§ 15-5-7, Ala.Code 1975, because the warrant was executed by officers other than those to whom it was directed. The trial court found that this defect in the execution of the warrant required the suppression of the evidence seized at the subject property. “Section 15-5-7 provides: “ ‘A search warrant may be executed by any one of the officers to whom it is directed, but by no other person except in aid of such officer at his request, he being present and acting in its execution.’ “This statute has been strictly construed, and compliance with its formality has been required. See Yeager v. State, 500 So.2d 1260 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); Rivers v. State, 406 So.2d 1021 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 406 So.2d 1023 (Ala.1981); see, also, United States v. Martin, 600 F.2d 1175 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds, United States v.
recognizing that the government generally has the right to insist on performance in strict compliance with the contract specifications holding that strict compliance is not required holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute holding that strict compliance with the 30180day time limit set forth in krs 4392651 is required recognizing that strict compliance with  1557 is required