AlaFile E-Notice

01-CV-2025-902665.00

To: LEROY MAXWELL JR.

maxwell@mxlawfirm.com

NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA

VIVIAN PEOPLES V. CITY OF HOMEWOOD

01-CV-2025-902665.00

The following complaint was FILED on 7/18/2025 4:40:55 PM

Notice Date: 7/18/2025 4:40:55 PM

JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH

CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
716 RICHARD ARRINGTON, JR BLVD
BIRMINGHAM, AL, 35203

205-325-5355
jackie.smith@alacourt.gov
 DOCUMENT 23
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
7/18/2025 4:40 PM
01-CV-2025-902665.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
CIVIL DIVISION

VIVIAN PEOPLES, as Mother and Next )

of Kin to JABARI LATRELL )
PEOPLES, deceased, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) CASE NO: _________________
)
CITY OF HOMEWOOD, OFFICER ) ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
JOHN DOE, ALABAMA LAW )
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, and )
CHRISTOPHER INABINETT, in his )
Official Capacity as Director of the )
ALABAMA LAW ENFORCEMENT )
AGENCY, )
)
Respondents. )

AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY AND

PRESERVE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 27 OF THE
ALABAMA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

COMES NOW, the Petitioner, Vivian Sterling, as Mother and Next of Kin to Jabari Latrell

Peoples, deceased, by and through the undersigned counsel, and files the following Amended

Verified Petition to perpetuate testimony and preserve evidence pursuant to Rule 27 of the Alabama

Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of this Petition, Petitioner states as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND BASIS FOR RULE 27 RELIEF

1. Petitioner seeks to perpetuate testimony and preserve evidence for use in an anticipated

wrongful death and civil rights action arising from the June 23, 2025, fatal shooting death of

her son, Jabari Latrell Peoples. The sole purpose of this Petition is to prevent the loss or delay

of justice by securing critical evidence and testimony that may otherwise become unavailable

or impaired before Petitioner can fully prosecute her claims. Petitioner does not seek to utilize

Rule 27 as a “fishing expedition” to explore the viability of claims, as she has a good-faith

1
 DOCUMENT 23

basis for her claims and a clear intent to file suit. This Petition’s purpose is to ensure that known

evidence is preserved, and key testimony is recorded, given the extraordinary circumstances

detailed more fully below.

2. Rule 27 of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure permits “A person who desires to perpetuate

that person’s own testimony or that of another person or to obtain discovery under Rule 34 or

Rule 35 regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court of this state [to] file a verified

petition in the circuit court in the county of the residence of any expected adverse party.”

3. The Alabama Supreme Court has emphasized that Rule 27 is for the narrow purpose of

preserving testimony or evidence that is at risk of being lost. In Ex parte Ferrari, the Court

expressly overruled prior precedent that expanded pre-action discovery, holding that the

purpose of Rule 27 is to perpetuate evidence.171 So. 3d 631, 652 (Ala. 2015). Likewise, in

Jackson v. City of Montgomery, the Court explained that Rule 27 “explicitly requires a

petitioner to show that he or she is presently unable to bring an action or to cause an action to

be brought” and clarifies that the Rule “limits preaction discovery to the purpose of preserving

evidence.” 213 So. 3d 552, 560 (Ala. 2016).

4. Consistent with the foregoing authority, Petitioner has framed this Amended Petition as

narrowly as possible to satisfy the rigorous requirements of Rule 27. As stated, Petitioner

intends to pursue a wrongful death and civil rights action against the City of Homewood and

John Doe and does not file this Petition as an avenue to “discover” whether a cause of action

exists. Petitioner is prepared to allege excessive force and other violations based on the

information presently available (including eyewitness accounts). However, critical evidence –

most notably the officer’s body-worn camera footage of the incident – remains inaccessible

and at risk of spoliation and/or permanent withholding, and crucial testimony about that

2
 DOCUMENT 23

evidence may become unavailable or less reliable with the passage of time. Absent immediate

perpetuation of such evidence and testimony, Petitioner’s ability to prosecute the forthcoming

lawsuit could be irreparably impaired, causing a failure or delay of justice.

