Hindman & Lanzon Hindman & Lanzon
Call for a Free Consultation
865-223-6450

Posts tagged "warrantless"

Exigent Circumstances Argument Rejected in Blood Draw Case

Exigent circumstances is one of the exceptions to the requirement that a search be authorized by a warrant to be considered reasonable. But exigent circumstances arguments to draw blood without a warrant when a person is suspected of driving under the influence have been often rejected since the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Missouri v. McNeely in 2013 (determining that the dissipation of alcohol in the blood over time did not create exigent circumstances when it was still reasonable to obtain a warrant). In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Cates, E2014-01322-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 9-28-2015), the Court of Criminal Appeals has again reversed a warrantless blood draw.

Warrantless Search Ruled Unlawful

A warrantless search is presumed unreasonable. It may be reasonable and lawful though if one or more recognized exceptions apply. The prosecution has the burden of proving a recognized exception if the warrantless search is contested. One important exception is consent. People on probation often, as a condition of being on probation, sign a form consenting to the "any time" search of their residence. However, federal and Tennessee law still requires at least reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for one of these "any time" residential searches to occur.

Warrantless Searches of Parolees Are Reasonable

In criminal cases in the United States, warrantless searches generally require some established exception to the warrant requirement in order to be considered reasonable. Consent is one exception. In Tennessee, a person granted parole is required to consent to being subject to warrantless searches as one of the conditions of being on parole. Both the United States Supreme Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court have determined this requirement to be reasonable and constitutional. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Cotham, M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 7-31-2014), the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling that a defendant subject to parole supervision in Tennessee had no legal basis to contest a warrantless acquisition of cell phone tracking data which led to the discovery of further evidence.

Warrantless Searches of Parolees Are Reasonable

In criminal cases in the United States, warrantless searches generally require some established exception to the warrant requirement in order to be considered reasonable. Consent is one exception. In Tennessee, a person granted parole is required to consent to being subject to warrantless searches as one of the conditions of being on parole. Both the United States Supreme Court and the Tennessee Supreme Court have determined this requirement to be reasonable and constitutional. In the recent Tennessee case of State v. Cotham, M2012-01150-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 7-31-2014), the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling that a defendant subject to parole supervision in Tennessee had no legal basis to contest a warrantless acquisition of cell phone tracking data which led to the discovery of further evidence.

Evidence in Plain View Lawfully Obtained

Evidence obtained from a warrantless search is generally not admissible against a defendant in a criminal case unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. Among those exceptions are a search incident to arrest, a search performed with consent, exigent circumstances, a brief 'stop and frisk' supported by reasonable suspicion, and evidence in plain view. To lawfully obtain evidence in plain view, the police officer must view it from a place where the officer has a lawful right to be and the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent. The conditions for plain view were met, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals, in the recent case of State v. McAllister, E2012-00493-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 2-7-2013).

Evidence in Plain View Lawfully Obtained

Evidence obtained from a warrantless search is generally not admissible against a defendant in a criminal case unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. Among those exceptions are a search incident to arrest, a search performed with consent, exigent circumstances, a brief 'stop and frisk' supported by reasonable suspicion, and evidence in plain view. To lawfully obtain evidence in plain view, the police officer must view it from a place where the officer has a lawful right to be and the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent. The conditions for plain view were met, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals, in the recent case of State v. McAllister, E2012-00493-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 2-7-2013).

Evidence in Plain View Lawfully Obtained

Evidence obtained from a warrantless search is generally not admissible against a defendant in a criminal case unless one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. Among those exceptions are a search incident to arrest, a search performed with consent, exigent circumstances, a brief 'stop and frisk' supported by reasonable suspicion, and evidence in plain view. To lawfully obtain evidence in plain view, the police officer must view it from a place where the officer has a lawful right to be and the incriminating nature of the evidence must be immediately apparent. The conditions for plain view were met, according to the Court of Criminal Appeals, in the recent case of State v. McAllister, E2012-00493-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App. 2-7-2013).

map map

Hindman & Lanzon
550 West Main Street
Suite 550
Knoxville, TN 37902

Toll Free: 866-383-1545
Phone: 865-223-6450
Fax: 865-521-6371
Knoxville Law Office Map

proof.glaze.luxury