Listen to this article
Download AudioAL Immunity Denied in 2025 Police Trial
Decatur Cop Murder Trial Proceeds
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
Immunity Denied in Marquette Perkins Case
A judge has made a crucial decision in the case of former Decatur police officer Mac Marquette. He was involved in the fatal shooting of Stephen Perkins during a truck repossession attempt. Judge Charles Elliott ruled Marquette is not entitled to immunity (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). This means Marquette failed to convince the court he acted in self-defense when he shot Perkins.
The core issue revolves around the officers’ presence at Perkins’ home. According to the ruling, officers lacked the legal right to assist with the truck repossession without a court order. Alabama law requires judicial permission for such actions, often related to civil forfeitures. Without this order, their involvement was deemed improper (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). Consequently, this lack of authority undermined Marquette’s claim to immunity protections typically afforded to public officials acting within their duties.
Decatur Cop Murder Trial: Questionable Police Protocols
Judge Elliott didn’t stop at the lack of a court order. He also questioned the officers’ behavior on the scene. The judge described the officers as “likely trespassers.” This strong language stems from how they approached the situation. Instead of maintaining a visible presence to “keep the peace,” they reportedly hid around the property (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). This secretive approach raised serious questions about their intent and adherence to standard police protocols.
Furthermore, evidence showed no effort was made to contact Perkins before they entered his property in a concealed manner. There was also no documentation of any menacing investigation that might justify such tactics (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). Shockingly, during the immunity hearing, two officers admitted they knew about the legal restrictions against assisting repossessions without court orders. Despite this awareness, they proceeded, contributing to the judge’s finding that their actions were outside the bounds of lawful police work. This disregard for procedure ultimately contributed to the fatal encounter.
Key Moments in the Marquette Case
Officers Arrive
Officers, including Marquette, arrive at Perkins’ home to assist a tow truck driver with repossession, lacking a court order.
Concealed Presence
Officers hide around the property instead of announcing their presence or maintaining visibility.
Confrontation & Shooting
Marquette orders Perkins to the ground. He fires the first shot 1.4 seconds later.
Immunity Hearing
A hearing is held to determine if Marquette qualifies for immunity based on self-defense and scope of employment.
Immunity Denied
Judge Elliott rules Marquette failed to prove self-defense and officers likely acted improperly, denying immunity.
Trial Scheduled
Marquette’s murder trial is scheduled for June 9, 2025, pending any potential appeals.
Alabama Self-Defense Ruling: A Closer Look
Marquette’s claim of self-defense faced significant challenges during the hearing. A critical piece of evidence involved the timing of the shooting. Marquette fired his weapon just 1.4 seconds after commanding Perkins to get on the ground (Judge Finds Former Decatur Police Officer Mac Marquette Did Not …). Judge Elliott found this timeframe insufficient. It allowed virtually no time for de-escalation or even to reasonably assess if Perkins posed an actual threat requiring deadly force.
Moreover, Marquette’s physical position during the encounter contradicted his assertion that he was clearly identifiable as a police officer. He was reportedly positioned behind the bed of the truck, visible only from the waist up (Judge Finds Former Decatur Police Officer Mac Marquette Did Not …). This detail casts doubt on whether Perkins could have immediately recognized him as law enforcement. Generally, self-defense claims by officers require proving the force used was objectively reasonable and necessary under the circumstances (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Stand Your Ground Analysis). The judge’s ruling indicates Marquette failed to meet this burden at the immunity stage.
Police Repossession Protocols Under Scrutiny
The case highlights a confusing, yet critical, distinction in Alabama law. Police assistance with private matters like vehicle repossessions is legally restricted. It often requires judicial oversight, similar to procedures for civil forfeitures where the state seizes property (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). Civil forfeitures generally need court orders to prevent arbitrary property seizure (Alabama House Bill 202: Law Enforcement Immunity). Repossession is typically a private matter between a lender and borrower.
Officers might be present to “keep the peace” during potentially volatile private disputes. However, actively assisting the repossession itself, especially without a court order, crosses a legal line. As mentioned, two officers involved admitted knowing these limitations (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). Hiding on the property rather than simply observing from a distance also contradicts the goal of peacekeeping. Instead, it suggests participation in the repossession attempt itself, an action likely outside their legal authority. Therefore, their actions fell outside the expected protocols.
Types of Immunity for Public Officials
Qualified Immunity
Federal protection shielding officials unless they violate clearly established law, often requiring a near-identical prior case.
State-Specific Immunity (e.g., Alabama HB202)
State laws, like Alabama’s HB202, grant immunity for actions within “discretionary authority” or official duties under state policies.
Sovereign Immunity (Alabama Code §36-1-12)
Protects state agents unless acting willfully, maliciously, or beyond legal authority. Unauthorized actions may negate this.
Officer Immunity Denied: What It Means for Accountability
When police officers are accused of wrongdoing, they can sometimes claim immunity. This legal protection shields public officials from liability in certain situations. Common types include qualified immunity at the federal level (Equal Justice Initiative: Qualified Immunity) and state-specific protections like those under Alabama Code §36-1-12 or the newer HB202 (Alabama House Bill 202: Law Enforcement Immunity; Justia: Alabama Sovereign Immunity Code). However, these protections are not absolute. They generally apply only when officers act within the scope of their lawful duties and authority.
In Marquette’s case, the judge found the officers likely acted outside this scope. By assisting a repossession without a court order and potentially trespassing, they may have forfeited their immunity claims (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). The judge expressed skepticism about the officers’ reasons for being there. Significantly, this leaves key factual questions for a jury to decide. They will ultimately determine if Marquette was acting within his “employment scope” and met the “officer standard” of reasonable conduct (Immunity denied for former Decatur cop, murder trial will proceed). The murder trial is now set for June 9, 2025, although an appeal of the immunity ruling is possible (Judge Finds Former Decatur Police Officer Mac Marquette Did Not …).
Judge’s Key Findings for Denying Immunity
Unanswered Questions in the Stephen Perkins Shooting
While the judge’s ruling sheds light on the legal failings, significant gaps remain in the available information. Crucially, details about Stephen Perkins himself are missing from the provided sources. We lack basic demographic data, like his race, or any context about his background or perspective on the events leading up to the shooting (National Conference of Black Political Scientists: Institutional Decolonization). Understanding who Perkins was is vital for assessing potential systemic issues or racial disparities that often plague interactions between law enforcement and Black communities.
Additionally, the specific justification the officers gave for their presence at Perkins’ property isn’t detailed in the reports. While we know they were there for a repossession assist, their exact stated reason upon arrival remains unclear. The sources also don’t specify what de-escalation standards, if any, were applicable or required by the Decatur Police Department at the time. The 1.4-second timeframe suggests a failure, but the official protocol is unstated (Equal Justice Initiative: Qualified Immunity). Finally, the exact charge Marquette faces (e.g., first-degree murder, manslaughter) is not explicitly mentioned. Consequently, these missing pieces make it harder to fully grasp the complete narrative and its implications for justice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
