|
Is a search warrant for a "person" (as required by the U.S. Supreme Court's Payton and Steagald decisions) sufficient for a legal seizure under Alabama law?
ICJE articles have been prepared for educational and information purposes only. They are not intended to be published as legal advice or legal opinion about any specific subject matter. Transmission of this ICJE information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between the author(s), ICJE and the reader. The opinions expressed in the articles found herein are those of the author(s), and not necessarily those of ICJE. Officers and departments should review any proposed change in policy or procedure with the appropriate professional authority or advisor prior to implementation. All articles may be reproduced and distributed free of charge with attribution.
|
Search Warrant Alert
Alabama Search Warrant Problem
by Robert T. Thetford, JD
At least one Alabama District Court Judge has raised an issue which could pose a serious problem under certain conditions in obtaining search warrants for people. Under the rule established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S. Ct. 1371, 63 L. Ed. 2d 639 (1980), if a person is in his own home, an officer must have either an arrest warrant or a search warrant to enter the subject's home and arrest the subject unless exigent circumstances or consent are present. But under the rule of a later Supreme Court case, Steagald v. U.S., 451 U.S. 204, 101 S. Ct. 1642, 68 L. Ed. 2d 38 (1981), the officer must have a search warrant to arrest a subject in another person's home unless exigent circumstances or consent exist. An arrest warrant is not sufficient in this instance.
The Alabama problem occurs because Rule 3.6 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure and Section 15-5-1 of the Alabama Code provide that only a search warrant be issued for “personal property.” There is no Alabama provision similar to Federal rule 41, which allows a specific search for a “person.”
In a recent Alabama case, Ex Parte Jones, 719 So. 2d. 249,256 (1998), the Alabama Supreme Court approved a search warrant which was issued to allow sheriff's deputies to photograph a suspect. In this case the Court ruled that Section 15-5-1 and Rule 3.6 were broad enough to include “intangible photographic evidence.” Because the definition of personal property now includes “intangible” evidence, and because a seizure of the person would be necessary to photograph him, the same reasoning may well extend to the seizure and arrest of persons in another's residence, the rationale further being that the seizure would provide necessary “evidence” of the commission of a crime.
The Alabama Attorney General's Office is aware of this potential problem, and at least one attorney there agreed that the best solution ultimately would be a legislative change in the law to specifically allow search warrants for persons. Officers having a Steagald situation should check with their District Attorney or Legal Advisor for changes in this law prior to obtaining a search warrant.
|