Inabinett v. State
Opinion
Ex parte State of Alabama.
(Re Don Keith INABINETT and William Alvin Atwell v. STATE).
Supreme Court of Alabama.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G.L. Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Thomas M. Haas and N. Ruth Haas and Delano J. Palughi, Mobile, for respondent.
Prior report: Ala.Cr.App., 594 So.2d 202.
PER CURIAM.
WRIT DENIED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, SHORES, ADAMS and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.
MADDOX, Justice (dissenting).
I would issue the writ to review the State's claim that the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure in this case.
After a review, I might agree with the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 594 So.2d 202 (1992), but I cannot agree to deny certiorari review.
HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
594 So. 2d 214 (Inabinett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.