hearing challenge in Tennessee

2026In Pettigrew, an unreported order from the Western Division of Tennessee, the United States District Court reiterated that under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 155- 56 (1978), “a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge a search warrant affidavit if he makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contains deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the allegedly false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause.” Pettigrew, 2024 WL 4800197 , at *3 (emphasis added) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 ).

2026In Pettigrew, an unreported order from the Western Division of Tennessee, the United States District Court reiterated that under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 , 155- 56 (1978), “a defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge a search warrant affidavit if he makes a substantial preliminary showing that the affidavit contains deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth and that the allegedly false statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause.” Pettigrew, 2024 WL 4800197 , at *3 (emphasis added) (citing Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56 ).

2026However, the court recognized that “[w]hen omissions are at issue, the defendant must show that the affiant intentionally omitted information with the intent to mislead the magistrate judge and that the omission was material to the finding of probable cause.” Id. (emphases added) (citing United States v. Atkin, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir. 1997); Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir. 1998)).

2026However, the court recognized that “[w]hen omissions are at issue, the defendant must show that the affiant intentionally omitted information with the intent to mislead the magistrate judge and that the omission was material to the finding of probable cause.” Id. (emphases added) (citing United States v. Atkin, 107 F.3d 1213, 1217 (6th Cir. 1997); Mays v. City of Dayton, 134 F.3d 809, 816 (6th Cir. 1998)).

2024Thus, we are only able to refer to the dates listed on the certificate of service and date of entry. -2- Our role is not “to research or construct a litigant’s case or arguments for him or her, and where a party fails to develop an argument in support of his or her contention or merely constructs a skeletal argument, the issue is waived.” Sneed v. Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility, 301 S.W.3d 603, 615 (Tenn. 2010).

2022Citing State v. Zimmerman, 823 S.W.2d 220, 225 (Tenn. Crim.

2019Husband further stated that [husband] has been unjustly prejudiced by the [wife’s] acquiescence as to the actual terms of their 2004 divorce in that the [husband] retained assets that were marital in nature in exchange for not enforcing the terms of the April [] 2001 Marital Dissolution Agreement and that any obligation on the part of the [husband] was moot given his acquiescence to the 2 Wife stated at the hearing that this claim was withdrawn “in the event that the Court was going to find laches would apply.” Gross laches occurs where there has been a long and unreasonable acquiescence in ad

2016See Blackwell, 546 S.W.2d at 830 .

2014Regardless, this Court has previously held that neither the inmate’s personal appearance nor a continuance was required for a hearing on a motion to dismiss because the inmate “had ample opportunity to file documents presenting his legal theories as to why the suit should not be dismissed on the pleadings.” See Knight v. Knight, 11 S.W.3d 898, 906 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (citing Montague v. Johnson City, No. 03A01-9402-CV-00049, 1994 WL 287587 at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 30, 1994), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 3, 1994).