D.D.B. v. State of Alabama

── D.D.B. v. State of Alabama ── Case No.: CR-2025-0386 Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama Date: March 27, 2026 Author: Cole Category: General Rel: March 27, 2026 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CR-2025-0386 _________________________ D.D.B. v. State of Alabama Appeal from Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court (JU-24-372.01) COLE, Judge. CR-2025-0386 D.D.B. appeals his delinquency adjudication based on the charge of certain persons forbidden to possess a pistol, a violation of § 13A-11-72(b), Ala. Code 1975. 1 For the reasons discussed below, we reverse. Facts and Procedural History On June 20, 2024, a delinquency petition was filed in the Tuscaloosa Juvenile Court, alleging that, on June 19, 2024, D.D.B., a minor, possessed or owned a pistol, a violation of § 13A-11-72(b). The juvenile court appointed D.D.B. counsel, and D.D.B. then filed two motions with the juvenile court. The first motion that D.D.B. filed challenged the constitutionality of § 13A-11-72(b) under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 26 of the Alabama Constitution. Specifically, D.D.B. argued that § 13A-11-72(b) was facially unconstitutional because nothing within either the United States Constitution or the Alabama Constitution limited the right to possess a firearm to adults and that, historically, minors had been permitted to possess firearms. The second motion that D.D.B. filed was a motion to suppress the evidence gathered 1Because this appeal involves a juvenile-delinquency adjudication, initials are used to protect D.D.B.'s anonymity. See Rule 52, Ala. R. App. P. 2 CR-2025-0386 on June 19, 2024, because, he said, the Terry2 stop that led to the discovery of that evidence was unlawful. A hearing on those motions was held on March 18, 2025. At the hearing, both D.D.B. and the State argued their respective positions regarding D.D.B.'s constitutional challenge to § 13A-11-72 (b). Then, regarding the motion to suppress, the State called Corporal Jason Seibert, with the Tuscaloosa Police Department ("TPD"), to testify as follows. On June 19, 2024, Cpl. Seibert, along with his partner Officer Logan Wilson, were patrolling in the City of Tuscaloosa. That day, Cpl. Seibert patrolled in the 300 block of 24th Avenue East, which is "Alberta City." Cpl. Seibert explained that the TPD "patrol[s] Alberta City pretty heavily because there's been a bit of gang violence and UB&Es [(unlawful breaking and enterings)] in the area." (R. 21.)3 Based on those crimes, the TPD put on "extra patrol" for "about two weeks," which involved officers "routinely patrol[ling] that area" to ensure that "there's nobody 2Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 3The transcript in the record on appeal is not consecutively paginated. References to testimony from the reporter's transcript of the suppression hearing held on March 18, 2025, will be referred to with an "R." 3 CR-2025-0386 walking around pulling on door handles, nobody stealing packages, people driving through neighborhoods shooting firearms out a window, stuff like that." (R. 21.) On June 19, 2024, extra patrols were ordered in Alberta City based on "weapons discharges coming from vehic