concerning controlled substances; “(9) All property of any type whatsoever constituting, or derived from, any proceeds obtained directly, or indirectly, from any violation of any law of this state concerning controlled substances. “(b) Property subject to forfeiture under this chapter may be seized by state, county or municipal law enforcement agencies upon process issued by any court having jurisdiction over the property. ... “(c) In the event of seizure pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, proceedings under subsection (d) of this section shall be instituted promptly.” (Emphasis added.) “The mandate in the statute that forfeiture proceedings be instituted promptly is necessary to the statute’s constitutionality.” Reach v. State, 530 So.2d 40, 41 (Ala.1988) (citing Kirklan 06) (<HOLDING>); $1,113.77 United States Currency v. State,
holding that state did not promptly institute forfeiture proceedings given 14week delay between the seizure of the property and the filing of the states complaint holding that forfeiture proceedings instituted eight months after the seizure of property failed to meet the promptness requirement holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that 18month delay in filing forfeiture action did not violate due process