Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 15-5-9 (2026)
Authority of Serving Officer to Break into House.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
To execute a search warrant, an officer may break open any door or window of a house, any part of a house or anything therein if after notice of his authority and purpose he is refused admittance.
(Code 1852, §834; Code 1867, §4385; Code 1876, §4014; Code 1886, §4735; Code 1896, §5492; Code 1907, §7765; Code 1923, §5479; Code 1940, T. 15, §108.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1979–2004 · leading case: State v. Attaway, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. 1994).
State v. Attaway, 870 P.2d 103 (N.M. 1994). “Those authorizing forcible entry after notice include: Ala.Code § 15-5-9 (1982); Alaska Stat. § 12.”
Ex Parte State, 650 So. 2d 966 (Ala. 1994). “§ 15-5-9, Ala.Code 1975. The trial court in granting this motion to suppress, held that there was "not sufficient time between the last knock and the forcible entry.”
Ex Parte Gannaway, 448 So. 2d 413 (Ala. 1984). “2d 409 , has properly applied the provisions of Code of 1975, § 15-5-9, and our decision in Daniels v. State, 391 So.”
Conner v. State, 382 So. 2d 601 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). “II Appellant next contends that the method of execution of the search warrant was illegal because the officers executing the warrant failed to comply with the procedure prescribed by § 15-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975, and, therefore, the trial court committed reversible error in…”
McReynolds v. State, 568 So. 2d 850 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). “More specifically, the appellant argues that Lieutenant Smith improperly entered his motel room without first announcing his authority as required by § 15-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant further argues that no exigent circumstances were present to justify an entry…”
Reeves v. State, 482 So. 2d 1298 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “By the first issue presented in brief of counsel for appellant, he urges that in the execution of the search warrant the officer executing it failed to comply with Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-5-9, which provides: “To execute a search warrant, an officer may break open any door or…”
United States v. Wallace, 931 F. Supp. 1556 (M.D. Ala. 1996). “In the opening part of its brief, the government asserted generally that “the doctrine of inevitable discovery would still validate the search conducted at Wallace's home.” Government's brief filed on June 17, 1996, at 2.”
Walker v. State, 895 So. 2d 366 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004). “In Daniels , the Court, construing the knock-and-announce requirement of § 15-5-9, Ala.Code 1975, 5 stated: “The constitutional requirement of announcement serves basically three purposes: (1) the prevention of violence or physical injury to the police and to innocent persons…”
Conner v. State, 382 So. 2d 601 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979). “II Appellant next contends that the method of execution of the search warrant was illegal because the officers executing the warrant failed to comply with the procedure prescribed by § 15-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975, and, therefore, the trial court committed reversible error in…”
State v. McFall, 675 So. 2d 1333 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “§ 15-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975. The trial court, in granting this motion, held that there was “not sufficient time between the last knock and the forcible entry.”
Gannaway v. State, 448 So. 2d 409 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). “” The first of two issues presented by appellant is thus stated in appellant’s brief: “Whether the overruling of appellant’s motion to suppress based on the failure of the officers to comply with the requisites of the knock and announce statute while executing the search warrant…”
Shaneyfelt v. State, 494 So. 2d 804 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). “Second, the appellant contends the search warrant was executed in violation of Alabama’s Knock and Announce Statute set out in § 15-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975. Section 15-5-9 provides: “To execute a search warrant, an officer may break open any door or window of a house, any part…”
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.