a white Nissan Maxima involved in drug activity. Upon arrival, they observed the vehicle and its occupants matching the description provided. Officer Jackson witnessed Radford, the driver, attempting to conceal a package under the vehicle, which he later retrieved and identified as containing crack cocaine. Additionally, Radford was found with more drugs and a concealed weapon during her arrest. On appeal, Radford contends the trial court wrongly denied her motion to dismiss the case due to the State's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the drug evidence. Citing Ex parte Holton, the court highlighted that the chain of custody consists of identifiable "links," with each link needing to demonstrate receipt, disposition, and proper handling of the item. Failure to show any link or meet the criteria results in an inadmissible item. If circumstantial evidence supports the links, they may be considered "weak," affecting credibility but not admissibility. The State must prove a continuous chain of custody to authenticate the evidence presented. To establish a proper chain of custody, the State must demonstrate with reasonable probability that the evidence remains in the same condition as when it was first obtained. In this case, Jackson testified that he recovered 'baggies' containing a white crystalline substance and handed them over to Officer Bussey at the Birmingham Police Department. Danny Kirkpatrick from the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences received these substances from Bussey, but the State failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the safeguarding and handling of the 'baggies' while they were with Jackson and Bussey. Key issues identified include a lack of evidence about how Jackson secured the 'baggies' or whether he marked them for identification. Similarly, there was no evidence presented regarding how Bussey stored or secured the 'baggies' after receiving them from Jackson. The absence of details about the transfer process between Jackson and Bussey raises doubts about the authenticity of the substances tested by Kirkpatrick. Because the State did not satisfy the chain-of-custody requirements established in precedent cases, the evidence regarding the substance, later identified as crack cocaine, was deemed inadmissible. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.