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.
12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 3 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 v. Jacumingreen2 sentences2025In 1989, in State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d at 436 , the Tennessee Supreme Court declined to follow the Gates totality-of-the-circumstances analysis and chose to retain the Aguilar/Spinelli test to determine whether there was probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant under Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. 2025The Jacumin court held that if the Aguilar/Spinelli test was “more in keeping with the specific requirement of Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution that a search warrant not issue ‘without evidence of the fact committed,’” so long as the test was “not applied hypertechnically[.]” Id. | 6 | 7 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2025App. 1991)). - 12 - In situations where an affidavit is based on the information provided by informants in the criminal milieu, our supreme court in Tuttle, abandoned the two-prong Aguilar/Spinelli test under the Tennessee Constitution in favor of a totality-of-the- circumstances approach as established in Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230-31 (1983). 2017The Gates Court commented that the Aguilar/Spinelli test “ha[dj encouraged an excessively technical dissection of informants’ tips, with undue attention being focused on isolated issues that cannot sensibly be divorced from the other facts presented to the magistrate.” Id. at 234-35 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 . | 2 | 5 |
State of Tennessee v. Jerry Lewis Tuttlegreen2 sentences2024State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282, 305 (Tenn. 2017). 2020Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d at 289, 305, 307-08 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Henninggreen2 sentences2017Saine, 297 S.W.3d at 206 (stating that the task of the magistrate is to read the affidavit “in a commonsense and practical manner”); State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 533 (Tenn. 2005) (same); Henning, 975 S.W.2d at 294 (same). 2006See State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 295 (Tenn. 1998) (concluding that an affidavit sufficiently established the basis of an informant’s knowledge when it stated that the informant was in the presence of a subject who expressed a desire to purchase crack cocaine, that the informant went into the suspect’s residence, and the informant personally observed the suspect displaying cocaine); Moon, 841 S.W.2d 336, 339 (holding that the “basis of knowledge” prong was satisfied by the language “informant . . . had personally seen marijuana being used and/or displayed”); State v. Steve Cornell Snipes, | 2 | 2 |
Spinelli v. United Statesred2 sentences2025This two-pronged test, known as the Aguilar/Spinelli test, originated from two United States Supreme Court cases—Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969). 2020This two-pronged test, known as the Aguilar/Spinelli test, consisting of a basis of knowledge prong and a veracity prong, originated from two United States Supreme Court cases--Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2017Saine, 297 S.W.3d at 206 (stating that the task of the magistrate is to read the affidavit “in a commonsense and practical manner”); State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 533 (Tenn. 2005) (same); Henning, 975 S.W.2d at 294 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sainegreen1 sentence2017Saine, 297 S.W.3d at 206 (stating that the task of the magistrate is to read the affidavit “in a commonsense and practical manner”); State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 533 (Tenn. 2005) (same); Henning, 975 S.W.2d at 294 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Odomgreen1 sentence2015In addition, in his reply brief, the defendant also asserts for the first time that the affidavit did not establish “how long the nexus between the [defendant’s] house and the sale would persist.”1 When this court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, “[q]uestions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of fact.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lukegreen1 sentence2013See id. at 356-57 ; see also State v. Luke, 995 S.W.2d 630, 637 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Melsongreen1 sentence2013See id. at 356-57 ; see also State v. Luke, 995 S.W.2d 630, 637 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moongreen1 sentence2006See State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 295 (Tenn. 1998) (concluding that an affidavit sufficiently established the basis of an informant’s knowledge when it stated that the informant was in the presence of a subject who expressed a desire to purchase crack cocaine, that the informant went into the suspect’s residence, and the informant personally observed the suspect displaying cocaine); Moon, 841 S.W.2d 336, 339 (holding that the “basis of knowledge” prong was satisfied by the language “informant . . . had personally seen marijuana being used and/or displayed”); State v. Steve Cornell Snipes, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Aguilar v. Texas
red
2 sentences2025This two-pronged test, known as the Aguilar/Spinelli test, originated from two United States Supreme Court cases—Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969). 2020This two-pronged test, known as the Aguilar/Spinelli test, consisting of a basis of knowledge prong and a veracity prong, originated from two United States Supreme Court cases--Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (1969). | 4 | 2009–2025 |
State of Tennessee v. Courtney Bishop
green
2 sentences2025In 2014, while Tennessee courts continued to apply the Aguilar/Spinelli test under the binding precedent of Jacumin, the Tennessee Supreme Court decided State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d at 22 . 2020In particular, the State asserts the trial court erred in ruling that Galbreath’s tip was not presumptively reliable pursuant to State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d at 22 , and the two-pronged Aguilar/Spinelli test in State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989). | 2 | 2020–2025 |
State v. Smotherman
green
1 sentence2017Aguilar, 378 U.S. at 114 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 ; Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 415-16 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; Smotherman, 201 S.W.3d at 662 ; Cauley, 863 S.W.2d at 417 ; Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d at 432, 436 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Cauley
green
1 sentence2017Aguilar, 378 U.S. at 114 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 ; Spinelli, 393 U.S. at 415-16 , 89 S.Ct. 584 ; Smotherman, 201 S.W.3d at 662 ; Cauley, 863 S.W.2d at 417 ; Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d at 432, 436 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Adams v. Williams
green
1 sentence2017The Gates Court commented that the Aguilar/Spinelli test “ha[dj encouraged an excessively technical dissection of informants’ tips, with undue attention being focused on isolated issues that cannot sensibly be divorced from the other facts presented to the magistrate.” Id. at 234-35 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.