PARTIES

5. Petitioner Vivian Sterling (“Petitioner”) is an individual who is a resident of the State of

Alabama and is at least nineteen (19) years of age. Petitioner is the biological mother of Jabari

Latrell Peoples (“decedent”). Petitioner brings this action in her capacity as mother and next-

of-kin of the decedent. Petitioner has a direct personal interest in the forthcoming wrongful

death and civil rights action arising from decedent’s death. Petitioner expects to be the plaintiff

in such action.

6. Respondent City of Homewood (“the City”) is a municipal corporation in the State of Alabama.

The City operates, supervises, oversees, controls, and employs the City of Homewood Police

Department and was the employer of the police officer involved in the fatal shooting of

decedent. The City, through its Police Department, possessed and controlled the evidence in

question immediately after the incident and is expected to have pertinent information regarding

the incident. The City is an “expected adverse party” in Petitioner’s anticipated wrongful death

action, in that Petitioner intends to assert claims against the City. The City was named as a

Respondent in the original Rule 27 Petition and remains a proper Respondent for purposes of

testimonial perpetuation and evidence preservation as requested herein.

7. Respondent Officer John Doe (“John Doe”) is the designation given to the Homewood Police

Department officer who fired the shot that killed decedent on June 23, 2025. The true name of

this officer is currently unknown to Petitioner. He is believed to be an adult resident of the

State of Alabama and, at all times relevant hereto, an officer employed by the City of

3
 DOCUMENT 23

Homewood Police Department. Petitioner fully expects to bring claims against John Doe in

the anticipated wrongful death lawsuit. He is named as a Respondent in order to preserve any

testimony or evidence within his knowledge. The inclusion of Officer John Doe as a

Respondent in this Petition is not for the purpose of uncovering his identity through pre-suit

discovery, but simply to put all relevant parties on notice and to ensure that any testimony or

evidence he may have is preserved.

8. Respondent Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (“ALEA”) is the state-level law enforcement

agency of Alabama. ALEA is the current custodian of the primary evidence at issue – the body-

worn camera video of the incident. The Homewood Police Department relinquished the

investigation and control of said evidence to ALEA on the night of the incident. Under Alabama

Code § 36-21-210(2), if another law enforcement agency takes over the investigation of an

incident captured on a body-cam recording, that agency assumes custodial responsibility for

the recording. Accordingly, ALEA now holds the only official copy of the video and is the

entity authorized by statute to disclose or release the recording. ALEA is named as a

Respondent herein because it is a necessary party for affording complete relief (i.e.

preservation and potential disclosure of the video evidence) in this Rule 27 proceeding.

Without ALEA’s participation, the core evidence cannot be preserved or produced, and any

order of this Court would be inadequate to secure the purposes of this Petition. Joinder of

ALEA is therefore required under Rule 19(a) of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure which

states that a person or entity must be joined if, in its absence, complete relief cannot be

accorded among those already parties.

9. Respondent Christopher Inabinett (“Mr. Inabinett”) is the Director of ALEA. He is named in

his official capacity as the head of ALEA, pursuant to Rule 19(a) and Rule 21, to ensure that

4
 DOCUMENT 23

any orders of this Court regarding the preservation or handling of the evidence in ALEA’s

custody can be directed to the appropriate official. Mr. Inabinett, through ALEA, has the

ultimate authority over the retention and release of the recording in question, and thus his

presence is necessary for the full effectiveness of the relief sought.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition pursuant to Rule 27 of the Alabama Rules of Civil

Procedure, which authorizes the circuit court to adjudicate verified petitions for pre-action

discovery to perpetuate testimony or preserve evidence. Petitioner avers that the requirements

of Rule 27 are satisfied here: Petitioner expects to be a party to a wrongful death and civil

rights action cognizable in an Alabama court but is presently unable to prosecute that action

fully due to the unavailability of crucial evidence. Further, this Petition is filed in the Circuit

Court of Jefferson County, Alabama where Respondent City of Homewood is located.

