Ex Parte Warren

I concur in the scholarly majority opinion in all respects except its supportive references to Huffman v. State, 651 So.2d 78 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994), and Allen v. State, 689 So.2d 212 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). Huffman violates the binding precedent of Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), but rationalizes the violation by making an illusory factual distinction. Allen, in turn, is a prime example of the abuses that can result from Huffman. Both cases encourage unconstitutional intrusions and disingenuous testimony by police officers.

The majority opinion is commendable in that it obeys the…