Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttlegreen2 sentences2020State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282, 307 (Tenn. 2017). 2020State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282, 307 (Tenn. 2017). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Berriosgreen1 sentence2011The protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 7 apply “to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn.2007) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Odomgreen1 sentence2001On appeal, though, the prevailing party at the suppression hearing is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence, State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn.1996), and as no proof exists to the contrary, a reasonable inference arises that the time and place of the roadblock were not chosen so as to detect unlicensed drivers. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Doelmangreen2 sentences2000IV in context of “open fields doctrine”); see also State v. Doelman, 620 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (noting “the Tennessee Constitution is somewhat more protective of private property rights”). 2000IV in context of "open fields doctrine"); see also State v. Doelman, 620 S.W.2d 96, 99 (Tenn.Crim.App.1981) (noting "the Tennessee Constitution is somewhat more protective of private property rights"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
green
2 sentences2011The protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 7 apply “to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn.2007) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). 2011The protections of the Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 7 apply “to all seizures of the person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.” State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 104 (Tenn.2007) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 , 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975)). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lakin
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, in our view, the defendants' collateral estoppel argument is without merit. [1] As another possible example of greater state protection, the majority cites State v. Lakin, 588 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn.1979), in which, as the majority claims, this Court held that the language of Article I, section 7 gave greater protection in the context of the "open fields" doctrine. 2000As another possible example of greater state protection, the majority cites State v. Lakin, 588 S.W.2d 544 (Tenn.1979), in which, as the majority claims, this Court held that the language of Article I, section 7 gave greater protection in the context of the “open fields” doctrine. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Whren v. United States
green
2 sentences1997Their only insistence is that this Court should interpret Article I, Section 7 as providing greater protection than the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). 1997Their only insistence is that this Court should interpret Article I, Section 7 as providing greater protection than the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Chico v. State
green
2 sentences1979In Chico v. State, 217 Tenn. 19 , 394 S.W.2d 648 (1965), the Court said: “The law is settled that when the land on which the evidence is found is not possessed as a part of the curtilage or used in the daily operation of the premises, then the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.” 217 Tenn. at 25 , 394 S.W.2d at 651 . 1979In Chico v. State, 217 Tenn. 19 , 394 S.W.2d 648 (1965), the Court said: “The law is settled that when the land on which the evidence is found is not possessed as a part of the curtilage or used in the daily operation of the premises, then the constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply.” 217 Tenn. at 25 , 394 S.W.2d at 651 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.