Ex parte State of Alabama (In re: Sealed Case)

Annotate this Case

The State through the Alabama Attorney General, sought a writ of mandamus to direct the presiding judge of the Macon Circuit Court to issue a search warrant as to "certain allegedly illegal gambling devices and related items" at a facility known as "Quincy's 777 Casino at Victoryland" in Shorter. The Supreme Court granted the State's petition and issued the writ under seal until the execution of the warrant. The execution having been accomplished, the Supreme Court removed the seal from this matter and in this opinion, addressed the reasons for issuing the writ. Upon careful consideration of the case law and statutes pertaining to this matter, the Supreme Court expounded on eight points of contention it had with the circuit court for denying the warrant. The Court concluded that the circuit court exceeded its discretion in denying the warrant, and as such, the State was entitled to an order directing the court to grant the warrant application.

Download PDF

rel 3/1/13 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120498 Ex p a r t e S t a t e o f Alabama PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (Macon C i r c u i t Court; Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals, CR-12-0607) PER CURIAM. On January 25, 2013, t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , t h r o u g h t h e A l a b a m a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t an "Emergency P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f Mandamus," s e e k i n g an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e p r e s i d i n g j u d g e o f t h e Macon C i r c u i t C o u r t warrant as t o c e r t a i n a l l e g e d l y i l l e g a l t o issue a search gambling d e v i c e s and 1120498 r e l a t e d i t e m s l o c a t e d i n a f a c i l i t y commonly known as 777 Casino February at 15, V i c t o r y L a n d ("the 2013, casino") in Quincy's Shorter. t h i s C o u r t , by o r d e r , g r a n t e d t h e State's p e t i t i o n and i s s u e d the w r i t , the warrant. Given the i n h e r e n t l y ex p a r t e n a t u r e o f a s e a r c h warrant, i n order t h a t the purpose of the warrant issued and not be frustrated, i n s t r u c t i n g the judge On this Court i s s u e d the to issue to writ under s e a l , w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t the o r d e r remain under s e a l further order warrant. of this The accomplished, proceeding reasons following execution this and Court Court execution 15 the warrant removed has i t s February f o r i s s u i n g the of the the o r d e r , and now until of having seal be the been from this addresses the writ. Procedural History At "Gene" 25 approximately Sisson, years and who who 7:15 has a.m. been the F i f t h Judicial a i s a special Alabama A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Circuit on January 16, 2013, law-enforcement agent w i t h the w i t h an application w a r r a n t t o be e x e c u t e d a t t h e c a s i n o . S i s s o n was by, among o t h e r s , J e s s e S e r o y e r , J r . , who 2 agent Office a p p r o a c h e d Judge Ray D. Howard for of Martin for a the of search accompanied i s the deputy chief 1120498 of the I n v e s t i g a t i v e D i v i s i o n i n the Attorney General. C o u r t by Sisson According and Office to a f f i d a v i t s Seroyer, of Judge M a r t i n the Fifth Judicial Circuit C o u n t y i s l o c a t e d , and as of that According he had time, no of declined assumed the assigned Alabama, within p o s i t i o n of Judge M a r t i n responsibility to this issue approximately the p r e s i d i n g judge f o r t h a t Judge Thomas F. to the a f f i d a v i t s , been longer Alabama submitted to t h e w a r r a n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t , as o f m i d n i g h t , s e v e n h o u r s e a r l i e r , he was the which Macon Young, J r . , presiding judge. further stated for Chambers that County, another county l o c a t e d w i t h i n the F i f t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t , t h e r e f o r e no l o n g e r had had, and a u t h o r i t y to issue a search warrant to 3 1120498 be e x e c u t e d i n Macon C o u n t y . 1 Judge M a r t i n d i r e c t e d S i s s o n t o Judge Young. S i s s o n approached search warrant later Judge Young w i t h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a that same day. In support of the a p p l i c a t i o n , S i s s o n p r e s e n t e d a 13-page a f f i d a v i t , t o be sworn to and e x e c u t e d by 2013, surveillance operations pertinent at the Sisson, video casino. as t h e a f f i a n t , of alleged Sisson's and a January illegal affidavit 7, gambling states, in part: We n o t e t h a t A r t i c l e V I , § 150, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, a u t h o r i z e s t h e Supreme C o u r t t o "make and p r o m u l g a t e r u l e s g o v e r n i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a l l c o u r t s and r u l e s g o v e r n i n g p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e i n a l l c o u r t s " T h i s C o u r t , by t h e a u t h o r i t y v e s t e d i n i t by § 150, has p r o m u l g a t e d R u l e 3.7, A l a . R. C r i m . P., w h i c h s t a t e s : 1 "Upon r e q u e s t o f a l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r d i s t r i c t attorney, a search warrant authorized t h i s r u l e may be i s s u e d b y : or by " ( I ) A m a g i s t r a t e who i s a u t h o r i z e d t o p r a c t i c e l a w i n t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , o r who i s a u t h o r i z e d by law to issue search warrants, within the magistrate's t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n ; or " ( i i ) A m u n i c i p a l j u d g e , i f t h e s e a r c h i s t o be conducted w i t h i n the p o l i c e j u r i s d i c t i o n of the m u n i c i p a l i t y ; or " ( i i i ) A d i s t r i c t judge w i t h i n the county; or "(iv) circuit." A circuit judge 4 within the judge's 1120498 " I have a w o r k i n g u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e g a m b l i n g laws o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and have o b t a i n e d f o r m a l t r a i n i n g w i t h i n t h e p a s t 18 months on t h e identification of slot machines and gambling devices. I h a v e a l s o r e a d Macon C o u n t y ' s Bingo amendment. I have w i t n e s s e d t h e f o r m a l p l a y i n g o f t h e game commonly known as B i n g o i n e s t a b l i s h m e n t s i n Montgomery a n d have w o r k e d i n an u n d e r c o v e r c a p a c i t y a t C e n t e r Stage i n Cottonwood, Alabama and S o u t h e r n S t a r i n W h i t e H a l l , A l a b a m a . As a p r i v a t e c i t i z e n , I have p l a y e d a n d w i t n e s s e d t h e p l a y i n g o f t r a d i t i o n a l s l o t machines i n B i l o x i , Mississippi; S h r e v e p o r t , L o u i s i a n a ; and L a s Vegas, Nevada. I have p a r t i c i p a t e d i n f o u r s e a r c h w a r r a n t s e x e c u t e d a t b u s i n e s s e s t h a t p r o m o t e d a n d f a c i l i t a t e d what was a d v e r t i s e d as e l e c t r o n i c b i n g o . F u r t h e r m o r e , I have s u c c e s s f u l l y obtained a search warrant f o r Center S t a g e , C o t t o n w o o d , A l a b a m a a n d e x e c u t e d t h e same on J u l y 25, 2012. " "On December 20, 2012, two d a y s a f t e r t h e C a s i n o a n n o u n c e d i t s o p e n i n g , an u n d e r c o v e r o f f i c e r e n t e r e d the premises w h i l e equipped w i t h a device t o r e c o r d b o t h a u d i o and v i d e o e v i d e n c e o f h i s v i s i t . For the p u r p o s e o f t h i s a f f i d a v i t , t h i s o f f i c e r w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o as U n d e r c o v e r 1 (UC 1 ) . " "On December 20, 2012, UC 1 e n t e r e d t h e C a s i n o a f t e r he was i s s u e d U.S. c u r r e n c y f r o m [ t h e A t t o r n e y General's] office. He was r e q u i r e d t o a p p r o a c h a bank o f c a s h i e r s a f t e r e n t e r i n g where he h a d t o p r e s e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b e f o r e he c o u l d be i s s u e d a p l a y e r ' s c a r d . That c a r d i d e n t i f i e d t h e C a s i n o and h a d t h e UC's name embossed on i t . UC 1 h a n d e d t h e c a s h i e r t h e U.S. c u r r e n c y t o have i t a p p l i e d t o h i s a c c o u n t w h i c h c o u l d be a c c e s s e d w i t h t h e p l a y e r ' s c a r d . F u r t h e r m o r e , he was r e q u i r e d t o c r e a t e a P I N 5 1120498 number t h a t was r e q u i r e d t o be u s e d a f t e r t h e c a r d was s w i p e d a t t h e v a r i o u s s l o t m a c h i n e s . "UC 1 f i r s t a p p r o a c h e d a m a c h i n e t i t l e d ' S u p e r Fruit.' On v i d e o , i t was o b v i o u s he s w i p e d h i s p l a y e r ' s c a r d b u t c o u l d n o t g e t t h e machine t o p l a y . A f t e r a s k i n g f o r a s s i s t a n c e f r o m an e m p l o y e e , he t r i e d a g a i n a t a m a c h i n e named ' C l a s s i c R e e l s . ' He was s u c c e s s f u l i n e n t e r i n g a P I N a f t e r s w i p i n g h i s c a r d on t h a t m a c h i n e . "The m a i n d i s p l a y on t h e v i d e o screen was predominantly covered by a large, digital r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f ' r e e l s ' commonly s e e n on c a s i n o s l o t m a c h i n e s . T h e r e were f i v e v e r t i c a l r e e l s w i t h three p o s i t i o n s always v i s i b l e p e r r e e l . When UC 1 pressed t h e ' P l a y ' b u t t o n , t h e p o s i t i o n s on t h e r e e l s appeared t o r o t a t e v e r t i c a l l y a t a speed f a s t e r t h a n my m i n d o r e y e c o u l d c o m p r e h e n d f o r approximately four seconds. In a small section i n t h e t o p l e f t p o r t i o n o f t h e s c r e e n , t h e r e was a s m a l l g r i d c o n s i s t i n g o f f i v e v e r t i c a l by f i v e h o r i z o n t a l rows. T h a t g r i d was t h e same a p p r o x i m a t e s i z e as one s e c t i o n o f one s p i n n i n g r e e l . To t h e r i g h t o f t h a t g r i d were t h r e e h o r i z o n t a l l i n e s t h a t r a p i d l y f i l l e d w i t h numbered c i r c l e s i n two rows o f 15 numbers a n d one row o f f o u r numbers. The t o t a l w i d t h o f t h e s m a l l g r i d a n d a c c o m p a n y i n g rows was approximately as w i d e as two o f t h e f i v e s p i n n i n g reels. The h e i g h t remained constant as t h e a p p r o x i m a t e s i z e o f one p o s i t i o n on t h e r e e l s . "On the player's console were numerous illuminated buttons. Most, from t h e l e f t t o t h e c e n t e r , d e t e r m i n e d t h e amount a p l a y e r c o u l d wager. T h e r e were o t h e r b u t t o n s f o r a s s i s t a n c e a n d f o r a w i n n i n g c o n v e r s i o n c h a r t f o r t h e i t e m s d i s p l a y e d on t h e r e e l s . The l a r g e s t b u t t o n was a c i r c u l a r ' P l a y ' b u t t o n . O t h e r t h a n o c c a s i o n a l l y c h a n g i n g t h e amount o f h i s w a g e r , t h i s was t h e o n l y b u t t o n UC 1 h a d t o p r e s s t o p l a y a game c y c l e . Upon p r e s s i n g i t , t h e r e e l s w o u l d s p i n , numbered c i r c l e s w o u l d f i l l t h e 6 1120498 s m a l l h o r i z o n t a l rows a t t h e t o p a n d a game c y c l e w o u l d be p l a y e d . I f numbers i n t h o s e h o r i z o n t a l rows m a t c h e d a n y numbers i n t h e s m a l l p l a y i n g g r i d i n t h e l e f t u p p e r m o s t p o r t i o n o f t h e s c r e e n , some c o r r e l a t i o n w o u l d be made among t h e s y m b o l s when t h e reels stopped. Lines traversing i n numerous d i r e c t i o n s w o u l d c o n n e c t v a r i o u s p o i n t s on t h e r e e l s w i t h o t h e r p o i n t s t o i n d i c a t e some t y p e o f w i n n i n g pattern. In the event a winning p a t t e r n occurred, a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n c r e a s i n g amounts o f c u r r e n c y w o u l d be added d i g i t a l l y t o t h e p l