11. Venue is proper in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama because the acts and

omissions giving rise to this Petition and the anticipated lawsuit occurred in Jefferson County,

Alabama.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. On the night of June 23, 2025, decedent, an 18-year-old male, was sitting in a parked vehicle

at the Homewood Soccer Complex located at 1800 South Lakeshore Drive in Homewood,

Alabama with a friend. Respondent John Doe approached the vehicle, ostensibly to investigate

what he deemed a suspicious vehicle in the park. According to the Homewood Police

Department’s account released afterward, John Doe, who was uniformed and in a marked

patrol unit, claimed to detect the odor of marijuana as he approached. He ordered both

occupants out of the vehicle. When decedent exited, John Doe allegedly observed a handgun

5
 DOCUMENT 23

in the driver’s side door pocket. John Doe allegedly attempted to detain or arrest decedent, at

which point John Doe reported a physical altercation ensued. Decedent then allegedly broke

away and reached for the handgun in the door pocket, prompting John Doe to fire his service

weapon once, striking decedent. Decedent was transported to UAB Hospital, where he was

later pronounced dead from the gunshot wound. (See Homewood’s Press Release Dated June

25, 2025, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”).

13. The Homewood Police Department’s version of events asserts that decedent was armed and

posed an immediate deadly threat to John Doe, thereby necessitating the use of lethal force. In

contrast, eyewitness information indicates that decedent was unarmed, and did not threaten

John Doe. The eyewitness reported not witnessing decedent with a gun whatsoever. This stark

factual dispute makes the body-worn camera footage of the incident critically important, as it

presumably offers an objective recording of what transpired during the encounter. Indeed, the

Homewood Police Department itself acknowledged that “the details surrounding this incident

are clearly captured on the officer’s body worn camera.” (Exhibit A, ¶ 3). Consequently, the

footage is key evidence for determining the propriety of John Doe’s use of force and for

resolving the conflicting accounts.

14. In the days and weeks following decedent’s death, Petitioner, by and through her counsel,

made repeated inquiries and requests to obtain basic information about the shooting, including

John Doe’s identity and access to the body-camera footage. Despite these requests, echoed as

well by public calls for transparency, the City of Homewood refused to disclose John Doe’s

identity. Likewise, neither the City nor ALEA made the bodycam video available to the family.

On or about June 30, 2025, Petitioner, by and through her counsel, submitted a formal written

6
 DOCUMENT 23

request to ALEA for disclosure of the body-worn camera recording, pursuant to the process

outlined in Ala. Code § 36-21-212 and § 36-21-213.

15. ALEA denied Petitioner’s request to view the bodycam footage. In a statement released on July

1, 2025, ALEA and Mr. Inabinett cited Alabama Code § 36-21-213 as the basis for refusal.

Under that statute, “[a] custodial law enforcement agency may choose not to disclose the

recording if the disclosure would affect an ongoing active law enforcement investigation or

prosecution.” Ala. Code § 36-21-213. ALEA stated that, after review, it had determined

“disclosure of the requested recording would affect the ongoing investigation” and therefore,

“in accordance with state law” and in the interest of protecting the investigation, ALEA

“respectfully decline[d] to make the disclosure.” (See ALEA’s Denial Dated July 1, 2025,

attached hereto as “Exhibit B”). In other words, ALEA formally invoked the temporary

investigative exemption provided by § 36-21-213(a)(2) – effectively placing a hold on

releasing the video until such time as it deems the investigation no longer “ongoing” or until

further legal process compels release. It is presently unclear when or if the footage will be

released at a later date.

