Formal Defect Causes Fatal Deficiency
Courts in Tennessee are generally prone to elevating substance over form whenever possible. For example, a court may treat an incorrectly named motion as though it were correctly named both in the interest of fairness and in order to increase judicial efficiency by preventing the needless revision of formal but harmless defects. Many jurisdictions have extended this concept to the search and seizure arena, holding that evidence seized pursuant to a defective or invalid warrant can be admitted into court if the officers acted honestly and reasonably in executing the search. This is known as the “good faith” exception to excluding evidence. Although Tennessee recognizes this exception in some circumstances, a recent decision by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reaffirms that Tennessee will not allow use of the exception to overcome the strict standards set forth for the execution of search warrants under the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure.
A search warrant was issued authorizing a search of the home of the Defendant, Mr. Daniels, on December 2, 2005. This search warrant contained a facial defect, with “p.m.” having been circled by the magistrate in scribing the time of the warrant’s issuance rather than the appropriate “a.m.” Apparently this defect went unnoticed at the time the warrant was issued. Pursuant to the search warrant, police discovered illegal drugs in Mr. Daniels’s home, and he was arrested later that same day. Mr. Daniels was charged with two counts of possession with intent to sell, two counts of possession with intent to deliver, and unlawful possession of a handgun. Prior to trial, Mr. Daniels filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the defective search warrant, alleging that the warrant was fatally defective as the magistrate’s endorsing of the incorrect time on the warrant failed to comply with the standards set by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c). The trial court ruled that it was merely a “clerical error” and said the “good faith” exception was applicable because the error was not significant enough to warrant suppression. The Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed.
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c)(2)(D) provides that in issuing any search warrant “[t]he magistrate shall endorse on the search warrant the hour, date, and name of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for execution.” The Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that this rule operates as a “procedural safeguard,” protecting Tennesseans from arbitrary and improper searches and reiterated that the Tennessee Supreme Court has not recognized a “good faith” exception to the safeguards listed in Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c). Thus, the requirements of Rule 41(c) must be strictly adhered to, and any warrant issued in violation of those requirements is fatally deficient. In the instant case, the magistrate endorsed a warrant with a time later than it was actually executed, a clear violation of the language of Rule 41(c)(2)(D) and its purpose of making certain that searches are done within a time period close enough to the execution of the search warrant to ensure that probable cause for the search still exists. The Court of Criminal Appeals ordered that the evidence be suppressed.
This case demonstrates Tennessee’s recognition that unreasonable or arbitrary searches and seizures are monumental invasions of privacy and have the potential to severely impair citizens’ rights if left unchecked. Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(c) mandates how a warrant is to be issued and what it must contain in order to protect the rights of Tennesseans and to ensure that proper procedure is followed any time a person’s home is to be searched. A warrant issued in violation of this rule is void ab initio and any evidence seized pursuant to this warrant can be suppressed. Criminal defense lawyers in Tennessee should always make sure each requirement listed in Rule 41(c) is met when seeking to invalidate a search warrant, as failure to comply with this Rule makes the warrant void immediately, allows any evidence seized pursuant to the warrant to be suppressed, and does not fall within the scope of the “good faith” exception.
Sources: United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984); State v. Daniels, 34 TAM 36-22, 8/5/09; Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41
Bookmark: 
