Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1007 (2026)
Issuance of process
✓ current as of May 2026
No process, except as otherwise provided, shall be issued for the violation of §§ 39-17-1003 - 39-17-1005 unless it is issued upon the application of the district attorney general of the district.
Acts 1990, ch. 1092, § 7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2004–2019 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013).
State of Tennessee v. Jared Scott Aguilar, 437 S.W.3d 889 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “” T.C.A. § 39-17-1007. The defendant contends that the term “process” is broad enough to encompass a search warrant and that, as a result, the warrant in this case is invalid because it was not issued upon the application of the district attorney general.”
Robert M. Linder v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Issue #2 – Whether the Trial Court, Kelly Thomas, violated the Appellant’s First and Fourth Amendment rights by denying Motion to Suppress for Statutory challenge based on T.C.A. § 39-17-1007 heard on June 16, 2003, Case #C-14001.”
State of Tennessee v. Domnick Doria (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016). “See T.C.A. § 39-17-1007. Defendant argues that if the legislature wanted the District Attorneys General to delegate the responsibility of seeking a warrant in a case involving the sexual exploitation of minors to an assistant district attorney, it would have specifically…”
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jerome Miller, 575 S.W.3d 807 (2019). “" Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1007 (2014). The issue in this case is whether the "process" referred to in section 39-17-1007 includes a search warrant.”
State of Tennessee v. Timothy Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “The defendant’s next issue is that the search warrant violated the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1007. The search warrant was issued, in part, for violations of the Tennessee Protection for Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1990 ( Tenn.”
State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jerome Miller (2017). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1007 . The Defendant asserts that, because Investigator O’Keefe applied for the search warrant at issue, all evidence gathered by Investigator O’Keefe pursuant to the execution of the search warrant must be suppressed because the search warrant was not…”
Jared S. Aguilar v. State of Tennessee (Tenn. Crim. App. 2018). “Petitioner also argued on direct appeal that the trial court should have suppressed the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant obtained by Investigator Cereceres because the warrant was not issued upon the application of the district attorney general as required by Code…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.