a y e r ' s a c c o u n t a n d t h e i n c r e a s e c o u l d be m o n i t o r e d on t h e p l a y e r ' s screen. W h i l e UC 1 n e v e r a t t e m p t e d t o p r e s e n t h i s player's card to a cashier to obtain the currency t h a t r e m a i n e d i n h i s a c c o u n t , an u n d e r c o v e r a g e n t (UC 3) on a l a t e r v i s i t d i d , i n f a c t , receive c u r r e n c y from t h e c a s h i e r a f t e r s w i p i n g h i s p l a y e r ' s c a r d and p r o v i d i n g h i s P I N . "In the event a game cycle was won, a p r e d e t e r m i n e d amount o f w i n n i n g s , b a s e d upon t h e p a t t e r n , w o u l d be a d d e d t o t h e p l a y e r ' s a c c o u n t . I t account n o t r e q u i r e d f o r UC 1 t o p r e s s a n y o t h e r b u t t o n was or tab t o c o l l e c t h i s w i n n i n g s o r t o i d e n t i f y matching p a t t e r n s . The m a c h i n e p e r f o r m e d t h a t t a s k f o r h i m . A l l he was r e q u i r e d t o do was s i m p l y p r e s s ' P l a y ' again t o begin t h e n e x t game. I t was p o s s i b l e t o touch the screen i n the lower r i g h t c o r n e r t o i n i t i a t e ' P l a y ' b u t , a g a i n , t h a t was t h e only tab necessary t o touch. A t one p o i n t , UC 1 r a n h i s f i n g e r o v e r d i f f e r e n t a r e a s o f t h e r e e l s w i t h no effect. " D u r i n g t h i s v i s i t , UC 1 a l s o p l a y e d a game t i t l e d ' W i l d H a r v e s t . ' Game i n i t i a t i o n a n d p l a y was t h e same as d e s c r i b e d a b o v e . The f o r m a t o f t h e s c r e e n was a l s o s i m i l a r o t h e r t h a n t h e g r a p h i c s were different. W h i l e m o v i n g t h r o u g h t h e C a s i n o , UC 1 i d e n t i f i e d o t h e r t i t l e s s u c h as ' C h e r r i e s W i l d ' a n d 'Fun F r u i t ' b u t d i d n o t a p p r o a c h them t o p l a y . 7 1120498 " F i n a l l y , UC 1 a p p r o a c h e d a game t h a t h a d a l a r g e ' G a t e w a y ' s i g n on t h e l o w e r p a n e l o f t h e machine. The game was t i t l e d ' B l a c k D o g ' a n d o p e r a t e d i n much t h e same way as t h e o t h e r non-Keno games. I t , t o o , was m o s t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d b y graphics alone. The f i v e b y f i v e g r i d n o r m a l l y l o c a t e d i n t h e t o p l e f t c o r n e r o f most games p l a y e d , h o w e v e r , was i n t h e l o w e r r i g h t o f t h i s game. While t h e camera a n g l e was n o t i d e a l , I c o u l d n o t l o c a t e a s e c t i o n t h a t d i s p l a y e d a n y numbered c i r c l e s l i k e t h o s e t h a t a p p e a r e d i n h o r i z o n t a l rows i n most o t h e r machines a t t h e C a s i n o . Furthermore, the s i z e of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r m i n i a t u r e g r i d was r o u g h l y e q u a l t o t h e s i z e o f one p o s i t i o n on a n y one o f t h e p o s i t i o n s on a s i n g l e r e e l . "On J a n u a r y 7, 2013, y o u r A f f i a n t d i r e c t e d two a d d i t i o n a l undercover agents, h e r e i n a f t e r , r e f e r r e d t o as UC 2 a n d UC 3 t o e n t e r t h e C a s i n o w i t h c o v e r t v i d e o and a u d i o r e c o r d e r s i n o r d e r t o c a p t u r e t h e i r v i s i t . ... " " A f t e r f o l l o w i n g t h e same p r o c e d u r e [ a s UC 1 ] f o r o b t a i n i n g p l a y e r s ' c a r d s a n d p l a c i n g money i n t h e i r a c c o u n t s , t h e UC's w o r k e d t o g e t h e r a n d f i r s t a p p r o a c h e d a game t i t l e d ' C r i m s o n S e v e n . ' B o t h UC's recorded d i f f e r e n t angles of t h e i r experience while playing the s l o t machines. 'Crimson Seven' c o n s i s t e d o f a m a i n d i s p l a y t h a t was p r e d o m i n a n t l y covered by a d i g i t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of s p i n n i n g reels. As d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r when n o t i n g UC 1's play, i t c o n s i s t e d of f i v e v e r t i c a l reels aligned s i d e b y s i d e w i t h t h r e e p o s i t i o n s d i s p l a y e d on e a c h r e e l . When t h e ' P l a y ' t a b o r b u t t o n was p u s h e d , t h e r e e l s appeared t o r o t a t e v e r t i c a l l y a t computer speed. "When a game c y c l e was o v e r a n d a w i n n i n g p a t t e r n was p r e d e t e r m i n e d a n d i l l u m i n a t e d b y t h e c o m p u t e r , t h e UC's m e r e l y h a d t o p r e s s p l a y a g a i n t o 8 1120498 b e g i n t h e n e x t game. A t no t i m e were t h e y r e q u i r e d t o ' d a u b ' a n y number o r p a t t e r n a n d t h e y n e v e r h a d to 'claim' any p r i z e . The computer simply i d e n t i f i e d the winning patterns, c r e d i t e d or debited t h e i r a c c o u n t s as a p p r o p r i a t e , and prompted t h e p l a y e r s t o p r e s s p l a y a g a i n t o b e g i n t h e n e x t game. " A l l t o t a l , UC 2 a n d UC 3 p l a y e d t h i r t e e n d i f f e r e n t games i n t h e C a s i n o . They were t i t l e d ' C r i m s o n 7'; 'Cash Cow'; 'Super S e v e n ' ; ' C h e r r i e s Gone W i l d ' ; 'Lucky C h a r m s ' ; ' H o t t e r T h a n ' ; ' L u c k y Fruits'; 'Texas G o l d ' ; 'Reel Cats'; 'Paydirt'; 'Lucky Duck'; 'Wild B i l l y ' and ' B u s t i n ' Vegas.' E a c h o f t h o s e m a c h i n e s o p e r a t e d i n much t h e same manner as t h o s e p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . Differences i n g r a p h i c s were e v i d e n t i n e a c h a n d t h e f i v e b y f i v e g r i d was o f t e n l o c a t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n of the screen. I n e a c h game, h o w e v e r , t h a t g r i d was c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r than the s p i n n i n g r e e l s t h a t dominated the screen. None o f t h e games r e q u i r e d any a d d i t i o n a l a c t i o n f r o m t h e p l a y e r o t h e r t h a n t o hit 'Play' again t o begin a n o t h e r game. The d u r a t i o n o f t h e games v a r i e d f r o m a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2.25 s e c o n d s t o as l o n g as a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5.4 s e c o n d s . On video, some bonus r o u n d s a p p e a r e d t o l a s t e v e n l o n g e r i n what y o u r A f f i a n t b e l i e v e d was an a t t e m p t to b u i l d suspense w i t h regard t o p o t e n t i a l winnings. "One game, 'Lucky F r u i t s ' p l a y e d b y UC 2 a n d UC 3, was s l i g h t l y more d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l l y t h a n t h e o t h e r games. I n t h i s f o r m a t , t h e s p i n n i n g e l e m e n t s consisted of three vertical reels with three p o s i t i o n s on e a c h r e e l . I t was p o s s i b l e f o r UC 2 t o press each p o s i t i o n o f the s p i n n i n g r e e l t o stop t h e r e e l a t t h a t p o s i t i o n . That a c t i o n i n d i c a t e d each r e e l was n o t s p i n n i n g s e p a r a t e l y as a u n i t . R a t h e r , i t a p p e a r e d as t h o u g h e a c h p o s i t i o n on e a c h r e e l was s p i n n i n g as a u n i t u n t o i t s e l f . Regardless, each p o s i t i o n was s p i n n i n g more r a p i d l y t h a n t h e m i n d o r eye c o u l d comprehend. I t was a l s o p o s s i b l e t o a l l o w t h e m a c h i n e t o c o n t i n u e p l a y i n g on i t s own w i t h o u t a d d i t i o n a l p l a y e r i n t e r a c t i o n . In that case, the 9 1120498 game l a s t e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5.4 seconds. As an a l t e r n a t e method, t h e p l a y e r c o u l d p r e s s t h e ' S t o p ' b u t t o n and a l l a p p e a r a n c e s o f s p i n n i n g on t h e r e e l s stopped simultaneously. UC 2 s a i d i n e a c h i n s t a n c e t h e p o s i t i o n s were c h a n g i n g f a r t o o q u i c k l y f o r t h e human m i n d t o r e c o g n i z e t h e p a t t e r n s . "Some games e v e n p r o v i d e d bonus r o u n d s d u r i n g w h i c h z e r o i n p u t was r e q u i r e d f r o m t h e p l a y e r . The UC s i m p l y s a t i n f r o n t o f t h e m a c h i n e and game cycles were completed without any required interaction. A t one p o i n t , UC 3 r e a c h e d a bonus r o u n d w h i l e he was e n g a g e d i n c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h an e m p l o y e e who e x p l a i n e d , when a s k e d , t h a t a b o n u s r o u n d had o c c u r r e d . P r i o r t o t h e commencement o f t h i s u n d e r c o v e r m i s s i o n , I a s k e d UC 3 i f he c o u l d present h i s player's card to a cashier p r i o r to d e p a r t i n g t h e c a s i n o t o d e t e r m i n e i f money l e f t on his a c c o u n t w o u l d be g i v e n t o him. He was not required to present i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e t h i s t a s k and was g i v e n t h e amount o f money t h a t c o r r e s p o n d e d to the amount l i s t e d in his a c c o u n t on t h e l a s t m a c h i n e he p l a y e d . "As n o t e d e a r l i e r , I d i d v i s i t t h e C a s i n o on o J a n u a r y 15, 2013, p r i o r t o p r e s e n t i n g t h i s A f f i d a v i t to the Court f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A f t e r e x p e r i e n c i n g t h e same p r o c e s s as t h e e a r l i e r a g e n t s w h e r e b y a p l a y e r ' s card i s issued, I proceeded to various machines to observe the workings of d e v i c e s s i m i l a r t o what I w i t n e s s e d on e a r l i e r u n d e r c o v e r v i d e o s . W h i l e I d i d n o t p l a y t h e number o f m a c h i n e s as UC 2 and UC 3, I d i d gamble on a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e t o i n s u r e my u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f what I had s e e n on v i d e o and what t h e a g e n t s had r e l a y e d t o me was fully understood. During my visit to the Casino, I noticed nothing to i n d i c a t e anything about the Casino o r i t s o p e r a t i o n s had changed s i n c e the e a r l i e r agents reported. I n t h e end, l i k e UC 3, I c l e a r e d o u t t h e a c c o u n t o f my p l a y e r ' s c a r d t o v e r i f y the c u r r e n c y I r e c e i v e d matched the d o l l a r amount d i s p l a y e d on t h e l a s t m a c h i n e I p l a y e d . 10 1120498 " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t d u r i n g my v i s i t , I made a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t t o l o c a t e a n d p l a y a game p l a y e d by UC 1 on h i s f i r s t v i s i t t i t l e d 'Super D u p e r Ball.' On v i d e o d u r i n g UC 1's v i s i t , he e n g a g e d an employee i n c o n v e r s a t i o n about a p a r t i c u l a r bank o f m a c h i n e s a n d w h e t h e r t h e y were o p e r a t i o n a l . The e m p l o y e e d e s c r i b e d t h e game as 'Keno' a n d m e n t i o n e d the Casino had s i x such machines. The name a f f i x e d t o t h e f r o n t o f t h e m a c h i n e , h o w e v e r , s a i d 'Super Duper B a l l . ' From UC 1's v i d e o , i t a p p e a r e d as t h o u g h once t h e p l a y e r c a r d was s w i p e d a n d t h e P I N number c o r r e c t l y e n t e r e d , t h e p l a y e r h a d a c h o i c e o f p l a y i n g s i x d i f f e r e n t games on a s i n g l e m a c h i n e . "As t h e e m p l o y e e was e x p l a i n i n g t h e game t o UC 1, he m e n t i o n e d t h e p l a y e r h a d a c h o i c e o f c h o o s i n g h i s numbers o r he c o u l d e l e c t t o h a v e t h e m a c h i n e 'auto p i c k ' them f o r h i m . The p a r t i c u l a r game UC 1 p l a y e d h a d t h e w o r d i n g 'Beat The House' a c r o s s t h e digital screen. I chose a title similar to 'Hillbilly Girls.' The s c r e e n c o n s i s t e d o f e i g h t h o r i z o n t a l rows w i t h t e n numbers on e a c h row t h a t appeared i n numerical order. When play was initiated, approximately 20 rapidly appearing numbered s p h e r e s f e l l on t h e s c r e e n f a s t e r t h a n t h e mind o r eye c o u l d comprehend i n two v e r t i c a l c o l u m n s . The p l a y e r h a d a c h o i c e o f two s p e e d s t