Alabama Supreme Court Hears Arguments Over Officer’s Immunity in Repo‑Related Shooting

The Supreme Court of Alabama heard arguments June 23 in Ex parte Mac Bailey Marquette, a mandamus petition asking the court to find Decatur Police Officer Mac Bailey Marquette immune after he shot Steven Perkins during a nighttime repossession attempt. JD Lloyd, counsel for the petitioner, told the court “This petition isn't truly about disputed facts,” urging the justices to decide the legal question under the defense‑of‑persons statute commonly cited in argument as section 13a‑3‑23.

Lloyd argued that, under the plain language of section 23 and the court’s recent decision in ex parte Johnson, the record shows Marquette acted in self‑defense and met the burden for immunity even under a duty‑to‑retreat analysis. Lloyd told the bench the key factual sequence was Perkins emerging from his house with a firearm and pointing it at another man and then at Officer Marquette, which Lloyd said “set in motion the fatal chain of events.” He urged the court that tactics used by officers were not dispositive of whether the officer reasonably perceived a lethal threat.

Representing the State, Barrett Bowdre asked the court to balance two public interests: holding officers accountable for criminal wrongdoing and protecting officers who act reasonably within the line of duty. “The state of Alabama has 2 important interests in this case,” Bowdre said, and argued that the peace‑officer provision the parties referred to as section 27 creates a reasonable‑officer standard that should be imported into the section‑23 analysis. The State also urged the court to view the officers’ role leading up to the shooting — including whether they effectively facilitated a second repossession attempt — as a potential legal bar to immunity.

A central dispute in argument was procedural posture: whether the Supreme Court can resolve immunity on a mandamus petition when portions of the record raise factual questions about trespass, officers’ intent, and what the trial court expressly decided. Several justices pressed both sides on whether the repossession statute (discussed in argument as 7‑9a‑609 or similar citations) expressly governs law enforcement participation and whether the officers’ presence converted the repossession into an act requiring judicial process. The State pointed to testimony that the repo driver would not have returned without officers present and argued their involvement made the second attempt unlawful; counsel characterized that as a key reason the defendant might be a trespasser at the moment force was used.

Justices repeatedly asked whether issues such as the reasonableness of police positioning, the officers’ intent, and whether Marquette could have retreated were factual determinations for the trial court or legal questions the Supreme Court could decide on mandamus review. Petitioner’s counsel relied on Pfitzner to argue the appellate court may assume unstated factual findings that would support the lower court’s order and may review body‑worn camera footage for clear error; the State countered that several aspects of the record — including the police practice in Decatur and disputed testimony about how officers arrived and positioned themselves — create genuine factual disputes best left to a jury.

By the end of the hour of argument the bench had repeatedly pressed both sides on the statutory sequence the court should adopt: first whether Marquette was acting in the line and scope of duty so that a reasonable‑officer (section 27) standard applies, then whether stand‑your‑ground language in subsection b applies, and only then whether a duty‑to‑retreat analysis is necessary. Counsel debated whether trespass findings or facilitation of the repossession should preclude immunity even if the officer perceived an immediate threat.

The court announced it would take the petition under submission. No decision was rendered at argument; the justices will decide whether a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to find immunity is warranted after reviewing the filings and record.