The chairman of the county commission and the probate judge are hereby authorized and empowered, once each week, without informing the sheriff or jailer of the time when such visit will be made, to visit and examine the condition of the jail, to make a memorandum in writing of such examination and to report under oath such examination to the grand jury.
(Code 1886, §900; Code 1896, §1415; Code 1907, §144; Code 1923, §222; Code 1940, T. 12, §196; Acts 1980, No. 80-808, p. 1663.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2022 · leading case:
McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir. 1996).
McMillian v. Johnson, 88 F.3d 1573 (11th Cir. 1996).
“Ala.Code § 11-14-22. In contrast, Alabama law allocates to counties no similar powers in the area of law enforcement.”
Newsome v. Lee Cnty., Ala., 431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (M.D. Ala. 2006).
· cites it 2× “3d at 1290 (citing Ala.Code § 11-14-22). The ability to inspect does not impart any affirmative control over the operation of the jail to the county but does allow the county officials the opportunity to remain apprised of the needs at the jail.”
Turquitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 137 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1998).
“Ala.Code § 11-14-22 (1989). This is a reasonable way for the county to learn what its appropriations buy and whether future funding should be increased or redirected.”
Martin v. Hargrove (N.D. Ala. 2022).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s reliance on Ala. Code § 11-14-22 and § 12-16-191 in support of his claim is misplaced.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.