search warrant requirement in Tennessee

2002SEARCH WARRANT The defendant argues Detective Norrod’s affidavit did not establish sufficient probable cause for the search warrant to issue because: (1) the information was stale; (2) the facts in the affidavit did not provide a nexus between the crime and the interior of the defendant’s home; (3) the affidavit did not establish the confidential informant’s veracity as required by State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989); and (4) the affidavit contained false statements.

1992State v. Jacumin, supra, 778 S.W.2d at 432 ; Harvey v. State, supra. Also, central to the obtaining of a search warrant is the requirement that the issuing magistrate make a judicial determination, that is, a neutral and detached judgment, that probable cause is shown.

2004Also, essential to the process of obtaining a search warrant is the requirement that the affidavit recite sufficient underlying facts and circumstances to enable the issuing magistrate to “perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police.” United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965).

2004Also, essential to the process of obtaining a search warrant is the requirement that the affidavit recite sufficient underlying facts and circumstances to enable the issuing magistrate to “perform his detached function and not serve merely as a rubber stamp for the police.” United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 109 , 85 S.Ct. 741 , 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965).

2004In State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn.1989), the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the totality of the circumstances approach adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), for determining probable cause in affidavits based on informant allegations.

2004In State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn.1989), the Tennessee Supreme Court rejected the totality of the circumstances approach adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983), for determining probable cause in affidavits based on informant allegations.

2024The Petitioner argues that the records were obtained by a court order rather than a search warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights set forth in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), and Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018).

2016He relies upon Riley v. California, --- U.S. ---, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014), to support his argument that the data was unlawfully obtained without a search warrant in violation of his right against unlawful searches and seizures.

2016Rule 41 “imposes specific procedural safeguards” that “are intended ‘to secure the citizen against carelessness and abuse in the issuance and execution of search warrants.’” Coffee, 54 S.W.3d at 233 (quoting Talley v. State, 208 Tenn. 275 , 345 S.W.2d 867, 869 (1961)).

2009Bartram, 925 S.W.2d at 230 (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S.218 (1973)).

2005“According to both the Fourth Amendment and [A]rticle I, § 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, ‘a warrantless search or seizure is presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.’” Randolph, 74 S.W.3d at 334 ; see also Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 , 89 S. Ct. 2034, 2040 (1969) (establishing an exception to the search warrant requirement for searches incidental to arrests).

1980These objectives of the search warrant requirement and the constitutional protection it serves are made clear in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971): First, the magistrate’s scrutiny is intended to eliminate altogether searches not made on probable cause.

1980These objectives of the search warrant requirement and the constitutional protection it serves are made clear in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971): First, the magistrate’s scrutiny is intended to eliminate altogether searches not made on probable cause.

1975Another exception, caused by the need for immediate action under the circumstances, was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).

1975Another exception, caused by the need for immediate action under the circumstances, was recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925).