h a t t h e numbered s p h e r e s c o u l d f a l l . The s l o w s p e e d l a s t e d approximately 2.5 s e c o n d s w h i l e t h e f a s t e r s p e e d a p p e a r e d t o l a s t l e s s t h a n one s e c o n d . " P r i o r t o p l a y , t h e p l a y e r was p r o m p t e d t o p i c k two t o e i g h t numbers f r o m t h e 80 numbers i n t h e center. L i k e UC 1, h o w e v e r , I e l e c t e d t o a l l o w t h e m a c h i n e t o p i c k t h e numbers f o r me. The o b j e c t t h e n became t o have a numbered s p h e r e among t h e 20 t h a t f e l l i n t h e two v e r t i c a l c o l u m n s m a t c h one o r more o f t h e numbers p i c k e d among t h e 80. I p l a y e d f i v e games i n t h i s f a s h i o n b e f o r e I f i n a l l y n o t i c e d a f i v e by f i v e g r i d , similar to the small grids d e s c r i b e d i n o t h e r games, w h i c h f l a s h e d i n t h e l o w e r r i g h t p o r t i o n o f t h e s c r e e n o n l y as l o n g as i t t o o k 11 1120498 t h e numbered s p h e r e s t o f a l l . Once t h o s e s p h e r e s were i n p l a c e , t h e g r i d d i s a p p e a r e d . On e i t h e r s p e e d , f a s t o r s l o w , I c o u l d n o t comprehend w i t h any m e a n i n g what numbers were l o c a t e d where on t h a t grid. S i n c e t h e o b j e c t o f t h e game was m a t c h i n g numbers one t h r o u g h e i g h t y on t h e m a i n d i s p l a y w i t h the numbers that fell vertically, I saw no c o r r e l a t i o n t o t h a t f i v e by f i v e g r i d . " B a s e d upon my e x p e r i e n c e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f [§] 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 0 ( 1 0 ) , [ A l a . Code 1975,] e a c h m a c h i n e observed b y t h e UC'S a t the Casino met t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a s l o t machine: "'SLOT MACHINE. A g a m b l i n g d e v i c e t h a t , as a r e s u l t of the i n s e r t i o n of a coin or other object, operates, e i t h e r completely a u t o m a t i c a l l y o r w i t h t h e a i d o f some p h y s i c a l a c t by t h e p l a y e r , i n such a manner t h a t , d e p e n d i n g upon e l e m e n t s o f c h a n c e , i t may e j e c t s o m e t h i n g o f v a l u e . A device so constructed or readily a d a p t a b l e o r c o n v e r t i b l e t o s u c h u s e i s no l e s s a s l o t machine because i t i s n o t i n w o r k i n g o r d e r o r b e c a u s e some m e c h a n i c a l act of manipulation or r e p a i r i s required to a c c o m p l i s h i t s a d a p t a t i o n , c o n v e r s i o n o r workability. N o r i s i t any l e s s a s l o t machine because a p a r t from i t s use o r a d a p t a b i l i t y as s u c h i t may a l s o s e l l o r d e l i v e r s o m e t h i n g o f v a l u e on a b a s i s o t h e r than chance.' " A f t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g an a c c o u n t r e p r e s e n t e d b y a player's card and P I N , p l a y i n g these machines required the player to i n s e r t that PIN into the m a c h i n e a f t e r s w i p i n g t h e p l a y e r ' s c a r d . The p l a y e r then i n i t i a t e d p l a y by a p h y s i c a l a c t . Each s e p a r a t e game c y c l e t h e UC p l a y e d o p e r a t e d strictly by c h a n c e w i t h o u t any r e l i a n c e upon t h e p l a y e r ' s s k i l l o r p o t e n t i a l mastery o f p l a y and r e l i e d s o l e l y upon t h e c h a n c e t h a t t h e c o m p u t e r w o u l d m a t c h 12 1120498 numbers t h a t f i l l e d o r a p p e a r e d i n s m a l l g r i d s o r c o l u m n s / r o w s w i t h any number l o c a t e d anywhere on t h e s m a l l , f i v e by f i v e g r i d . The p l a y e r d i d n o t e v e n n e e d t o u n d e r s t a n d o r remember w i n n i n g patterns s i n c e the computer r e c o g n i z e d the p a t t e r n s and a l e r t e d the p l a y e r o f the results. In every discernible winning event, those machines then transferred monetary credit into the player's account. Those w i n n i n g s o r r e m a i n i n g c r e d i t i n t h e p l a y e r ' s a c c o u n t c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d f r o m t h e c a s h i e r by p r e s e n t i n g the p l a y e r ' s c a r d and PIN to a cashier. " F u r t h e r m o r e , i t i s my o p i n i o n t h e m a c h i n e s i n s i d e the Casino f i t the d e s c r i p t i o n o f a Gambling D e v i c e as o u t l i n e d i n [§] 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 0 ( 5 ) [ , A l a . Code 1975]: "'GAMBLING DEVICE. Any d e v i c e , m a c h i n e , p a r a p h e r n a l i a or equipment t h a t i s n o r m a l l y u s e d o r u s a b l e i n t h e p l a y i n g p h a s e s o f any gambling a c t i v i t y , whether t h a t a c t i v i t y c o n s i s t s o f gambling between p e r s o n s or g a m b l i n g by a p e r s o n i n v o l v i n g t h e p l a y i n g of a machine. However, l o t t e r y t i c k e t s , p o l i c y s l i p s and o t h e r i t e m s u s e d i n t h e playing phases of lottery and policy schemes a r e n o t g a m b l i n g d e v i c e s w i t h i n this definition.' "At t h i s C a s i n o , t h e m o n i t o r s , d e v i c e s and t h e i r s e r v e r s are usable i n the p l a y i n g phases of a gambling a c t i v i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , those monitors, d e v i c e s and s e r v e r s a l l o w e d t h e UC t o r i s k s o m e t h i n g of value (State i s s u e d U n i t e d States currency) on t h e outcome o f a c o n t e s t o f c h a n c e (random m a t c h i n g o f c o m p u t e r g e n e r a t e d numbers t o a f i v e by f i v e g r i d w h i c h o c c u r r e d p u r e l y by c h a n c e i n s t e a d o f upon any skill, whatsoever, by the player) on the understanding t h a t he m i g h t r e c e i v e s o m e t h i n g o f v a l u e i n t h e e v e n t o f a c e r t a i n outcome (winnings t h a t c o u l d be o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e c a s h i e r i n e x c h a n g e 13 1120498 f o r h i s PIN s l i p ) . E a c h and e v e r y t i m e any o f t h e UC's p r e s s e d o r t o u c h e d ' P l a y , ' c u r r e n c y o r c r e d i t was d e b i t e d f r o m t h e i r a c c o u n t s . In the event o f a w i n n i n g p a t t e r n , money o r c r e d i t was returned to t h e i r accounts. The amount w a g e r e d was d e t e r m i n e d by t h e p l a y e r p r i o r t o t h e i n i t i a t i o n o f a game. U n l e s s a p l a y e r d e c i d e d t o a l t e r t h a t amount, t h e s e t t i n g o f t h e wager amount r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t u n t i l t h e p l a y e r e l e c t e d t o change t h e amount. " B e c a u s e t h e C a s i n o p u r p o r t s t h a t [ i t s ] games a r e f o r m s o f e l e c t r o n i c BINGO, I c i t e now the s e c t i o n o f t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s [ B a r b e r v.] C o r n e r s t o n e [Community O u t r e a c h , I n c . , 42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , ] d e c i s i o n w h i c h so c l e a r l y d e f i n e d t h e game commonly known as BINGO. "'The characteristics the f o l l o w i n g : of [bingo] include "'1. E a c h p l a y e r u s e s one o r more c a r d s w i t h spaces a r r a n g e d i n f i v e columns and f i v e rows, w i t h an a l p h a n u m e r i c o r s i m i l a r d e s i g n a t i o n a s s i g n e d to each space. "'2. designations a n n o u n c e d one Alphanumeric are randomly by one. or similar drawn and "'3. In order t o p l a y , each p l a y e r must pay a t t e n t i o n t o t h e v a l u e s a n n o u n c e d ; i f one o f t h e v a l u e s m a t c h e s a v a l u e on one o r more o f t h e p l a y e r ' s c a r d s , t h e p l a y e r must p h y s i c a l l y a c t by m a r k i n g h i s o r h e r card accordingly. "'4. A p l a y e r can f a i l t o pay p r o p e r a t t e n t i o n o r t o p r o p e r l y mark h i s o r h e r c a r d , and t h e r e b y m i s s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be declared a winner. 14 1120498 "'5. A p l a y e r must r e c o g n i z e t h a t h i s or her card has a "bingo," i.e., a predetermined p a t t e r n of matching values, and i n t u r n announce t o t h e o t h e r p l a y e r s and t h e a n n o u n c e r t h a t t h i s i s t h e c a s e b e f o r e a n y o t h e r p l a y e r does s o . "'6. The game o f b i n g o c o n t e m p l a t e s a group a c t i v i t y i n which m u l t i p l e p l a y e r s compete a g a i n s t e a c h o t h e r t o be t h e f i r s t to properly mark a card with the p r e d e t e r m i n e d w i n n i n g p a t t e r n a n d announce that fact.' "[42 So. 3d a t 86.] "In t h e game commonly known as bingo, a l p h a n u m e r i c p a i r i n g s s u c h as B 1 5 , I 2 5 , N61, e t c . , a r e a n n o u n c e d one b y one. I n my e x a m p l e i n t h e previous sentence, i f B15 i s a n n o u n c e d b y t h e c a l l e r , t h e number 15 c a n o n l y be p r o p e r l y 'daubed' i f i t a p p e a r s somewhere i n t h e v e r t i c a l c o l u m n u n d e r 'B.' I f 15 a p p e a r s i n t h e 'O' column a n d t h e p l a y e r 'daubs' 15 i n t h e 'O' c o l u m n , i t w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n c o r r e c t a n d c a n n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o w a r d a w i n n i n g pattern. On t h e m a c h i n e s t h e UC's p l a y e d a n d w i t n e s s e d a t t h e C a s i n o , t h e numbers s i m p l y h a d t o e x i s t somewhere on t h e f i v e b y f i v e g r i d without r e g a r d t o column, o r d e r , a l p h a n u m e r i c o r s i m i l a r designation. " R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e method t h e numbers a p p e a r e d i n t h e c u r r e n t gaming systems a t t h e C a s i n o , they seem t o be r a n d o m l y drawn a n d d i d n o t r e p e a t t h e m s e l v e s i n s u c h a way t h a t c o u l d be r e a d i l y distinguished. T h e i r o r d e r o f draw, a p p e a r a n c e o r l o c a t i o n i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i l l i n g g r i d o r columns had no b e a r i n g on a m a t c h i n g number on t h e s m a l l , f i v e by f i v e p l a y i n g g r i d s . Furthermore, those drawn numbers have no a l p h a n u m e r i c or s i m i l a r designation. They a r e s i m p l y numbers a n d a r e n o t a n n o u n c e d i n a n y way t o t h e p l a y e r s . On t h e 15 1120498 machines a t t h e Casino, a l l of the appearing or drawn numbers a p p e a r i n a m a t t e r o f s e c o n d s w h i c h i s i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l game o f b i n g o where t h e announcement o f a l p h a n u m e r i c p a i r i n g s o c c u r s a t a slow enough cadence to allow a player to understand t h e p a i r i n g c a l l e d and then look f o r a p r o p e r m a t c h on a n y o f h i s c a r d s b e f o r e t h e n e x t pairing i s called. In the t r a d i t i o n a l playing of bingo, a p l a y e r ' s s k i l l and a b i l i t y t o scan m u l t i p l e c a r d s i n s e a r c h o f t h e c a l l e d p a i r i n g becomes a factor. The more c a r d s a p l a y e r p u r c h a s e s i n a t r a d i t i o n a l game g i v e s h i m more o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o be t h e f i r s t among h i s c o m p e t i t o r s t o r e c o g n i z e and announce a w i n n i n g p a t t e r n . A lack of s k i l l i n s c a n n i n g m u l t i p l e cards o r any l a p s e o f a t t e n t i o n c o u l d c a u s e a p l a y e r i n a t r a d i t i o n a l game o f b i n g o t o miss a m a t c h i n g announced p a i r i n g . At the Casino, t h e computer h i g h l i g h t s t h e 'matching' numbers f o r the player b y means of visual a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h the d e c o r a t i v e spinning r e e l s which c o m p l e t e l y e l i m i n a t e s a n y c h a n c e a more s k i l l e d o r a l e r t p l a y e r c o u l d have an a d v a n t a g e . " T h e r e was no n e e d f o r a t t e n t i o n t o be p a i d b y t h e UC's n o r b y a n y o t h e r p l a y e r s t h e y o b s e r v e d t o t h