Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 4
DOCUMENT 57
Futhermore, any witness that is or has been under subpoena to testify regarding
any issue in this case, is also precluded from making any extrajudicial comments about
the case in public or on any social media platform.
This order does not prevent any attorney in the case, the law firm(s) associated
with the case or representatives of the District Attorney's Office, from discussing the
case with their client or victim representative. It further does not prevent internal
discussions from taking place among members of the defense attorney(s)'s firm or the
District Attorney's Office, or conversations between the attorneys in the case. Lastly, it
does not prevent the attorneys or their staffs from communicating with any witness,
potential witness, or any person in an attempt to discover evidence.
DONE this 24th day of May, 2024.
/s/ CHARLES B. ELLIOTT
CIRCUIT JUDGE
Exhibit 5
DOCUMENT 86
pointed a handgun at a tow-truck driver and the Defendant. Perkins died as a result
of the of the shooting.
2. On the day of the incident, Defendant was on duty as a patrol police officer
employed by the City of Decatur, Alabama. As a result of a tow-truck driver’s call
to the police about having been threatened with a gun during an attempted, lawful
repossession of a vehicle, a Decatur police officer was dispatched to meet the tow-
truck driver at the driver’s business address. The Defendant was subsequently
called as backup to the responding officer and drove to the tow truck business. The
tow-truck driver requested an escort back to Perkins’ residence to avoid any
violent confrontation, as Perkins had already menaced and threatened the driver
with a gun. The Defendant’s supervisor and several other officers accompanied
the driver back to Perkins’ residence with an intent to ensure the safety of the
driver and to investigate a menacing charge.
3. The Defendant and his fellow officers took various positions around Perkins’
residence to observe the situation and to protect the tow-truck driver. When the
driver began the process of the lawful repossession of the vehicle, Perkins came
out of the residence with his arm extended with a firearm in plain view. In addition,
the firearm that Perkins was brandishing, a Glock 9 mm, had a weapon-mounted
flashlight affixed to its frame, thereby illuminating where Perkins was pointing the
weapon. Upon exiting his residence, Perkins rapidly advanced toward the tow-
truck and was pointing the gun at the driver - still in his vehicle.
4. The Defendant, who was located behind the vehicle that was to be repossessed,
saw Perkins and clearly saw him pointing a weapon at the tow-truck driver. This
DOCUMENT 86
was evidenced by the flashlight illuminating the tow-truck driver. The Defendant
then reacted to the threat posed by Perkins by yelling and identifying himself as
police and giving him a loud verbal command to drop the weapon. Instead of
dropping the weapon as instructed, Perkins turned and pointed the gun directly at
the Defendant. In fear for his life and the lives of others, the Defendant fired his
duty weapon to eliminate the deadly threat to himself, his fellow officers, and the
tow-truck driver.
5. That Alabama Code §13A-3-23 specifies a person does not have a duty to retreat
when in a place where he has the right to be and is not engaged in unlawful activity.
6. That the Defendant was lawfully fulfilling his duties as a municipal police officer
and was acting in defense of himself, his fellow officers, and the tow-truck driver
when he fired his duty weapon.
7. Other Courts throughout the Country and in Alabama have granting police officers
with a hearing, and ultimately, immunity under this code section. Those rulings
have held that police officers, despite their profession, warrant the same
consideration of the threshold issue of “stand your ground” immunity as a private
citizen. In a recent Jefferson County, Alabama case, State of Alabama v. Stephon
Green (CC 2020-2091), the Defendant was a Birmingham Police Officer charged
with Assault 2nd for an on-duty incident in which the officer used physical force
against a detained person. The Court granted the officer immunity from
prosecution and stated in its dismissal order dated December 12, 2022:
“This Court finds nowhere in Alabama law that a person loses their
ability to reasonably defend, nor protect themselves from someone’s
DOCUMENT 86
use of unlawful physical force simply because of their employment
status with any particular entity. Thus, the fact that this Defendant
was employed as a Birmingham Police Officer did not strip him of his
statutory right to defend himself.”
8. Moreover, to the extent that immunity is a special privilege granted by statute and,
in that sense, is different from an affirmative defense that is tried to the jury, the
Defendant respectfully request that his claim of immunity be heard at the first
available opportunity and that all other matters before the Court, including pretrial,
motion hearings, evidentiary issues, and the trial of the case be continued and
delayed until the Defendant has a full and fair hearing on his claim of immunity
pursuant to Alabama’s stand your ground law.
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Brett M. Bloomston
BRETT M. BLOOMSTON (BLO009)
Attorney for Defendant
THE BLOOMSTON FIRM
1914 4th Avenue North
Suite 100
Birmingham, AL 35203
[email protected]
s/ Elizabeth A. Young
ELIZABETH A. YOUNG (YOU051)
Attorney for Defendant
1400 21ST Way South
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
(205) 631-8004
DOCUMENT 86
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do hereby certify that I have served a copy of the above and foregoing Motion
upon all parties by electronically filing the same on this the 7th day of January 2025.
s/Brett M. Bloomston
OF COUNSEL
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12
Exhibit 13
