From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peavy v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Aug 20, 1976
336 So. 2d 202 (Ala. 1976)

Opinion

SC 1897.

August 20, 1976.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Stephen M. Langham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

No appearance for respondent.


WRIT DENIED. Ala.Cr.App., Ala. App., 336 So.2d 199.

HEFLIN, C.J., and MADDOX, J., concur.

BLOODWORTH, J., concurs specially.

FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur with BLOODWORTH, J.


In concurring to deny the State's petition for writ of certiorari, I wish to state the following.

Although the Attorney General contends that the white pill on the dash of defendant's car was seized because it was in "plain view," the facts of this case do not fit the "plain view" doctrine. See Shipman v. State, 291 Ala. 484, 282 So.2d 700 (1973); Kinard v. State (1976) Ala., 335 So.2d 924.

Moreover, it appears that the warrant in question was executed at night. Although the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals does not deal with this issue, we note that Tit. 15, § 107, states that warrants must be executed in the daytime unless the affiant states positively in the affidavit that the property is in the place to be searched.

FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Peavy v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Aug 20, 1976
336 So. 2d 202 (Ala. 1976)
Case details for

Peavy v. State

Case Details

Full title:In re Samuel L. PEAVY, alias v. STATE. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel…

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Aug 20, 1976

Citations

336 So. 2d 202 (Ala. 1976)

Citing Cases

Morton v. Commonwealth

Any "all persons present clause" in a search warrant must be stricken as a general warrant repugnant to the…

Moore v. State

The appellant further contends that the search conducted exceeded the scope of the search warrant. Appellant…