e numbers a n n o u n c e d s i n c e none were a n n o u n c e d . A l t h o u g h t h e numbers on t h e m a c h i n e s a t t h e C a s i n o are d i s p l a y e d , t h e y appear a t computer speed and t h e p l a y e r i s a f f o r d e d no o p p o r t u n i t y t o match t h e numbers on h i s own. The p l a y e r i s s i m p l y b y p a s s e d i n t h a t t h e c o m p u t e r i d e n t i f i e s t h e m a t c h i n g numbers and p a t t e r n a n d t h e n f o r c e s t h e p l a y e r t o a c c e p t t h e computer's r e c o g n i t i o n o f w i n n i n g p a t t e r n s . "In the event a winning p a t t e r n i s present, the computer d e t e r m i n e s , and w i t h o u t i n p u t from t h e p l a y e r , t h a t t h e p l a y e r i s a winner s i m p l y by h i g h l i g h t i n g the winning p a t t e r n f o r him through some r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on t h e r e e l s a f t e r t h e y s t o p spinning. T h e r e i s no o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e c o g n i z e a n d 'daub' a n y a r e a o f t h e e n t i r e s c r e e n . T h e r e i s no c h a n c e s o m e t h i n g o f v a l u e f r o m t h a t w i n n i n g game 16 1120498 w i l l n o t be t r a n s f e r r e d o r e j e c t e d i n t o t h e p l a y e r ' s account. A t no t i m e d u r i n g any o f t h e UC's a c t u a l p l a y were t h e y c o m p e l l e d t o compare t h e numbers i n t h e a r e a where numbers a p p e a r e d o r f i l l e d t o t h e p l a y i n g g r i d t o i n s u r e t h e numbers m a t c h e d . "The rules o f p l a y a t t h e C a s i n o h a d no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e UC's o r any o t h e r p l a y e r were r e q u i r e d t o a n n o u n c e , o r o t h e r w i s e make known, t o any o t h e r p l a y e r o r e m p l o y e e t h a t h e / t h e y h a d won a game. F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n t h e y were c o m p e t i n g w i t h any o t h e r p l a y e r t o be t h e f i r s t t o do s o . A t no t i m e were t h e UC's p r o m p t e d t o s p e e d up t h e i r c l a i m i n g o f a p r i z e . F i r s t , there was no r e q u i r e m e n t t o c l a i m any p r i z e . Second, t h e UC's a l l o w e d s u f f i c i e n t t i m e t o e l a p s e i n o r d e r t o l e a r n i f , l i k e some o t h e r s l o t m a c h i n e s i n some o t h e r c a s i n o s , t h e s e r v e r w o u l d a t t e m p t t o s p e e d up s u b s e q u e n t games p l a y e d b y t h e p a t r o n s b y a l e r t i n g them t o a t i m e d countdown b e f o r e t h e y l o s t any winnings. " B a s e d upon t h e o b s e r v e d f a c t s o u t l i n e d b y me i n t h i s A f f i d a v i t on t h e e s t a b l i s h e d d a t e s a n d a l s o upon my t r a i n i n g , e x p e r i e n c e a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e g a m b l i n g l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , I do a s s e r t t h e S t a t e o f Alabama has p r o b a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t i l l e g a l s l o t machines and gambling devices are c u r r e n t l y present w i t h i n [the c a s i n o ] . " 2 2 S e c t i o n 13A-12-27, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : " ( a ) A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a gambling d e v i c e i f w i t h knowledge o f t h e c h a r a c t e r t h e r e o f he m a n u f a c t u r e s , s e l l s , t r a n s p o r t s , p l a c e s or possesses, or conducts o r n e g o t i a t e s any transaction affecting or designed to affect ownership, custody o r use o f : "(1) A s l o t m a c h i n e ; o r 17 1120498 A c c o r d i n g t o S i s s o n , he s u b m i t t e d t h e a f f i d a v i t t o J u d g e Young, a l o n g w i t h , among o t h e r c a s i n o and recording containing highlights a video surveillance t h i n g s , a photograph video mentioned i n the affidavit. was submitted the from the Sisson also o f f e r e d to p r o v i d e the e n t i r e s u r v e i l l a n c e video i f necessary. of immediately T h i s C o u r t has v i e w e d t h e v i d e o r e c o r d i n g t h a t to Judge Young. This recording fully c l e a r l y c o r r o b o r a t e s the d e s c r i p t i o n i n S i s s o n ' s a f f i d a v i t to the nature d e v i c e s and o f t h e m a c h i n e s a l l e g e d t o be t h e manner i n w h i c h t h o s e m a c h i n e s a r e Judge Young d e n i e d warrant. illegal the S t a t e ' s a p p l i c a t i o n "played." for a search Sisson s t a t e d : " [ T h e j u d g e ] g a v e two r e a s o n s f o r h i s r e f u s a l t o sign. F i r s t , he s a i d t h a t t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n t h e [ B a r b e r v.] C o r n e r s t o n e [ , 42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , ] c a s e was n o t c l e a r and d i d n o t a s s i s t him i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f t h e V i c t o r y L a n d m a c h i n e s were l e g a l o r n o t . S e c o n d , he n o t e d t h e conflict between two law enforcement agencies r e g a r d i n g t h e l e g a l i t y o f t h e m a c h i n e s . He e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e S h e r i f f o f Macon C o u n t y had c e r t i f i e d t h e " ( 2 ) Any o t h e r g a m b l i n g d e v i c e , w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n t h a t i t be u s e d i n t h e advancement o f u n l a w f u l g a m b l i n g a c t i v i t y . "(b) P o s s e s s i o n of C l a s s A misdemeanor." a 18 gambling device as gambling I n an a f f i d a v i t a t t a c h e d t o t h e S t a t e ' s p e t i t i o n t h i s Court, and is a to 1120498 m a c h i n e s as l e g a l , b u t now t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l c l a i m i n g t h e same m a c h i n e s were i l l e g a l . " A f t e r Judge Young d e n i e d warrant, the State f i l e d the a p p l i c a t i o n f o r the a petition for a writ s e e k i n g an o r d e r Judge Young t o i s s u e the w a r r a n t . Judge Young f i l e d response to the S t a t e ' s p e t i t i o n , search o f mandamus w i t h the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals in was directing a letter stating: " A f t e r r e v i e w i n g the a f f i d a v i t i n support o f the search warrant and v i e w i n g v i d e o e v i d e n c e , this Court r e s p e c t f u l l y d e c l i n e d t o i s s u e the search warrant. I informed the i n v e s t i g a t o r s f o r the Attorney General's Office that I felt their a f f i d a v i t s were i n a d e q u a t e g i v e n the f a c t that a n o t h e r l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l , S h e r i f f o f Macon C o u n t y , had p u b l i c l y d e c l a r e d t h e same m a c h i n e s , w h i c h t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l deemed i l l e g a l , t o be l e g a l . I a l s o d i s c u s s e d the matter t h a t the S h e r i f f a l o n g w i t h an expert f o r Victoryland declared p u b l i c l y on t e l e v i s i o n t h a t t h e s e m a c h i n e s c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e s i x - p o i n t t e s t as s e t o u t i n [ B a r b e r v. ] C o r n e r s t o n e [ , 42 So. 3d 65 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) ] . T h e r e f o r e , I d i d not f i n d t h a t the a f f i d a v i t s or v i d e o evidence supporting this search warrant to adequately e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t h a t a c r i m e was being committed. The C o u r t a t t h a t t i m e d i s c u s s e d t h e a n a l o g y o f two l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s a p p r o a c h i n g a J u d g e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t where one s a i d t h a t t h e r e was c o c a i n e i n a r e s i d e n c e and t h e o t h e r s a i d t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was n o t c o c a i n e . A s e a r c h w a r r a n t i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t and t h e Judge issuing said warrant should be soundly c o n v i n c e d o f an i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y . In the i n s t a n t case, g i v e n the fact that [Amendment No. 744, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n 1901, now L o c a l Amendments, Macon C o u n t y , § 1 ( O f f . Recomp.),] w h i c h p r o v i d e s for bingo b e i n g p l a y e d at V i c t o r y l a n d a l l o w s the 19 1120498 S h e r i f f t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b i n g o , a n d f u r t h e r , g i v e n t h e f a c t t h a t he h a s p u b l i c l y d e c l a r e d t h e machines p r e s e n t l y l o c a t e d a t t h a t l o c a t i o n t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e Supreme Court guidance i n Cornerstone, there i s c l e a r l y a l a c k of sufficient probable cause t o warrant such an extraordinary writ. I urge t h i s Court not t o g e t c a u g h t up i n t h e p o l i t i c s o f o u r p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s o r t h e g a m i n g i n d u s t r y , b u t l o o k d e e p l y i n t o what i s necessary i n order t o f a i r l y a d m i n i s t e r t h e laws o f t h i s country. I f the P e t i t i o n e r i n t h i s case succeeds, then i t w i l l put Judges o f t h i s State i n the untenable position of determining which c o n s t i t u t i o n a l o f f i c e r t h e y choose t o b e l i e v e . "The P e t i t i o n e r , i n f a c t , i s a s k i n g t h i s J u d g e t o s i g n an O r d e r w h e r e b y he d e c l a r e s t h e s e m a c h i n e s t o be i l l e g a l , when t h e r e h a s b e e n no s u c h d e c i s i o n on t h i s i s s u e b y any C o u r t . I f t h e s e m a c h i n e s were o f s u c h an i l l e g a l n a t u r e , as c i t e d i n t h e e x t e n s i v e b r i e f o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , t h e n why does t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l need a w a r r a n t ? This business i s f o r p u b l i c i n v i t e e s and a s e a r c h warrant would n o t be r e q u i r e d i f t h e s e m a c h i n e s were i n p l a i n s i g h t and i l l e g a l . " Without giving C r i m i n a l Appeals any r e a s o n i n i t s order, denied the State's p e t i t i o n . p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court the Court The S t a t e of then f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. Analysis Before addressing Judge Young's reply to the p e t i t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t , we n o t e t h a t n o t h i n g i n S i s s o n ' s describing denying the reasons the search Judge warrant Young gave and n o t h i n g 20 affidavit a t t h e time f o r i n Judge Young's 1120498 response Appeals to the makes credibility State's p e t i t i o n any mention of as an a f f i a n t i n the any Court concern as of Criminal to Sisson's i n support of the a p p l i c a t i o n the search warrant or the accuracy of the s u r v e i l l a n c e s u b m i t t e d t o J u d g e Young. Judge Young application defended on In the Court of C r i m i n a l his denial purely legal of grounds. the State's Primary for video Appeals, warrant among these g r o u n d s was t h e f a c t , a c c o r d i n g t o J u d g e Young's s u b m i s s i o n t o this Court, "publicly that Macon declared on V i c t o r y L a n d were l e g a l . County Sheriff television" 3 that J u d g e Young h e r e i n a f t e r as t h e " t h e t r i a l j u d g e " ) t h a t no p r o b a b l e c a u s e David Warren had the machines at (sometimes a l s o took the c o u l d e x i s t where two In his reply to the to position law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s d i s a g r e e over the l e g a l i t y of the a l l e g e d t h a t i s the s u b j e c t of the a p p l i c a t i o n referred contraband f o r a search warrant. State's p e t i t i o n filed with this C o u r t , J u d g e Young r e s t a t e s t h e p o s i t i o n s he t o o k b e f o r e t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , b u t f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e now includes Amendment No. 744, Ala. Const. 