warrant requirement in Tennessee

2026Any evidence recovered from a warrantless search or seizure 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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997); see also State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 722 (Tenn. 2008) (first citing Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 (1970); and then citing State v. Hayes, 188 S.W.3d 505, 511 (Tenn. 2006)).

2026Generally, “under both the federal and state constitutions, 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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

2026Warrantless seizures are “presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the . . . seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626 , 629 -6- (Tenn. 1997); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 454-55 (1971); State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000).

2025Warrantless seizures are “presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the . . . seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971); State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000).

2026Warrantless seizures are “presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the . . . seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626 , 629 -6- (Tenn. 1997); see Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 454-55 (1971); State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000).

2025Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement “exists when a police officer makes an investigatory stop based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1968); State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 1997)).

2025Generally, “under both the federal and state constitutions, 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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. - 18 - 443, 454-55 (1971); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 229-30 (Tenn. 1996)).

2024A warrantless seizure “is presumed unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates that the . . . seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971); State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 229-30 (Tenn. 1996)).

2025Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement “exists when a police officer makes an investigatory stop based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1968); State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 1997)).

2025Also included among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is an investigatory stop, which may be conducted “when the officer has a reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” Bridges, 963 S.W.2d at 492; see also Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 .

2024However, “one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search conducted pursuant to consent.” State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219 (1973)).

2021However, “one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search conducted pursuant to consent.” State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219 , and State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)).

2023Evidence derived from such a search is subject to suppression unless the State “demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Keith, 978 S.W.2d 861, 865 (Tenn. 1998).

2016Because stopping an automobile without a warrant and detaining its occupants unquestionably constitutes a seizure, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979), the State in the present situation had the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exception to the warrant requirement, see, e.g., State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tenn. 2005) (temporary detention of an individual during a traffic stop constitutes seizure that implicates the protection of both the state and federal constitutions); Keith, 978 S.W.2d at 865 .

2024The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution similarly guarantees “[t]hat the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Under both constitutions, “a search without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable, and any evidence obtained pursuant to

2020“Well settled among the exceptions to the warrant requirement, and the one with which we are engaged here, is consent to search.” Id. (citations omitted).

2019“A warrantless search is presumed unreasonable under both the federal and the state constitutions, and evidence seized from the warrantless search is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the search was ‘conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.’” State v. Chearis, 995 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (quoting State v. Simpson, 968 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tenn. 1998)).

2019Any “warrantless search or seizure is presumed [to be] unreasonable, and evidence discovered as a result thereof is subject to suppression unless the State demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” State v. Simpson, 968 S.W.2d 776, 780 (Tenn. 1998). -8- A. Search Incident to an Arrest After making a lawful custodial arrest, a police officer is permitted to search an arrestee and the immediate surrounding area, including “the passenger area of any vehicle in which the a

2025Another recognized exception to the warrant requirement “exists when a police officer makes an investigatory stop based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20-21 (1968); State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 1997)).

2025One recognized exception to the warrant requirement “exists when a police officer makes an investigatory stop based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Binette, 33 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tenn. 2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1, 20-21 (1968); State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 1997)).

2022Our supreme court has recognized, as one exception to the warrant requirement, that “it is constitutionally permissible for police officers to inventory the contents of a -11- lawfully impounded automobile without a search warrant as long as it is in accordance with routine administrative procedures.” State v. Watkins, 827 S.W.2d 293, 295 (Tenn. 1992) (citing South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 373 (Tenn. 1976)).

2014A well- established exception to the warrant requirement is an investigatory stop based upon “a reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense has been or is about to be committed.” State v. Bridges, 963 S.W.2d 487, 492 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 ; Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d at 630 ; State v. Watkins, 827 S.W.2d 293, 294 (Tenn. 1992)).

2024The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution similarly guarantees “[t]hat the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Under both constitutions, “a search without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable, and any evidence obtained pursuant to

2014Under both constitutions, “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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn.1997) (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971)); see also State v. Garcia, 123 S.W.3d 335, 343 (Tenn. 2003).

2026Any evidence recovered from a warrantless search or seizure 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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997); see also State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 722 (Tenn. 2008) (first citing Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 34 (1970); and then citing State v. Hayes, 188 S.W.3d 505, 511 (Tenn. 2006)).

2025One commonly recognized exception to the warrant requirement is the existence of exigent circumstances, which “arise where the needs of law enforcement [are] so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 723 (Tenn. 2008) (internal citation omitted).

2026“The ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement permits an officer to search an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.” State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Tenn. 2009); see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

2025“The ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement permits an officer to search an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.” State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Tenn. 2009); see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

2018A warrantless search or seizure is presumed unreasonable and evidence obtained as a result will be suppressed “unless the prosecution demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the search or seizure was conducted pursuant to one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d at 629 (citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 454-55 (1971)); see also State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 105 (Tenn. 2007).

