TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday, Jan. 28, in a case involving a former City of Decatur police officer charged with murder.
The session was held on the University of Alabama campus in Tuscaloosa, part of an effort by the state’s high court to give law students a first-hand look at appellate proceedings.
What the case is about
The justices must decide whether former City of Decatur police officer Mac Marquette is entitled to immunity in the shooting death of Steve Perkins. A tow driver attempted to repossess Perkins’ vehicle. When Perkins saw the repossession happening, Perkins drew his pistol, pointed it at the tow driver, and demanded he leave. The driver reported the incident to DPD. The officers traveled to Perkins’ residence to investigate and keep the peace when the driver attempted to tow the vehicle again. When the towing attempt started, Perkins emerged from the house with a gun drawn again at the driver. Marquette yelled for him to stop and drop the gun, but Perkins turned and pointed his gun at Marquette. Marquette, fearing for his safety, shot Perkins. Marquette, however, was charged with murder for the shooting.
Marquette asked the trial court to find him immune under Alabama’s self-defense law. The trial court denied the request, as did the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. Now, the Alabama Supreme Court must decide whether those courts erred in denying Marquette immunity.
Why immunity is being disputed
A lower court ruled Marquette had not shown a clear legal right to immunity at this stage. The same court also found he was acting outside the scope of his duties as a police officer when he accompanied a tow truck driver during the repossession. Marquette maintained his presence was lawful as an officer “keeping the peace” and investigating Perkins’ prior incident of unlawfully pointing the gun at the tow driver.
During the arguments, the justices questioned both sides about lawful presence and the role law enforcement can play in a private repossession.
What each side argued
The state argued that Marquette was facilitating a repossession and was not in a place he was legally allowed to be. In one exchange cited by WBRC, a justice asked whether the state’s position was that Marquette was trespassing. The attorney for the state answered yes.
Marquette’s attorney, J.D. Lloyd, argued the key issue is lawful presence. He told the court that Alabama’s self-repossession statute allows officers to keep the peace during a repossession.
The hearing lasted less than an hour. The court did not issue a ruling from the bench, and there was no timeline given for when a decision will be released.
What happens next
Marquette did not attend the hearing. He is scheduled to stand trial in September.
Watch the WBRC 6 News story
This article was summarized from a report originally published by WBRC 6 News.
