<p>1. Criminal law &wkey;>209 — Warrant not supported by oath or affirmation void.</p> <p>Warrant for defendant’s arrest, which was not supported by an oath or affirmation, as required by Const. 1901, § 5, held void.</p> <p>2. Habbas corpus <s==>f 11 (I) — One arrested under void warrant entitled to discharge of custody.</p> <p>Where the warrant for the arrest of a person was void because not supported by an oath or affirmation, as required by Consr. 1901, § 5, the person arrested thereunder was entitled to be discharged from custody.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently January 1986
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
¶1
[1]
The return of the sheriff shows that he is holding the defendant upon an order in words and figures as follows:
“The State of Alabama, Barbour County. “To the Sheriff or any Constable of Said County:
“You are hereby commanded to arrest Anthony Johnson, Jr., and bring him before me, on the 15th day of February next, to answer the state of Alabama on a charge of burglary preferred by E. H. Graves.
“Witness my hand, this 15th day of February, 1921. W. B. Mitchell, J. P.”
¶2
This paper was not supported by oath or affirmation, as required by the Constitution, and is therefore void. Section 5, Const, 1901.
¶3
[2]
The right to hold the petitioner is claimed solely by reason of the warrant. The warrant being void, it follows that the petitioner was entitled to his discharge. It is but fair to state that the Attorney General concurs in this view.
¶4
The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.