1901 (now Amendments, Macon C o u n t y , § 1, A l a . C o n s t . 1901 Recomp.)), states, i n part, that "[t]he sheriff promulgate rules and regulations f o r the l i c e n s i n g o p e r a t i o n o f b i n g o games w i t h i n t h e c o u n t y . The s h e r i f f i n s u r e c o m p l i a n c e p u r s u a n t t o any r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n 3 21 Local (Off. shall and shall " 1120498 statements from which been a p r o b l e m one m i g h t i n the Court initial filing t h a t t h e r e c o u l d have with Sisson's c r e d i b i l i t y the s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o . State, infer 4 T h e s e comments come o n l y a f t e r t h e of Criminal i n this or the accuracy of Appeals and a g a i n i n t h e i r C o u r t , s e i z e d upon t h e f a c t that the t r i a l j u d g e h a d e x p r e s s e d no d o u b t a b o u t " t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f the a f f i a n t video and h i s proposed or the s u f f i c i e n c y testimony, the accuracy of the of the evidence." Even i n these comments ( s e e n o t e 4 a c c o m p a n y i n g t h i s p a r a g r a p h ) , J u d g e Young s t o p s s h o r t o f a c t u a l l y s a y i n g t h a t , i n f a c t , he f o u n d S i s s o n to lack c r e d i b i l i t y . m i g h t be t h e c a s e . Moreover, he o f f e r s no r e a s o n why t h i s L i k e w i s e , he s t o p s s h o r t o f a s s e r t i n g the s u r v e i l l a n c e v i d e o i s i n a c c u r a t e . Judge following: 4 Young's submission T h u s , we have b e f o r e us to this Court includes "Next, t h e P e t i t i o n e r contends t h a t t h i s Court h a d e x p r e s s e d no d o u b t a b o u t t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e a f f i a n t and h i s proposed t e s t i m o n y , t h e a c c u r a c y o f the v i d e o or the s u f f i c i e n c y o f the evidence o f f e r e d to support the a p p l i c a t i o n . T h i s c o u r t does n o t routinely criticize the a f f i a n t s during their proposals f o r search warrants. I t i s the p o s i t i o n of t h i s C o u r t t h a t i t i s t o observe and t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h o s e m a t t e r s b r o u g h t b e f o r e i t and i n a l l o t h e r m a t t e r s made known t o t h e c o u r t i n o r d e r t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f probable cause. The C o u r t d i d so i n i t s d e c i s i o n not t o i s s u e t h e search w a r r a n t . " 22 that the 1120498 only mere tendered. suggestions of possibilities This belated p r o f f e r , not previously s u c h as i t i s , does n o t h i n g to d e t e r t h i s C o u r t from the c o n c l u s i o n reached i n i s s u i n g the w r i t o f mandamus t h a t , b a s e d on t h e e r r o r s o f l a w d e s c r i b e d i n his submissions to the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals Court and and t o the other circumstances p r e s e n t e d (see this discussion i n f r a ) , J u d g e Young a c t e d o u t s i d e t h e d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d h i m by l a w when he d e n i e d t h e S t a t e ' s r e q u e s t f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t in this case. G i v e n t h e l a c k o f any or reason to suspect the c r e d i b i l i t y accuracy of the evidence tendered t o the t r i a l judge, we a p p l y t h e same e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d a p p l i e d i n c a s e s s u c h as V i n s o n v. S t a t e , in which decision this of 843 Court the So. 2d 229, issued Court 231-32 a writ of ( A l a . 2001), a case o f mandamus r e v e r s i n g Criminal Appeals a requiring s u p p r e s s i o n of evidence o b t a i n e d pursuant to a search w a r r a n t : "The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on Vinson's motion to suppress consisted of the t e s t i m o n y o f t h e o f f i c e r s who e x e c u t e d t h e w a r r a n t . T h a t e v i d e n c e was u n d i s p u t e d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v i e w the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n to grant the motion to s u p p r e s s u n d e r a 'de n o v o ' s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . O r n e l a s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e v. H i l l , 690 So. 2d 1201 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; and S t a t e v. S m i t h , 785 So. 2d 1169 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) . We a p p l y t h i s s t a n d a r d 23 1120498 to t h e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n whether t h e a f f i d a v i t o f A g e n t Guy W a r r e n was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p l y p r o b a b l e cause t o i s s u e the w a r r a n t . " See a l s o S t a t e v. H i l l , (reversing 690 So. 2d 1201, 1203-04 a suppression order ( A l a . 1996) and n o t i n g t h a t " [ t ] h e trial j u d g e ' s r u l i n g i n t h i s c a s e was b a s e d upon h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the term ' r e a s o n a b l e set of law"). facts; s u s p i c i o n ' as a p p l i e d t o an the proper Similarly, interpretation various federal i s a question courts have whether the f a c t s c o n t a i n e d i n a search warrant to e s t a b l i s h probable of law, s u b j e c t Bradley, In cause of a f e d e r a l crime t o de novo review. 644 F.3d 1213, 1263-64 undisputed held of that are s u f f i c i e n t i s a question See U n i t e d States v. (11th C i r . 2011). a d d i t i o n , b e c a u s e , as i n V i n s o n , t h i s matter comes t o us b y way o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, we a r e m i n d f u l t h a t s u c h a w r i t w i l l be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s "(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e order sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . " Ex p a r t e It Integon C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 i s well settled that 24 ( A l a . 1995). 1120498 "[a]s a general rule a writ i s s u e t o r e v i e w an e x e r c i s e judicial discretion o f mandamus w i l l n o t of j u d i c i a l or quasi " T h i s r u l e , h o w e v e r , h a s an e x c e p t i o n i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n , f o r i n some c a s e s t h e w r i t o f mandamus has b e e n e m p l o y e d t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s o f i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l s , a n d t o p r e v e n t a f a i l u r e o f j u s t i c e where t h e r e i s a c l e a r r i g h t a n d t h e r e i s an a b s e n c e o f any o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy, a n d i t h a s a l s o b e e n e m p l o y e d t o p r e v e n t an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n , o r t o c o r r e c t an a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n o u t s i d e o f t h e e x e r c i s e of a reasonable d i s c r e t i o n . " F o s h e e v. S t a t e , 210 A l a . 155, 156-57, 97 So. 565, 566 (1923) ( e m p h a s i s added) Med. (quoted with approval i n Ex p a r t e C t r . , 994 So. 2d 264, 268 ( A l a . 2008) may be correct issued " ' t o prevent an a r b i t r a r y reasonable action Brookwood ( w r i t o f mandamus an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , or t o outside of the exercise of a discretion'")). A l s o , t h i s Court has noted: "[M]andamus ' i s appropriate in exceptional c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h i c h amount t o j u d i c i a l u s u r p a t i o n o f power.' [Ex p a r t e ] N i c e , 407 So. 2d [874,] 878 [(Ala. 1981)] (emphasis omitted). Moreover, 'mandamus c a n be u s e d t o p r e v e n t a g r o s s d i s r u p t i o n in the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e . ' Nice, 407 So. 2d a t 879 .... Thus, when t h e t r i a l c o u r t has a c t e d w i t h o u t l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y , t h e S t a t e h a s b e e n a f f o r d e d mandamus r e l i e f . See, e . g . , S t a t e v . B l a n e , 985 So. 2d 384 ( A l a . 2007) ( d i r e c t i n g c i r c u i t court t o vacate order expunging c r i m i n a l r e c o r d ) ; D.B.Y. v. S t a t e , 910 So. 2d 820 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005) ( d i r e c t i n g t r i a l c o u r t t o r e i n s t a t e j u v e n i l e ' s probation and direct that juvenile undergo 25 1120498 sexual-offender risk assessment r e l e a s e d from p r o b a t i o n ) . " before Ex p a r t e K i n g , 23 So. 3d 77, 79 ( A l a . 2009) see a l s o S t a t e v. F o w l e r , being (emphasis added); 32 So. 3d 2 1 , 26 ( A l a . 2009) ("[T]he t r i a l c o u r t ' s order r e q u i r i n g the State t o produce i t s witness list f o rt r i a l result in a a n d a summary o f e a c h w i t n e s s ' s gross disruption justice."); S t a t e v. B l a n e , ("'When we consider review i s to exceeded administration petition, whether i t sdiscretion.' t h e scope recognized that the t r i a l 'Mandamus disruption i n the (citations As usurpation 'mandamus of i s an of our court clearly extraordinary remedy, b u t i s a p p r o p r i a t e i n e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s amount t o j u d i c i a l will 985 So. 2d 384, 386 ( A l a . 2007) a mandamus determine i n the testimony o f power.' M o r e o v e r , we have c a n be u s e d administration of which t o prevent criminal a gross justice.'" omitted)). one w e l l known t r e a t i s e e x p l a i n s : "Mandamus l i e s t o c o m p e l a j u d g e t o i s s u e a w a r r a n t o f a r r e s t i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e where i t i s t h e j u d g e ' s d u t y t o do s o , b u t n o t where t h i s w o u l d be to c o n t r o l the judge's d i s c r e t i o n , unless such d i s c r e t i o n i s g r o s s l y abused." 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 143 (2009) added). 26 (footnotes omitted; emphasis 1120498 C a s e s b o t h w i t h i n a n d w i t h o u t A l a b a m a make c l e a r t h a t a court considering the issuance of a warrant acts outside i t s d i s c r e t i o n when i t d e n i e s t h e w a r r a n t b a s e d on an i m p r o p e r o r erroneous l e g a l ground. o f mandamus may be T h i s C o u r t l o n g ago h e l d t h a t a w r i t used t o r e q u i r e the i s s u a n c e of a warrant under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s . In Benners 942 v. S t a t e ex r e l . Heflin, 124 A l a . 