An Alabama Police Force May Have Unlawfully Confiscated a Man’s 1968 Chevrolet Camaro

A recent report from FOX10 states that the saga unfolded when officials from the Alabama Department of Revenue visited Hadley last month. They alleged that the VIN of a car registered in Tennessee matched Hadley’s Camaro. Although an investigation claimed that Hadley’s vehicle was stolen from its original owner in Kansas two decades ago, things are not as straightforward as initially assumed.

Hadley lawfully acquired the vehicle seven years ago. His legal representative, Scott Hunter, contends that this falls well outside the statutory five-year window for a charge of receiving stolen property. Moreover, similar to other restored classic cars, Hadley’s automobile bears multiple VINs from various vehicles. Hunter argues that the number on the firewall used for identification might only represent a fragment of the original vehicle stolen in 2003.

Hadley’s attorney son refused to surrender the car to authorities without a judicial order. Consequently, he relocated the vehicle to his residence. Shortly thereafter, the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office carried out a search warrant to reclaim the car. It seems that the car was towed from the son’s residence while attorney Hunter was attending a local courthouse hearing where a judge concluded that the car had been “illegally seized.” The judge’s order to return the Camaro to Hadley came too late, as the vehicle had already journeyed back to Tennessee with its supposed “original owner.” A needless debacle.

Presently, it appears that authorities are retracting their steps. The local prosecutor, who granted the search warrant, declined to provide a statement to FOX10. Through an official announcement, the Baldwin County Sheriff’s Office acknowledged the loss suffered by the individual who possessed the car in Baldwin County and stated that both the Sheriff’s Office and District Attorney’s Office are evaluating the judge’s ruling and may seek a reconsideration from the court. The swift actions taken remain shrouded in ambiguity.

“They acted unilaterally in seizing this car, believing it to be the correct course of action. However, they did so without any lawful authority,” voiced Hunter. Though the police may have had good intentions, they should have exercised restraint until all matters were clarified. A stolen vintage car is a significant issue, but a two-decade-old case involving multiple owners demands careful handling, not hastiness.

Have any insights to share? Send them to tips@thedrive.com