16. In their denial, ALEA failed to show a concrete and articulable basis for denying Petitioner’s

request. Mr. Inabinett failed to explain how a private, supervised viewing of the bodycam

footage by the family and their legal representative creates risks of contaminating witness

testimony, contaminating or interfering with ALEA’s investigation, or interfering with the

chain of custody. Absent specific evidence of harm, the refusal appears arbitrary and

unnecessarily obstructive to transparency and accountability. In sum, Mr. Inabinett has failed

to demonstrate how limited, private viewing of the bodycam footage by decedent’s family and

their attorneys would be harmful.

7
 DOCUMENT 23

17. The evidence Petitioner seeks to preserve – in particular, the body-camera recording – is of

such a nature that delayed access or potential loss would seriously prejudice the administration

of justice. Although Alabama law now classifies law enforcement recordings as non-public

records and tightly controls their release, it does mandate that recordings be retained for at least

the period required by the relevant records retention schedule. Petitioner is mindful that, by

statute, no government agency is permitted to destroy records except in accordance with

approved retention policies. Petitioner has no reason to believe that Respondents would

intentionally destroy this critical video in the immediate future – indeed, doing so could expose

them to spoliation claims or other sanctions. However, mere retention of the video is not

sufficient to prevent a failure or delay of justice. Every day that the footage remains

inaccessible to the family is a day that witness memories fade, public distrust mounts, and

Petitioner’s ability to effectively plead and prove her case is hampered.

18. Given that ALEA’s investigation timeline is indeterminate, waiting passively for an eventual

release could delay Petitioner’s pursuit of her lawsuit by months or years. Additionally, other

evidence – such as testimony regarding the contents of the video and the circumstances of its

handling – is in danger of being lost or degraded over time. For example, if no testimony is

taken until much later, the individuals who have seen or handled the evidence may not recall

details as clearly. There is also a possibility that without court oversight, copies of the video

could be altered or not preserved in their original form – even if inadvertently, due to

technological issues or routine data management. In short, this unique situation places crucial

evidence at risk of being effectively suppressed or its value diminished by the passage of time,

justifying this Court’s intervention to preserve and document it now.

8
 DOCUMENT 23

RELIEF REQUESTED

19. Petitioner seeks to perpetuate the testimony of a representative of the City who has knowledge

of: (a) the existence and content of the body-worn camera recording of the incident; (b) the

viewing of that recording by City officials (for instance, whether the Police Chief or other City

personnel have seen the footage and what was observed); (c) the chain of custody and transfer

of the recording from the City to ALEA (e.g., when and how the video was delivered to ALEA,

whether any copies were retained, etc.); and (d) the existence and contents of any immediate

incident reports or use-of-force reports generated by the City regarding the shooting (and

whether those were forwarded to ALEA). Petitioner believes that the appropriate deponent for

these topics may be the Chief Tim Ross of the Homewood Police Department or another

officer/employee designated by the City who is most knowledgeable about these matters. The

purpose of taking this deposition or sworn testimony is to memorialize, under oath, the City’s

knowledge and account of the critical evidence while events are fresh, and to ensure that if, for

any reason, the video itself remains inaccessible, there is at least testimonial evidence of what

the video showed. Petitioner anticipates that the testimony will establish whether the video

corroborates or contradicts John Doe’s account and will document the chain of custody of the

video. This testimony is at risk of being lost or its accuracy diminished because memories fade

with the passage of time. By perpetuating it now, the Court can secure an evidentiary record

that will be invaluable in the coming litigation.

20. Petitioner seeks the preservation of: (a) the body-worn camera video recording of the June 23,

2025, officer-involved shooting of decedent (including any audio captured therein); (b) any

dashboard camera video or other recording of the incident, if such exists; (c) the incident report

and/or investigative report prepared by the Homewood Police Department immediately

9
 DOCUMENT 23

following the shooting; (d) any use-of-force report or internal review documents generated by

the City of Homewood in relation to the shooting; and (e) any dispatch logs or radio

communications related to Homewood officers’ response on the scene. Petitioner notes that

items (c)–(e) are largely documentary in nature and presumably have been turned over to

ALEA as part of the investigation. These items are included in the preservation request to

ensure that they are not destroyed or misplaced. Petitioner is not seeking to publicly disclose

or disseminate any of this evidence at this pre-suit stage; she seeks only to ensure it remains

intact and available for eventual use in the forthcoming lawsuit.