97, 26 So. ( 1 8 9 9 ) , t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel t h e i s s u a n c e o f an a r r e s t w a r r a n t where t h e m a g i s t r a t e r e f u s e d t o i s s u e t h e w a r r a n t b a s e d o n l y upon t h e s u p p o s e d of a s t a t u t e . that both Benners involve invalidity i s thus s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t case i n a legal q u e s t i o n as t o what 27 conduct i s 1120498 p r o h i b i t e d under e x t a n t the law. 5 The C o u r t i n B e n n e r s explained a v a i l a b i l i t y o f mandamus as f o l l o w s : "Mandamus as a remedy i s a v a i l a b l e i n c r i m i n a l as w e l l as i n c i v i l cases. While i t w i l l not o r d i n a r i l y i n e i t h e r c a s e be u s e d t o d i r e c t a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r how t o a c t i n t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f discretionary j u d i c i a l functions, i t w i l l l i e to set in motion the performance of o f f i c i a l duties, w h e t h e r t h e y be j u d i c i a l o r m i n i s t e r i a l . So i t l i e s t o c o m p e l an i n f e r i o r c o u r t t o p r o c e e d w i t h a c r i m i n a l t r i a l o r p r o c e e d i n g o f w h i c h t h e c o u r t has w r o n g f u l l y d e c l i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d t o c o m p e l an o f f i c e r charged with the duty t o take cognizance of a c r i m i n a l charge p r e f e r r e d by a f f i d a v i t , and thereon to issue h i s warrant of a r r e s t . ... The a f f i d a v i t i s r e g u l a r i n form, and f u l l i n s u b s t a n c e . When made, i t became t h e d u t y o f t h e j u s t i c e t o i s s u e h i s w a r r a n t o f a r r e s t , r e t u r n a b l e as p r o v i d e d by t h e a c t o f F e b r u a r y 9, 1895 ( A c t s 1894-95, p. 4 9 8 ) . A j u d g e c o n s i d e r i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t n e c e s s a r i l y must d e t e r m i n e what i t i s t h a t t h e l a w p r o h i b i t s and t h e n d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e j u d g e amounts to "probable cause" t o b e l i e v e t h a t the conduct or items a t issue f a l l w i t h i n that p r o h i b i t i o n . In the t y p i c a l dispute over the p r o p r i e t y of a search warrant, the l a t t e r , f a c t u a l issue predominates. The i s s u e o f what i t i s t h a t e x t a n t l a w p r o h i b i t s t y p i c a l l y i s a f u n c t i o n s o l e l y o f t h e t e r m s o f an a p p l i c a b l e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e a n d commonly i s n o t i n q u e s t i o n . H e r e , h o w e v e r , t h e q u e s t i o n o f e x a c t l y what t h e l a w p r o h i b i t s i s a t t h e f o r e and i s a f u n c t i o n n o t o n l y o f c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s p r o h i b i t i n g " s l o t m a c h i n e s " and " g a m b l i n g d e v i c e s " b u t a l s o o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s p e r m i t t i n g "bingo." (As d i s c u s s e d i n t h e t e x t , i n f r a , i n a n s w e r i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n , Judge Young erroneously relied, among o t h e r things, upon t h e l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e Macon C o u n t y s h e r i f f . ) 5 28 1120498 " T h e r e was no e r r o r i n t h e j u d g m e n t a w a r d i n g t h e w r i t o f mandamus, a n d i t w i l l be a f f i r m e d . " 6 124 A l a . a t 101-02, 26 So. a t 943-44 Ex parte United States, 287 i n v o l v e d l e g a l e r r o r by a t r i a l warrant. will States U.S. 241 (1932), court i n refusing to issue a court judge t o i s s u e a bench where i t h a d r e f u s e d t o do so d e s p i t e t h e f a c t indictment had been issued. Because the " c o n c l u s i v e l y determines the existence of probable holding also Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t mandamus l i e t o compel a d i s t r i c t warrant an The U n i t e d (emphasis added). the accused t o answer," that indictment cause f o r the authority to issue the w a r r a n t does n o t " c a r r y w i t h i t t h e power t o d e c l i n e t o do so under t h e g u i s e of j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n . " 287 U.S. a t 250. I n M a r s h a l l v. H e r n d o n , 161 Ky. 232, 170 S.W. 623 (1914), t h e K e n t u c k y Supreme C o u r t l i k e w i s e c o n s i d e r e d a t r i a l court's r e f u s a l t o i s s u e a w a r r a n t b a s e d on an i m p r o p e r l e g a l ground. Similar to the e r r o r i n Benners, concerned whether t h e c h a l l e n g e d viable criminal statute. In circuit arrest circuit 6 the error i n Marshall c o n d u c t was p r o h i b i t e d b y a As i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e r e was no B e n n e r s , t h e r e l a t o r s o u g h t a w r i t o f mandamus i n t h e c o u r t t o compel a j u s t i c e o f t h e peace t o i s s u e t h e warrant. T h i s C o u r t a f f i r m e d t h e judgment o f t h e court i s s u i n g the writ. 29 1120498 dispute legal as one to the facts; the o n l y q u e s t i o n was -- w h e t h e r t h e r e was the suspect's conduct the p u r e l y i n p l a c e a s t a t u t e t h a t made a crime. The Kentucky Supreme C o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s , w h i c h b e g i n s by n o t i n g a K e n t u c k y s t a t u t e s i m i l a r t o R u l e 3.8 and R u l e 3.9, A l a . R. C r i m . P., " S e c t i o n 31, C r i m i n a l Code, i s as 7 is helpful: follows: "'A m a g i s t r a t e s h a l l i s s u e a w a r r a n t f o r the a r r e s t of a person charged w i t h the c o m m i s s i o n o f a p u b l i c o f f e n s e , when, f r o m h i s p e r s o n a l knowledge, or from i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n t o h i m on o a t h , he s h a l l be s a t i s f i e d that t h e r e are r e a s o n a b l e grounds f o r b e l i e v i n g the charge.' " T h i s s e c t i o n makes i t t h e i m p e r a t i v e d u t y o f t h e m a g i s t r a t e t o i s s u e a w a r r a n t w h e n e v e r he s h a l l be s a t i s f i e d , f r o m t h e i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n him on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for b e l i e v i n g the charge. The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h e m a g i s t r a t e a t t h i s time i s not whether accused i s 7 R u l e 3.9, A l a . R. C r i m . P., states: "(a) Evidence. A warrant s h a l l issue on a f f i d a v i t sworn t o b e f o r e t h e i s s u i n g j u d g e or magistrate a u t h o r i z e d by law to issue search warrants, establishing grounds for issuing the w a r r a n t , o r upon o r a l t e s t i m o n y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 3.8(b)." (Emphasis added.) Grounds f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t e x i s t where " t h e r e i s p r o b a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t the p r o p e r t y sought ... (4) [ c ] o n s t i t u t e s , o r i s e x p e c t e d t o c o n s t i t u t e , e v i d e n c e of a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e under the laws of the S t a t e of Alabama o r any p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f . " R u l e 3 . 8 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. 30 1120498 g u i l t y o r s h o u l d be c o n v i c t e d . Such m a t t e r s as g u i l t and c o n v i c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d t o him f o r j u d i c i a l determination, when t h e a c c u s e d i s a r r e s t e d and b r o u g h t b e f o r e him f o r t r i a l . In t h i s case, i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o go i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r , u n d e r the Code section, supra, the magistrate acts j u d i c i a l l y or m i n i s t e r i a l l y . The q u e s t i o n i s n o t now b e f o r e us w h e t h e r i t i s a j u d i c i a l f u n c t i o n t o determine whether the a f f i d a v i t i s s u f f i c i e n t . " I n t h i s c a s e t h e p o l i c e j u d g e , who i s the m a g i s t r a t e , admits t h a t the a f f i d a v i t i s s u f f i c i e n t , and t h a t he i s s a t i s f i e d , from the information contained therein, that the offense has been committed, i f there is a valid city ordinance c o v e r i n g t h e s u b j e c t . From t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , i t i s e q u a l l y apparent that there i s a v a l i d city ordinance. The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t f a c t . The lower court permitted Lyon [the s u b j e c t of the w a r r a n t ] t o come i n t o t h e a c t i o n , and by amended a n s w e r he s a y s t h a t t h e o r d i n a n c e has b e e n r e p e a l e d and i s no l o n g e r i n f o r c e . By r e p l y , M a r s h a l l d e n i e d t h a t t h e o r d i n a n c e had b e e n r e p e a l e d . W i t h t h e i s s u e t h u s j o i n e d , t h e b u r d e n was upon L y o n t o p r o v e t h e r e p e a l , and, when he f a i l e d t o i n t r o d u c e any e v i d e n c e , h i s c o n t e n t i o n must f a i l . Where i t i s a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e f a c t s shown i n t h e a f f i d a v i t a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n s t i t u t e an o f f e n s e a g a i n s t a v a l i d c i t y o r d i n a n c e , t h e n c e r t a i n l y no d i s c r e t i o n i s l e f t to the m a g i s t r a t e . The Code s a y s t h a t he shall i s s u e the w r i t . Mandamus w i l l l i e t o c o m p e l an i n f e r i o r t r i b u n a l to a c t , but not to c o n t r o l i t s judgment. " S i n c e t h e p l e a d i n g s show t h a t t h e r e was a v a l i d c i t y o r d i n a n c e on t h e s u b j e c t , and i t i s a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t was s u f f i c i e n t , we t h i n k i t was the duty of the m a g i s t r a t e to i s s u e the w a r r a n t , and, upon r e f u s a l t o a c t , he can be c o m p e l l e d t o do so by mandamus, and on t h i s s t a t e o f f a c t s t h e l o w e r c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g the p e t i t i o n . " 31 1120498 161 Ky. a t 234, 170 S.W. a t 624 (emphasis added). L i k e w i s e , i n S t a t e v. V i a t i c a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 741 So. 560 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. applicable facts. The 1 9 9 9 ) , t h e r e was 2d no d i s p u t e as t o t h e F l o r i d a D i s t r i c t Court of Appeal held t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t had c o m m i t t e d l e g a l e r r o r i n d e c l i n i n g t o issue the search considerations warrant to o v e r r i d e the Treating a petition improperly allowing e x i s t e n c e of probable other cause. f o r a w r i t o f mandamus as a p e t i t i o n the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i , trial by for the F l o r i d a a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ordered court to issue a search warrant t h a t had been denied: " P u r s u a n t t o S t a t e v. P e t t i s , 520 So. 2d 250, 253 ( F l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , we may e n t e r t a i n s t a t e p e t i t i o n s for c e r t i o r a r i from p r e t r i a l o r d e r s i n c r i m i n a l c a s e s . Here t h e r e i s no remedy t o t h e s t a t e by appeal from the d e n i a l of a search warrant. I r r e p a r a b l e harm i s shown b e c a u s e t h e s t a t e has b e e n p r e c l u d e d from o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n connected w i t h a c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n where t h e c o u r t found p r o b a b l e cause f o r the i s s u a n c e of the warrant. Thus, i f t h e s t a t e shows a d e p a r t u r e from the e s s e n t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of law, a w r i t s h o u l d i s s u e . What t h e t r i a l c o u r t has done i n e f f e c t i s t o suppress evidence prior to i t s seizure by a pre-seizure hearing. We frequently revi review s u p p r e s s i o n o r d e r s where t h e c o u r t has suppressed evidence i n a p o s t - s e i z u r e h e a r i n g . Review of such p r e t r i a l order i s appealable. See F l a . R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(B). B e c a u s e t h e s t a t e has no s i m i l a r 32 a 1120498 remedy f r o m t h i s by c e r t i o r a r i . " pre-seizure hearing, we r e v i e w i t 8 741 So. 2d a t 562 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Finally, we find noteworthy c o m m e n t a t o r b a s e d on h i s r e v i e w the observations by one of the cases: "The few c a s e s on t h e i s s u e h o l d t h a t a j u d g e h a s a 'ministerial' duty to issue a warrant after ' p r o b a b l e c a u s e ' h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d [by t h e g r a n d j u r y ' s i s s u a n c e o f an i n d i c t m e n t ] . ... In other s e t t i n g s as w e l l , r e v i e w i n g c o u r t s have ordered w a r r a n t s t o i s s u e when a m a g i s t r a t e r e f u s e d t o do so on a g r o u n d t h a t was e x t r i n s i c t o p r o b a b l e c a u s e , s u c h as h i s b e l i e f t h a t h i s t e r m o f o f f i c e h a d e x p i r e d , o r t h a t t h e s t a t u t e a l l e g e d l y v i o l a t e d was unconstitutional." Abraham S. G o l d s t e i n , The S e a r c h W a r r a n t , t h e M a g i s t r a t e , a n d J u d i c i a l R e v i e w , 62 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1173, 1196 (1987) added). N.W. (emphasis C f . S t a t e ex r e l . U m b r e i t v. Helms, 136 W i s . 