Tennessee Criminal Lawyer Blog

The right of a person to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures of their home, business, property, or person is one that courts historically have been reluctant to infringe upon. Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article One, Section Seven of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee guarantee citizens that their privacy will not be invaded in an unreasonable manner, meaning that law enforcement officials wishing to search a citizen’s person or property have historically been forced to obtain a search warrant in order to do so. After a recent Tennessee Supreme Court ruling, that may no longer be the case in certain circumstances.

The Tennessee Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a case styled State v. Turner on October 15th that could potentially alter the constitutional landscape in Tennessee forever. In the case at issue, the defendant was convicted of drug charges and endangerment in Kentucky in 2002. She was paroled in 2005 and moved to Tennessee. In April of 2007, an officer who knew the defendant pulled her over under the pretext of a traffic stop because he suspected she was selling drugs. Upon, pulling the defendant over, the officer found that she was not in possession of drugs, but had $975 in cash. Finding the cash fueled the officer’s suspicion that the defendant was selling drugs, so he searched her home without a warrant (because it is highly unlikely he would have been able to demonstrate probable cause to obtain a warrant) and found a loaded handgun. The defendant was thus charged with being a felon in possession of a handgun. At trial, the lower court judge said the search of her home was unlawful, meaning the evidence seized pursuant to the search would be suppressed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed. The Tennessee Supreme Court took a different view, however, and overturned the ruling.

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that people who are on probation in Tennessee or parole, and are thus under judicial supervision anyway, should not expect to have privacy rights equal to those citizens who have not already been found guilty of criminal activity. The Court noted that this did not, however, mean that those citizens should be entitled to arbitrary or harassing searches. This is a departure from the standard prior to this case, however, as neither Constitutional provision referenced above protecting the rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures contains a similar limitation.