Mount v. State
Opinion
Appeal from conviction under a solicitor’s complaint, on trial de novo, of a charge of possessing obscene; material.1 Sentence, after verdict, six months in the Etowah County Jail.
I
The search warrant, dated August 4, 1965, was not issued by the County Court Clerk but by his assistant who used the clerk’s name without any indication of deputization. The clerk was not in the courthouse when the affiant applied, nor did he appear before the clerk for the warrant of concern. See Act No. 91, June 27, 1963, p. 4752; Womack v. State, 281 Ala. 499, 205 So.2d 579.
Under Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, the issuance of a search warrant is a judicial function. The performance of judicial acts is nondelegable. Opinion of the Justices, 280 Ala. 653, 197 So.2d 456; Wright v. City of Demopolis, 45 Ala.App. 69, 223 So.2d 611.
[246]*246We construe § 4 of Act 91 as not conferring judicial powers (as distinguished from clerical) on the deputies and assistants of the Clerk of the County Court. Constitution 1901, § 139.
II
Apart from the voidness of the warrant, we note that the alleged offending cinematic film was seized in Mount’s home. We find nothing in the record to distinguish the facts here from those in Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 89 S.Ct. 1243, 22 L.Ed.2d 542.
The judgment below is due to be reversed and the defendant discharged sine die.
Reversed and rendered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
228 So. 2d 857 (Mount v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.