432, 118 158 (1908) (under i t s g e n e r a l s u p e r v i s o r y powers, state supreme c o u r t h a d t h e power t o c o m p e l a t r i a l court to proceed with the lower the t r i a l in a criminal case after court The competing c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y allowed to i n t e r f e r e with the issuance of the search warrant i n V i a t i c a l S e r v i c e s were (1) p r i v a c y c o n c e r n s o f p a t i e n t s and, of i n t e r e s t f o r purposes of the present case, (2) c o n c e r n f o r t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s e i z u r e o f f i l e s on t h e a b i l i t y o f t h e t a r g e t e d b u s i n e s s t o keep o p e r a t i n g . 741 So. 2d a t 561. 8 33 1120498 q u a s h e d a good c o m p l a i n t upon t h e p u r e l y l e g a l g r o u n d t h a t t h e acts c o m p l a i n e d o f d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an Sisson's affidavit submitted with offense). the State's petition and Judge Young's s u b m i s s i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t the d e c i s i o n not to premised issue the warrant in this c a s e was on numerous g r o u n d s t h a t were i n e r r o r and t h a t were e x t r i n s i c t o a p r o p e r determination of probable cause. F i r s t , r e l i a n c e upon a n o t h e r p u b l i c o f f i c i a l ' s o p i n i o n as t o what i s and what i s n o t a c r i m e u n d e r a p p l i c a b l e l a w i s an erroneous ground f o r denying a s e a r c h warrant. The decision as t o what a c t i v i t y i s and i s n o t p r o h i b i t e d by a c r i m i n a l l a w i s a l e g a l one The f o r the totality indicate that Sheriff Warren, whatever he Sheriff judiciary. of Judge simply adopted i . e . , Judge Warren Young's the Young had submissions legal took declared conclusion the to clearly of position that legal under be c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s and t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l amendment a p p l i c a b l e t o b i n g o i n Macon C o u n t y the law i s w e l l s e t t l e d : what t h e law b e f o r e him. i s and See i s legal. On s u c h m a t t e r s , h o w e v e r , i t i s a judge's duty to t o d e c i d e how Marbury v. M a d i s o n , 34 i t applies 5 U.S. acknowledge to the (1 C r a n c h ) facts 137, 1120498 177 (1803) ("It i s e m p h a t i c a l l y the p r o v i n c e and j u d i c i a l d e p a r t m e n t t o s a y what t h e l a w i s . " ) ; v. State, 51 (1973)("In Ala. the It that issuance 349, of 351, a search see a l s o S m i t h So. 2d 514 a judicial of probable necessary."). Sheriff W a r r e n w o u l d be the constitute electronic the according to judge, but t h o s e who 512, warrant, f o l l o w s f r o m t h e p o s i t i o n a r t i c u l a t e d by whether the game o f b i n g o . Judge a l s o on Young, machines Sheriff binding a l l other Judge Young sole decision-maker gambling not in as the Warren's o p i n i o n i s , only on that trial a r e above S h e r i f f W a r r e n w i t h i n t h e h i e r a r c h y o f a proper understanding to casino law-enforcement o f f i c e r s , e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h of government. to 285 the (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m e x e c u t i v e ) determination cause i s App. duty of even the Such a p o s i t i o n i s c o n t r a r y of the s e p a r a t i o n of powers between t h e e x e c u t i v e b r a n c h and t h e j u d i c i a l b r a n c h , see A l a . C o n s t . 1901, § 43, office et and to the p r o v i s i o n s governing of A t t o r n e y General. See t h e power o f A l a . Code 1975, the § 35-15-1 Judge Young's as Sheriff seq. Second, there submissions, that i s the he fact, relied upon 35 according to information to 1120498 Warren's p o s i t i o n and t h e p o s i t i o n o f a p u r p o r t e d gaming machines television." hired by "VictoryLand," as expert on "declared on Even h a d i t b e e n p r o p e r f o r t h e t r i a l judge t o r e l y on t h e o p i n i o n o f o t h e r p a r t i e s as t o what t h e c r i m i n a l law does declared a n d does on not p r o h i b i t , television," upon the information which r e l i a n c e , was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e Third, Judge Young states t h e judge him i n t h i s that "publicly professed case. h i s refusal to issue w a r r a n t i s j u s t i f i e d on t h e g r o u n d t h a t two d i f f e r e n t are such telling h i m two d i f f e r e n t circumstances facts." This "there approach things, insisting i s certainly misapprehends " f a c t " and a " l e g a l " c o n c l u s i o n . people that a dispute a under as t o t h e the difference in a T h e r e i s no d i s p u t e a t t h i s j u n c t u r e as t o t h e f a c t s o f how t h e s e d i s p u t e between t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l machines operate. The and t h e s h e r i f f a t t h i s j u n c t u r e c o n c e r n s what t h e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e does a n d does n o t p r o h i b i t g i v e n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s l e g a l i z a t i o n o f t h e game o f bingo. This i s a legal question f o r t h e judge to decide, r e g a r d l e s s o f how many d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s m i g h t be to him. 36 presented 1120498 F u r t h e r , Judge Young c o m p l a i n s t h a t j u d g e s s h o u l d n o t put "in the untenable position of determining constitutional officer they choose t o b e l i e v e " simultaneously a c c e p t i n g the o p i n i o n of S h e r i f f the o p i n i o n of the a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l . inherent contradiction i n this Fourth, Young there expressed so-called is the some view "Cornerstone for evidence test" is w h i l e he Warren was over i s an o b v i o u s and indicating the not that warrant clear and Judge that the therefore See B a r b e r v. C o r n e r s t o n e Cmty. I n c . , 42 So. 3d 65, 86 Judge Young's d e n i a l which position. i n denying p r o v i d e d no g u i d a n c e t o him. Outreach, There be ( A l a . 2009). of the warrant would Such a p r e m i s e conflict with h i s c l e a r r e l i a n c e upon a s h e r i f f ' s o p i n i o n t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o Judge Young, Moreover, that traditionally elements was itself test, known based which as on refers "bingo" the "Cornerstone to the and then test." game commonly describes and further o f t h a t game, i s more t h a n c l e a r enough t o s e r v e as guide i n measuring the f a c t s of t h i s case. 9 I n d e s c r i b i n g the elements of b i n g o , our o p i n i o n i n C o r n e r s t o n e went o n l y so f a r as n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e presented there. Nowhere do we t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e e l e m e n t s l i s t e d t h e r e a r e e x h a u s t i v e . See, e.g., C o r n e r s t o n e , 42 So. 3d a t 80 ("For p u r p o s e s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e R i l e y d e f e n d a n t s do n o t c o n t e n d t h a t a ' b i n g o game' must be p l a y e d 9 37 1120498 In a d d i t i o n , t o t h e e x t e n t by the perceived t o o was e r r o r . does not j u d g e was deterred l a c k o f c l e a r p r e c e d e n t t o guide him, t h i s Lack of p r e e x i s t i n g a p p e l l a t e court precedent relieve determining the t r i a l a judge of the task of reading and t h e l e g a l meaning o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s and statutes. Fifth, the local Judge Young i s l e g a l l y constitutional incorrect i n stating amendment determine the nature of bingo." "allows Regardless that the S h e r i f f to o f what r o l e m i g h t o r m i g h t n o t be p r e s c r i b e d f o r t h e s h e r i f f i n regard m a t t e r s as d e c i d i n g l i c e n s i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s , s e e s u p r a n o t e 3, the question "bingo" courts. o f what See A l a . C o n s t . the p r o v i n c e the term 1901, §§ 42 (1 C r a n c h ) a t 177 (1803) a n d 43; Marbury v. ("It i s e m p h a t i c a l l y a n d d u t y o f t h e j u d i c i a l d e p a r t m e n t t o s a y what law i s . " ) . Sixth, Judge Young "extraordinary writ" the by i s a p u r e l y l e g a l q u e s t i o n t h a t must be d e c i d e d b y t h e M a d i s o n , 5 U.S. the t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n means t o such judge states that warrant i s an a n d t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t be i s s u e d unless i s s u i n g i t i s "soundly o n l y on p a p e r c a r d s , issue."). a search convinced o f an illegal a n d we, t h e r e f o r e , do n o t a d d r e s s 38 that 1120498 activity." Judge Young e r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t on t h i s ground. an illegal As d i s c u s s e d b e l o w , b e i n g " s o u n d l y activity" simply convinced of i s not the standard f o r the issuance of a warrant. Seventh, Judge Young a d m o n i s h e d t h e S t a t e t h a t i t c o u l d and s h o u l d p u r s u e a s o - c a l l e d " p l a i n v i e w " s e i z u r e i f i t t r u l y b e l i e v e d t h e r e t o be p r o b a b l e c a s i n o were i l l e g a l . to i s s u e a warrant seizure might possibility addition, Here, t o o , t h e judge bases h i s r e f u s a l upon l e g a l be error. Even i f a w a r r a n t l e s s constitutionally i s not a ground reliance v i a the warrant on a w a r r a n t process, provides to the o f f i c e r s against seizure. (The g o o d - f a i t h exception of evidence that probable the p e r t i n e n t items 10 See I l l i n o i s In i s for 1 0 a n d a good- an a d d e d measure o f liability also f o r wrongful may s e i z e d even i f i t i s l a t e r cause d i d n o t e x i s t . U.S. 897, 922 (1984).) that f o r r e f u s i n g a warrant. protection admission permissible, u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment, t h e p r e f e r e n c e r e g u l a t i o n of searches faith cause t h a t t h e machines i n t h e allow the determined U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L e o n , 468 F u r t h e r , t h e S t a t e c l a i m s t h a t some o f t o be s e i z e d , i n c l u d i n g c o n t r a b a n d v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 39 (1983). cash, 1120498 c o m p u t e r s e r v e r s , a c c o u n t b o o k s , and r e c o r d s , a r e n o t i n p l a i n v i e w i n t h e m a i n a r e a o f t h e c a s i n o and t h a t a s e a r c h may f a c i l i t a t e c r o w d c o n t r o l and p o s s i b l e danger to p a t r o n s Eighth, to be facility. The a search warrant 1 1 of law ... declaring these does n o t The search warrant Herndon, See to question a l s o , e.g., (5th C i r . 1079) be issuance of I t i s only a determination discussed i s n o t b i n d i n g on t h e p a r t i e s i n an e n s u i n g wishes to o c c u r r e d or a b i n d i n g d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t or item i s i l l e g a l . M a r s h a l l v. so constitute a binding adjudication purposes of the issuance of the search warrant. in in refusing machines quoted premise i s i n c o r r e c t . t h a t an o f f e n s e has and i n t h i s c a s e on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t o do " i n essence illegal." activity a v o i d l o s s of evidence Judge Young e r r s as a m a t t e r i s s u e the warrant would at the warrant supra, either the the As an for explained issuance of court i t s e l f a or c r i m i n a l case i n which the defendant whether an activity or U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D e l V a l l e , (explaining that item 587 is F.2d d e c i s i o n whether illegal. 699, to 701 issue We n o t e t h a t i n 2010 Judge Young e n j o i n e d t h e S t a t e f r o m c o n d u c t i n g a p l a i n - v i e w s e a r c h and s e i z u r e o f gaming m a c h i n e s a t t h e c a s i n o t h a t t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d e d were i l l e g a l . See T y s o n v. Macon C o u n t y G r e y h o u n d P a r k , I n c . , 43 So. 3d 587 ( A l a . 2010) ( r e v e r s i n g the i n j u n c t i o n ) . 