Court Opinion

ID: 9698527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:52:43.785132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:41.679295
License: Public Domain

'CATES, Judge
(concurring specially).
What we decide here is threefold: (1) Brown v. State, Ala., 167 So.2d 291 — even though merely denying certiorari — expressly disapproved our prior dicta as to the need for the pretrial motion to suppress; (2) Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, and Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723, require that certain minimal evidence 1 of probable cause be laid before tlqe judge who issues the search warrant; and (3) the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution forces us to declare that Porch v. State, 38 Ala.App. 565, 89 So.2d 694, Edmunds v. State ex rel. Dedge, 199 Ala. 555, 74 So. 965, and Toole v. State, 170 Ala. 41, 54 So. 195, insofar as making the issuance of a warrant incontestable except before the issuing court, set forth bad law.
The only barrier 2 to this result is in Code 1940, T. 13, § 95, which reads:
“The decisions of the supreme court shall govern the holdings and decisions of the court of appeals, and the decisions and proceedings of such court of appeals shall be subject to the general superintendence and control of the supreme court as provided by section 140 of the Constitution of the state.”
However, this section being derived from § 140 of the Constitution of 1901 relates only to matters in which the Supreme Court of Alabama is infallible because it is final. Manifestly, on Federal questions the only priority the Supreme Court of Alabama has over us is that of being the next link in the chain of command.
The command of Article 6, Cl. 2, of the United States Constitution 3 is not indirectly linked to us through intermediary ministrations. The Supremacy Clause is a mandate to each and every one of our judges, State and Federal.

. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, and Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U.S. 528, 84 S.Ct. 825, 11 L.Ed.2d 887, to refute tlie bugaboo that police informers must be named.

. Clearly Code 1940, T. 13, § 98, does not apply here because there is no State or Federal statute drawn into question. Nor is there any inability to reach a unanimous conclusion so as to certify an abstract question under Code 1940, T. 13, § 88.

. “This Constitution, * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”