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.
5 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. Cal. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019Id. at 401-03. | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Gantgreen2 sentences2014“In many cases, as when a recent occupant is arrested for a traffic violation, there will be no reasonable basis to believe the vehicle contains relevant evidence.” Id. (citations omitted). 2014Under the doctrine of search incident to arrest, the police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s lawful arrest “only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search” or when “it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Birchfield v. N. Dakota. William Robert Bernard
green
2 sentences2020After noting that the Court had already determined that the exigent circumstances exception could apply in drunk driving cases, subject to a “careful case- by-case assessment of exigency,” id. at 2174 (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 152 ), the Court considered whether the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement might also be applied in drunk driving cases by examining the facts presented in the three cases before it, in each of which “the drivers were searched or told that they were required to submit to a search after being placed under arrest for drunk driving.” Birchfie 2020After noting that the Court had already determined that the exigent circumstances exception could apply in drunk driving cases, subject to a “careful case- by-case assessment of exigency,” id. at 2174 (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 152 ), the Court considered whether the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement might also be applied in drunk driving cases by examining the facts presented in the three cases before it, in each of which “the drivers were searched or told that they were required to submit to a search after being placed under arrest for drunk driving.” Birchfie | 3 | 2016–2020 |
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
green
1 sentence2020If statutory implied consent laws, as their name suggests, actually provided constitutionally valid consent to search, then the Court would not have needed to evaluate the natural dissipation of alcohol as it relates to the exigent circumstances exception, see McNeely, 569 U.S. at 153-54 , to resort to the search incident to arrest exception for the administration of warrantless breath tests, see Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 , or to have carved out an “almost always” category of exigent circumstances for the administration of warrantless blood tests on unconscious DUI suspects, see Mitchell, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2020After noting that the Court had already determined that the exigent circumstances exception could apply in drunk driving cases, subject to a “careful case- by-case assessment of exigency,” id. at 2174 (quoting McNeely, 569 U.S. at 152 ), the Court considered whether the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement might also be applied in drunk driving cases by examining the facts presented in the three cases before it, in each of which “the drivers were searched or told that they were required to submit to a search after being placed under arrest for drunk driving.” Birchfie 2020If statutory implied consent laws, as their name suggests, actually provided constitutionally valid consent to search, then the Court would not have needed to evaluate the natural dissipation of alcohol as it relates to the exigent circumstances exception, see McNeely, 569 U.S. at 153-54 , to resort to the search incident to arrest exception for the administration of warrantless breath tests, see Birchfield, 136 S. Ct. at 2184 , or to have carved out an “almost always” category of exigent circumstances for the administration of warrantless blood tests on unconscious DUI suspects, see Mitchell, | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.