21. Such relief falls squarely within the proper ambit of Rule 27 – it is focused solely on preserving

and documenting existing evidence and testimony for later use, and not on conducting

discovery of wholly new facts or additional parties.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court:

a. Find that Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Rule 27(a);

b. Authorize the depositions and limited discovery described above;

c. Issue any protective or in camera review orders necessary to balance investigatory interests

with the preservation of justice; and

d. Grant any such further relief this Court deems just and proper.

Dated this 18th day of July 2025.

10
DOCUMENT 23
 DOCUMENT 23

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Leroy Maxwell, Jr.

Leroy Maxwell, Jr.
Kristen E. Gochett
Attorneys for Petitioner
OF COUNSEL:
Maxwell & Tillman
1820 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205) 216-3304
Fax: (205) 409-4145
Email: maxwell@mxlawfirm.com
Email: kgochett@mxlawfirm.com

12
 DOCUMENT 23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 18th day of July 2025, I have served a copy of the foregoing
Petition via the Alafile electronic filing system, and if the party served does not receive such
notifications, by U.S. First Class Mail, which will notify the following:

Wayne Morse, Jr.

Michael G. Kendrick
WALDREP, STEWART & KENDRICK, LLP
2850 19th Street South, Ste 370
Homewood, AL 35209
Phone: (205) 254-3216
Email: kendrick@wskllp.com
Email: morse@wskllp.com
Attorneys for Respondent City of Homewood

Alabama Law Enforcement Agency

201 South Union Street, Suite 300
P.O. Box 304115
Montgomery, AL 36130-4115
Phone: (334) 676-6000

Christopher Inabinett
201 South Union Street, Suite 300
P.O. Box 304115
Montgomery, AL 36130-4115
Phone: (334) 676-6000

/s/ Leroy Maxwell, Jr.

OF COUNSEL

13
DOCUMENT 24
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
EXHIBIT A
7/18/2025 4:40 PM
01-CV-2025-902665.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
 DOCUMENT 25
ELECTRONICALLY EXHIBIT
FILED B
7/18/2025 4:40 PM
01-CV-2025-902665.00
A L E
LABAMA AW NFORCEMENT GENCYCIRCUIT COURT OF A JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA
201 SOUTH UNION STREET, SUITE 300 | P.O. BOX 304115 | MONTGOMERY, AL 36130-4115
PHONE 334. 676-6000 | WWW.ALEA.GOV
JACQUELINE ANDERSON SMITH, CLERK
1.8

KAY IVEY July 1, 2025 HAL TAYLOR

GOVERNOR SECRETARY
Via E-mail and certified mail
maxwell@mxlawfirm.com

Leory Maxwell, Jr.

1820 3 r d Avenue North, Suite 300
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

Dear Mr. Maxwell:

The Alabama Law Enforcement Agency has reviewed your Request for Disclosure of
Audio/Video Recording received June 30, 2025. The disclosure you have requested involves
a recording of subject matter under active investigation by law enforcement. Alabama Code
§ 36-21-213 states, "[a] custodial law enforcement agency may choose to not disclose the
recording if the disclosure would affect an ongoing active law enforcement investigation or
prosecution." In our agency's judgment, disclosure of the requested recording would affect
the ongoing investigation. Therefore, in accordance with state law, and in the interest of
protecting the constitutional rights of everyone involved, as well as prioritizing a thorough
law enforcement investigation of the recorded subject matter, ALEA respectfully declines to
make the disclosure you have requested while the investigation remains pending.

Sincerely,

Christopher Inabinett
Director
Alabama State Bureau of Investigation