Ex Parte Carter
395 So.2d 65 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An inverse condemnation claim against a state agency requires that the agency possess the statutory power of eminent domain over the specific type of property taken. A suit seeking damages from the state is barred by sovereign immunity when based on the unauthorized acts of state employees, even if the state benefits from those acts.
Facts:
- W. E. Carter, a Florida-licensed raccoon breeder, was transporting 243 live raccoons through Alabama to fulfill a sale to a consignee in Lauderdale County.
- On or about May 21, 1977, while Carter was consummating the sale, two Alabama Department of Conservation law enforcement officers arrested him for possessing and selling raccoons during a closed season without a permit.
- The arresting officers advised Carter that if he released the raccoons in Lauderdale County, only one criminal case would be pursued against him instead of a separate offense for each raccoon.
- At the officers' suggestion and in their presence, Carter released all 243 raccoons at various locations in Lauderdale County.
- The State of Alabama acknowledged that the release of the raccoons constituted a benefit for the State and the general public.
- The arresting officers acted without any instructions from the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation.
- The fair market value of each raccoon was stipulated to be $15.00.
Procedural Posture:
- W. E. Carter brought an action for inverse condemnation against the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation in an Alabama trial court.
- The trial court held that the doctrine was inapplicable and that the suit was barred by state sovereign immunity under § 14 of the Alabama Constitution.
- Carter, as appellant, appealed to the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Carter, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Alabama, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner have a valid inverse condemnation claim against a state agency for property taken by its officers for public use when the agency lacks the statutory power to condemn that specific type of property, and is such a suit barred by sovereign immunity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Shores
No. A valid inverse condemnation claim does not lie where the state agency lacks the power to condemn the property taken, and the suit is barred by sovereign immunity. An essential element of an inverse condemnation claim is that the governmental entity which took the property must have the right or power of condemnation. While the Department of Conservation has express power to condemn real property for parks, the legislature has not granted it the power to condemn animals or other personal property. The power of eminent domain is strictly construed and cannot be implied. Furthermore, the suit against the Commissioner is barred by Article I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution, which prohibits suits against the state. This case does not fall into any recognized exception to sovereign immunity because the officers acted beyond the scope of their authority or under a mistaken interpretation of law, and their unauthorized actions cannot create liability for the Commissioner or the State.
Dissenting - Justice Maddox
Yes. The constitutional guarantee of just compensation for public takings should override the state's sovereign immunity. Carter's raccoons were private property taken and applied to public use. Article I, Section 23 of the Alabama Constitution explicitly requires just compensation for such takings. This specific guarantee should not be nullified by the general sovereign immunity provision in Section 14. The State of Alabama benefited from the officers' acts, has possession of the property in the public domain, and should therefore be required to pay the just compensation guaranteed by the constitution.
Dissenting - Justice Jones
Yes. The inverse condemnation claim is valid because the State of Alabama possesses the inherent power of eminent domain, and its agents took private property for public use. The majority's focus on whether the specific Department of Conservation was delegated the power to condemn animals is a fallacy. The taking was done by the State, acting through its employees. The State's failure to legislatively authorize this specific agency to perform this specific act should not defeat a citizen's constitutional right to compensation. This creates a perverse incentive where the State can benefit from an unauthorized taking and then use that very lack of authority as a shield against its constitutional obligation to pay.
Analysis:
This decision strictly construes the requirements for an inverse condemnation claim and broadly applies the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Alabama. By holding that the specific state agency must have the delegated power to condemn the exact type of property taken, the court narrows the path for citizens to receive compensation for de facto takings. The ruling reinforces the principle that unauthorized acts of state employees do not create liability for the state, pushing the remedy for such wrongs onto suits against the individual officers. This creates a potential 'Catch-22' where the state can retain the benefit of an unconstitutional taking while avoiding liability because the action was not officially authorized.
