Ex Parte Hicks
This text of 437 So. 2d 1346 (Ex Parte Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Certiorari was granted to determine if the Court of Criminal Appeals,
The facts set out by the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals are as follows:
"The search warrant in question, which was issued by Judge Peter A. Hall, Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of Birmingham, was directed to `the Chief of Police or any police officer of the City of Birmingham, Alabama,' commanded a daytime search for marijuana of 6305 Crest Club Circle, Birmingham, Alabama, and was returnable to the judge of the *Page 1347 Jefferson County District Court. The search was carried out solely by Birmingham police officers, who were not accompanied by any sheriff or deputy sheriff, and who did not conduct the search at the request of, or in aid of, any sheriff or deputy sheriff. None of the police officers were constables for the county.
"Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the search on the basis that the search warrant was defective. The trial court denied the motion to suppress."
Petitioner would have this Court find reversible error, arguing that the search warrant in this case is defective because it does not comply with Code 1975, §§
"Section
"The sheriffs of the counties and law enforcement officers of the municipalities of the state of Alabama shall obey the municipal judge having legal authority in faithfully executing the warrants and processes committed to them for service according to their mandates."
"Section
"Municipal judges are authorized to issue arrest and search warrants for municipal ordinance violations returnable to the municipal court and for violations of state law returnable to any state court."
It is true that from 1852 until 1975, those statutes now codified at Title 15, Chapter 5, Code 1975, were the only statutes relating to search warrants in general. In 1975, however, the legislature approved Act No. 1205 (the Judicial Article Implementation Act), codified in Title 12, Code 1975. This Act did not repeal Title 15, Chapter 5 (see Rivers v.State,
As to petitioner's contention that §§
Finally, petitioner contends that the Court of Criminal Appeals is in conflict with the opinion of Rivers v. State,supra. We find no conflict and affirm the opinion below with respect to this issue.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
TORBERT, C.J., dissents.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
437 So. 2d 1346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-hicks-ala-1983.