Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424 (2026)
Determination whether object is drug paraphernalia
✓ current as of May 2026
In determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by § 39-17-402, the court or other authority making that determination shall, in addition to all other logically relevant factors, consider the following:
- (1) Statements by the owner or anyone in control of the object concerning its use;
- (2) Prior convictions, if any, of the owner or of anyone in control of the object for violation of any state or federal law relating to controlled substances or controlled substance analogues;
- (3) The existence of any residue of controlled substances or controlled substance analogues on the object;
- (4) Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;
- (5) Descriptive materials accompanying the object that explain or depict its use;
- (6) The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;
- (7) The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community; and
- (8) Expert testimony concerning its use.
Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2012, ch. 848, § 18.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001).
State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “5-1 (1989); Tenn.Code Ann § 39-17-424 (1997); Utah Code Ann.”
William H. Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone North Am. Tire, LLC, 417 S.W.3d 393 (Tenn. 2013). “The General Assembly enacted Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-424 (1997), which set forth several factors for courts to consider “in addition to all other logically relevant factors” in “determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by [Tennessee…”
State v. Robert L. Mallard (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000). “Before the trial, the state filed a notice of intent to use evidence under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424 (2), which permits introduction of a defendant's prior drug-related offenses in order to establish that a particular object falls within the definition of drug paraphernalia.”
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Roach (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “As to the determination of whether an object is drug paraphernalia, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-424 provides: In determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by § 39-17-402, the court or other authority making that determination shall, in…”
State of Tennessee v. Jadarius Sankevious Foster (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “As to the determination of whether an object is drug paraphernalia, Code section 39-17-424 provides: In determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by § 39-17-402, the court or other authority making that determination shall, in addition to all other…”
State of Tennessee v. Gayle Thomas Crawford (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424 (2006). The indictment does not specify the item on which the State relied for the drug paraphernalia count, but we presume from the State’s case-in-chief that it was the walking stick found in the corner of the defendant’s bedroom.”
State of Tennessee v. Alfonso Martinez (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). “On appeal, the appellant’s sole issue is the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated sections 39-17-424 and 39-17-425 (2003). Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the appellant has waived his issue.”
William H. Mansell v. Bridgestone Firestone North Am. Tire, LLC (Tenn. 2013). “The General Assembly enacted Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-424 (1997), which set forth several factors for courts to consider “in addition to all other logically relevant factors” in “determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by [Tennessee…”
State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Lynn Sanders (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-424 (3), -406(c)(11).”
State of Tennessee v. Darrell S. Miller (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002). “” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424 (8) (1997). Coupled with the appellant’s aforementioned connection with the residence, shed, and box where the items were located, we conclude that a reasonable juror could have found the appellant guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia.”
State of Tennessee v. Marvin Davis (Tenn. Crim. App. 2014). “One of the factors, “[p]rior convictions, if any, of the owner or of anyone in control of the object for violation of any state or federal law relating to controlled substances,” conflicted with Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b), which generally precludes the admission of…”
State of Tennessee v. Albert Dejuan White (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “§ 39-17-424. B. Possession Generally Defendant stands convicted of three possession offenses.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424(2) — 1 case
State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “5-1 (1989); Tenn.Code Ann § 39-17-424 (1997); Utah Code Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-424(8) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. John Edward Roach (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “As to the determination of whether an object is drug paraphernalia, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-424 provides: In determining whether a particular object is drug paraphernalia as defined by § 39-17-402, the court or other authority making that determination shall, in…”
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.