2017“The consent exception to the warrant requirement applies when a person voluntarily consents to a search.” State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 306 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 -9- U.S. 218, 219 (1973); State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99, 109 (Tenn. 2007)).

2016Because stopping an automobile without a warrant and detaining its occupants unquestionably constitutes a seizure, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979), the State in the present situation had the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exception to the warrant requirement, see, e.g., State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tenn. 2005) (temporary detention of an individual during a traffic stop constitutes seizure that implicates the protection of both the state and federal constitutions); Keith, 978 S.W.2d at 865 .

2016Because stopping an automobile without a warrant and detaining its occupants unquestionably constitutes a seizure, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979), the State in the present situation had the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exception to the warrant requirement, see, e.g., State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tenn. 2005) (temporary detention of an individual during a traffic stop constitutes seizure that implicates the protection of both the state and federal constitutions); Keith, 978 S.W.2d at 865 .

2026“The ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement permits an officer to search an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.” State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Tenn. 2009); see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

2025“The ‘automobile exception’ to the warrant requirement permits an officer to search an automobile if the officer has probable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband.” State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199, 207 (Tenn. 2009); see Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 (1925).

2017“A full-scale arrest supported by probable cause is, of course, an exception to the warrant requirement.” State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 278 (Tenn. 2012) (citing State v. Hanning, 296 S.W.3d 44, 48 (Tenn. 2009)).

2017Indeed, although an arrest based on probable cause is an exception to the warrant requirement, Echols, 382 S.W.3d at 277 (citing State v. Hanning, 296 S.W.3d 44, 48 (Tenn. 2009)), the State has not argued that the police had probable cause to support the warrantless seizure of the defendant.

2023On July 13, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to suppress his BAC test on the grounds that the State’s reliance on the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement could not be justified under Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (2013) and State v. Oaks, No. E2017-02239-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 560271 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 12, 2019).

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

2024The Tennessee Supreme Court has described the exceptions to the warrant requirement as “a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions[,] jealously and carefully drawn.” McElrath, 569 S.W.3d at 570 (quoting State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155 , (Tenn. 2009)).

2023State v. Turner, 297 S.W.3d 155, 165 (Tenn. 2009). “[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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

2024Under these exceptions, “the stop of an automobile is constitutionally reasonable, under both the state and federal constitutions, if the police have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997) (citing Whren, 517 U.S. at 810 ).

2020Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 809-10 (1996); see Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); see also State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 734 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Pulley, 863 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Tenn. 1993).

2017State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 900-01 (Tenn. 2008). “[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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

2017State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 900-901 (Tenn. 2008); see State v. Randolph, 74 S.W.3d 330, 334 (Tenn. 2002) (recognizing that Tennessee’s constitutional provision against unreasonable searches and seizures is “identical in intent and purpose with the Fourth Amendment”) (quoting Sneed v. State, 423 S.W.2d 857, 860 (Tenn. 1968)). “[A] warrantless search or seizure is presumed unreasonable, and evidence -7- 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

2026Exigent circumstances dispense with the warrant requirement when “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 394 (1978) (quoting McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 456 (1948)).

2022Despite the warrant requirement, police may enter a person’s home if “‘the exigencies of the situation’ make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006) (quoting Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393-94 (1978)).

2026State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 312-13 (Tenn. 2016); State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673 , 683-84 -6- (Tenn. 2016). “[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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

2025State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 312-13 (Tenn. 2016); State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673, 683-84 (Tenn. 2016). “[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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

2019“One of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement is met when a police officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a criminal offense.” State v. Davis, 484 S.W.3d 138, 143 (Tenn. 2016) (citing State v. Echols, 382 S.W.3d 266, 277-78 (Tenn. 2012)); see also T.C.A. § 40-7-103(a)(1).

2018A 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.” State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997). -5- Our federal and state courts have recognized three categories of police-citizen interactions: “(1) a full-scale arrest, which requires probable cause; (2) a brief investigatory detention, requiring reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing; and (3) a brief police-citizen

2018In addition, "evidence obtained as a result of a warrantless search or seizure '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.' " Talley , 307 S.W.3d at 729 -30 (quoting Yeargan , 958 S.W.2d at 629 ).

2017See 134 S.Ct. at 2482 (“In the absence of a warrant, a search is reasonable only if it falls within a specific exception to the warrant requirement.”) (citing Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459-62 (2011))); see also State v. Talley, 307 S.W.3d 723, 729 (Tenn. 2010) (“Exceptions to the warrant requirement include searches incident to arrest, plain view, exigent circumstances, and 9 On appeal, defense counsel submits that he did not make such a concession at the motion to suppress hearing.

2021However, “one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search conducted pursuant to consent.” State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219, and State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim.

2021However, “one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search conducted pursuant to consent.” State v. Bartram, 925 S.W.2d 227, 230 (Tenn. 1996) (citing Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 219 , and State v. Jackson, 889 S.W.2d 219, 221 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)).