Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 15-5-7 (2026)
By Whom Executed.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, laws through the 2026 Regular Session
A search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except in aid of such officer at his request, he being present and acting in its execution.
(Code 1852, §832; Code 1867, §4383; Code 1876, §4013; Code 1886, §4733; Code 1896, §5490; Code 1907, §7763; Code 1923, §5477; Code 1940, T. 15, §106.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2022 · leading case: State v. Prop. at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025 (Ala. 1999).
State v. Prop. at 2018 Rainbow Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025 (Ala. 1999). “*1030 One of the grounds upon which the trial court predicated its dismissal was that the search was improper, under § 15-5-7, Ala. Code 1975, because the warrant was executed by officers other than those to whom it was directed.”
Gamble v. State, 473 So. 2d 1188 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “" § 15-5-7. At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Mims testified that those present at the execution of the warrant were "two Montgomery County Sheriff's Deputies, Sergeant Ken Hallford from ABI Intelligence and Dennis Bodine from the Montgomery Police Department…”
Hicks v. State, 437 So. 2d 1344 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). “” Section 15-5-7: “A search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except in aid of such officer at his request, he being present and acting in its execution.”
Mixon v. State, 407 So. 2d 588 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981). “Specifically, there is nothing in the record to indicate whether the search warrant was executed by Sergeant Stewart in aid of a county officer and at that officer’s request as authorized by Alabama Code 1975, Section 15-5-7. We do not think that the burden was on the State to…”
Cowart v. State, 488 So. 2d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “Appellant next contends that, because the search warrant, which was directed to the "Sheriff of Mobile County," was executed by Officer Stokes of the Mobile Police Department, the trial court below erred in denying the motion to suppress due to a violation of § 15-5-7, Code of…”
Anderson v. State, 212 So. 3d 252 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016). “” According to § 15-5-7, “[a] search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except in aid of such officer at his request, he being present and acting in its execution.”
Cowart v. State, 461 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). “” The proposition stated is a verbatim recital of Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-5-7, which, of course, controls.”
Ex Parte Hicks, 437 So. 2d 1346 (Ala. 1983). “" Code 1975, § 15-5-7. The general statutes concerning the issuance and execution of search warrants limit execution to the county law enforcement officers of the particular county in which the warrant is issued.”
Reeves v. State, 482 So. 2d 1298 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “He bases the contention this time upon the asserted “failure of the officers to comply with” the provisions of Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-5-7, which provides: “A search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except *1303…”
Wallace v. State, 437 So. 2d 648 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). “during the execution of the warrant,” in violation of Code of Alabama 1925, § 15-5-7. However, in making such challenge appellant limits it to his contention pursuant to the second issue presented by appellant, which we now consider.”
Kenneth Eugene Smith v. Comm'r, No. 19-14543 (11th Cir. Apr. 6, 2021). “” Ala. Code § 15-5-7 . Read together, “[t]hese statutes dictate that the ‘sheriff’ or a ‘constable’ of the particular ‘county’ in which the warrant is issued will execute the warrant.”
Charles Lyons v. William Maddox, No. 21-13610 (11th Cir. Aug. 26, 2022). “Yet, in asserting that Sanders could not execute a warrant that was not di- rected to him, Lyons relied on Alabama Code § 15-5-7. Lyons sim- ilarly cited Alabama law for the proposition that Sanders was re- quired to furnish a receipt for the seized items.”
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.