11 40 1120498 search warrant i s l i m i t e d to the q u e s t i o n of the issuance the issue whether warrant and does not dispose of the d e f e n d a n t d i d i n f a c t commit t h e a l l e g e d crime). erroneous conclusion, reasonable for the the legal circumstances conclusion issuance grounds other of the upon which presented he based allow than t h a t probable search warrant i n t h i s the 1 2 C o n t r a r y t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n r e a c h e d by Judge Young and various of that for cause the no exists case. "The t a s k of the i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e i s s i m p l y to make a p r a c t i c a l , common-sense d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r , given a l l the circumstances set forth in the a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e him, i n c l u d i n g t h e ' v e r a c i t y ' and ' b a s i s of knowledge' of persons s u p p l y i n g h e a r s a y information, there is a fair probability that c o n t r a b a n d o r e v i d e n c e o f a c r i m e w i l l be f o u n d i n a particular place." Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983) (emphasis added). "[P]robable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard. I t merely requires that the facts a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o f f i c e r w o u l d ' w a r r a n t a man of reasonable c a u t i o n i n the b e l i e f ' t h a t c e r t a i n items T h a t i s , b o t h t h e i s s u e o f what i t i s t h a t e x t a n t law p r o h i b i t s and t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e c o n d u c t o r i t e m s a t i s s u e r i s e t o t h e l e v e l o f t h a t p r o h i b i t i o n a r e a d d r e s s e d i n t h e ex p a r t e c o n t e x t o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t o n l y f o r purposes of d e c i d i n g whether the S t a t e i s e n t i t l e d to the warrant; both i s s u e s are s u b j e c t to being r e v i s i t e d at a t r i a l i n w h i c h t h e i n v e s t i g a t e d p a r t y i s p r e s e n t and has n o t i c e and an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . 1 2 41 1120498 may be c o n t r a b a n d ... o r u s e f u l as e v i d e n c e o f a c r i m e ; i t d o e s n o t demand a n y s h o w i n g t h a t s u c h a b e l i e f be c o r r e c t o r more l i k e l y t r u e t h a n f a l s e . A 'practical, nontechnical' probability that i n c r i m i n a t i n g evidence i s involved i s a l l that i s required." T e x a s v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983) (citations omitted; emphasis added). The games depicted in the surveillance video and d e s c r i b e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t p r o f f e r e d by S i s s o n i n support o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e w a r r a n t do n o t r e a s o n a b l y game o f " b i n g o . " W i t h o u t t u r n i n g a b l i n d eye t o t h a t which i s depicted i n the video of reasonable that there resemble a and d e s c r i b e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , caution" could is a "fair reach no c o n c l u s i o n probability" that other a r e n o t t h e game o f b i n g o and, i n s t e a d , machines or other that devices than t h e machines i n question gambling a "man are slot are i l l e g a l under Alabama l a w . The teaching of the United States Supreme Court i n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s i n s t r u c t i v e as t o t h i s a n d a n y c a s e in which refuses erroneous a trial to issue judge a exceeds search h i s or her d i s c r e t i o n or a r r e s t grounds: 42 warrant on and legally 1120498 "The e f f e c t o f t h e r e f u s a l o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o i s s u e a w a r r a n t upon an i n d i c t m e n t f a i r upon i t s face and p r o p e r l y found and r e t u r n e d i s e q u i v a l e n t to a d e n i a l o f t h e a b s o l u t e r i g h t o f t h e government, as m a t t e r s s t a n d , t o p u t t h e a c c u s e d on t r i a l , s i n c e t h a t c a n n o t be done i n h i s a b s e n c e . The mere statement discloses the gravity and public importance of the question. I t i s obvious t h a t , i f a l i k e a t t i t u d e s h o u l d be t a k e n b y D i s t r i c t C o u r t s generally, serious interference with the prosecution of persons i n d i c t e d f o r c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s might result. U n d o u b t e d l y , upon t h e t h e o r y p r e s e n t e d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t , mandamus i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e remedy; and t h e w r i t may w e l l i s s u e f r o m t h i s c o u r t i n o r d e r to e x p e d i t e t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n i n v o l v e d , and, i n c i d e n t a l l y , i n f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e g e n e r a l p o l i c y o f a prompt t r i a l and d i s p o s i t i o n o f criminal cases. Accordingly, we pass to a consideration of the merits. " " I t r e a s o n a b l y c a n n o t be d o u b t e d t h a t , i n t h e court t o which the indictment i s returned, the f i n d i n g o f an i n d i c t m e n t , f a i r upon i t s f a c e , b y a properly c o n s t i t u t e d grand jury, conclusively determines t h e e x i s t e n c e o f p r o b a b l e cause f o r t h e purpose o f h o l d i n g t h e a c c u s e d t o answer. Compare McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 156-158 [(1927)]; H a l e v. H e n k e l , 201 U.S. 43, 60-62 [(1906)]. The r e f u s a l o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o i s s u e a warrant o f a r r e s t under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s i s , i n r e a l i t y and e f f e c t , a r e f u s a l t o p e r m i t t h e case t o come t o a h e a r i n g upon e i t h e r q u e s t i o n s o f l a w o r o f f a c t , and f a l l s l i t t l e s h o r t o f a r e f u s a l t o p e r m i t t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e l a w . The a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d upon t h e t r i a l j u d g e t o i s s u e a w a r r a n t o f a r r e s t upon an i n d i c t m e n t does n o t , u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e d i s c l o s e d , c a r r y w i t h i t t h e power t o d e c l i n e t o do so u n d e r t h e g u i s e o f j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n ; o r , as t h i s c o u r t s u g g e s t e d i n Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S t a t e s , 242 U.S. 27, 42 [ ( 1 9 1 6 ) ] , t h e power t o e n f o r c e does 43 1120498 not i n h e r e n t l y beget a d i s c r e t i o n permanently t o refuse to enforce. I n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Thompson, 251 U.S. 407 [ ( 1 9 2 0 ) ] , an o r d e r of a f e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t q u a s h i n g an i n d i c t m e n t on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e charge, h a v i n g been s u b m i t t e d t o a p r e v i o u s g r a n d j u r y , h a d b e e n r e s u b m i t t e d t o a l a t e r one without l e a v e o f c o u r t f i r s t o b t a i n e d , was s e t aside. T h i s c o u r t t h e r e s a i d t h a t t h e power a n d duty of the grand j u r y t o i n v e s t i g a t e i s o r i g i n a l and c o m p l e t e , a n d may be e x e r c i s e d upon i t s own m o t i o n a n d upon s u c h k n o w l e d g e as i t may d e r i v e f r o m any s o u r c e w h i c h i t may deem p r o p e r , a n d i s n o t e x h a u s t e d o r l i m i t e d by a d v e r s e a c t i o n taken by a previous grand j u r y , and t h a t a U n i t e d States d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y may p r e s e n t , w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t , c h a r g e s w h i c h a p r e v i o u s g r a n d j u r y has ignored. The n e c e s s a r y e f f e c t of the D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r , i t was s a i d (pp. 4 1 2 - 4 1 3 ) , 'was t o bar the absolute r i g h t of the U n i t e d States t o p r o s e c u t e by s u b j e c t i n g t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h a t r i g h t , n o t o n l y as t o t h i s i n d i c t m e n t , b u t as t o a l l subsequent ones f o r t h e same o f f e n s e s , to a limitation resulting from t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e j u d i c i a l power,' a n d t o b a r t h e l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a t t o r n e y a n d o f t h e g r a n d j u r y 'by the application of unauthorized judicial discretion.' These o b s e r v a t i o n s are pertinent here." 287 U.S. a t 249-51 The Alabama (emphasis added). C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e Alabama Legislature d e c i d e t h e c r i m i n a l l a w a p p l i c a b l e i n e a c h o f t h e 67 c o u n t i e s in this State. A circuit judge i s not f r e e t o f r u s t r a t e the enforcement o f the c r i m i n a l law by r e f u s i n g t o i s s u e necessary or appropriate t o i t s enforcement circuit. To a l l o w a j u d g e t o do s o w i t h o u t 44 warrants i n h i s or her t h e e x e r c i s e and 1120498 f u l f i l l m e n t by t h i s C o u r t o f i t s s u p e r v i s o r y j u r i s d i c t i o n and responsibility r e l a t i v e t o l o w e r c o u r t s (see A l a . C o n s t . 1901, § 140; § 12-2-7, A l a . Code 1975) w o u l d be t o a l l o w t h a t essentially t o r e w r i t e t h e l a w i n t h e c o u n t y he o r she s e r v e s . T h i s we c a n n o t Based judge on do. the f o r e g o i n g , we agree with the State that Judge Young e x c e e d e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n g t h e r e q u e s t e d search warrant. The S t a t e was e n t i t l e d t o an o r d e r d i r e c t i n g Judge Young t o g r a n t t h e w a r r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n and t o i s s u e t h e requested warrant, and this Court issued such an order on F e b r u a r y 15, 2013. G i v e n t h e i n h e r e n t l y ex p a r t e n a t u r e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , and by n e c e s s a r y e x t e n s i o n , o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w o f t h e d e n i a l of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , i n o r d e r t h a t t h e purpose o f t h e w a r r a n t n o t be f r u s t r a t e d , our order of February 15, 2013, mandated t h a t t h i s mandamus p r o c e e d i n g and t h e F e b r u a r y 15 o r d e r i t s e l f remain under s e a l u n t i l f u r t h e r order of t h i s Court the e x e c u t i o n of the warrant. by t h e S t a t e t h a t We have been f o r m a l l y t h e w a r r a n t has been i s s u e d and following notified executed, and t h i s C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 19, 2013, i s s u e d an o r d e r u n s e a l i n g 45 1120498 t h i s p r o c e e d i n g a n d o u r F e b r u a r y 15 o r d e r a n d s t a t i n g t h a t an o p i n i o n on t h e m a t t e r w o u l d PETITION FEBRUARY 15, Stuart, GRANTED AND follow. WRIT 1 3 ISSUED BY ORDER DATED 2013. Bolin, P a r k e r , Murdock, Wise, and Bryan, J J . , concur. Moore, C . J . , and Main, J . , concur i n the r e s u l t . As d i r e c t e d i n o u r F e b r u a r y 15 o r d e r , t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a d v i s e d t h i s C o u r t t h a t t h e w a r r a n t had been e x e c u t e d by s u b m i t t i n g t o t h i s C o u r t a c o p y o f t h e e x e c u t e d s e a r c h warrant. The c o p y o f t h e w a r r a n t s u b m i t t e d t o t h i s C o u r t c o n t a i n s a h a n d w r i t t e n n o t a t i o n b y Judge Young d i s c l o s i n g t h e f a c t o f t h i s p r o c e e d i n g a n d t h i s C o u r t ' s F e b r u a r y 15 o r d e r , d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h a t w a r r a n t n e c e s s a r i l y was t o be s e r v e d on t h i r d p a r t i e s p r i o r t o a n y " f u r t h e r o r d e r " o f t h i s Court u n s e a l i n g these matters. 13 46

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.