Court Opinion

ID: 9539275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:01:29.183721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:40.158500
License: Public Domain

*125CATES, Judge
(concurring).
No longer can a trial court slam the door on reexamining what a court of summary-jurisdiction says is enough to hack up his handing a constable a warrant. Edmunds v. State, 199 Ala. 555, 74 So. 965, on this point was overruled in Knox v. State, 42 Ala.App. 578, 172 So.2d 787 which has been approved by our Supreme Court.
I concur because the marijuana was thrown away before the search began. Hayes v. State, 44 Ala.App. 539, 215 So.2d 604. Therefore, the validity of the warrant is not needful for us to pass on.
Nor are we at the right fork in the road to follow Act No. 100 of August 24, 19641 or to hold it bad.

. But see State v. Furmage, 250 N.C. 616, 109 S.E.2d 563; State v. Paulick, 277 Minn. 140, 151 N.W.2d 591; and State v. Ruotolo, 52 N.J.2d 508, 247 A.2d 1.