tennessee case law research

(800) 727-6574

•    
• Legal Research Services for Attorneys
• Florida Legal Research Group
• Texas Legal Research Group
• Search Legal Research Services by State
• Human Resources Legal Research and Consulting Group
• Legal Publications Support Group
• Why Choose Us
• Our Attorneys
• Testimonials
• Complimentary Legal Research Newsletters
• FREE Legal Research White Papers
• Legal Research White Papers for Purchase
• Books Authored by NLRG Research Attorneys
• Legal Research Samples
• Business Law Legal Research
• Civil Procedure
• Criminal Law Legal Research
• The Employment Lawyer
• Employment Law Legal Research
• Family Law Legal Research
• The Lawletter
• Personal Injury and Insurance Law Legal Research
• Products Liability Law Legal Research
• Property Law Legal Research
• Public Law Legal Research
• Trusts & Estates, Wills, and Tax Law Legal Research

Submit a Case

Tennessee legal research.

1,466 Tennessee Attorneys have used NLRG to assist with briefs, trial memos, motions, and legal research

Tennessee Legal Research Services for Attorneys

Are You An Attorney in Need of Help With a Case? 

Contact Our Research Attorneys Now. 

Submit your case using the form on this page

Tennessee Legal Research Services

Appellate and trial briefs.

Our attorneys can provide appellate brief writing services for Federal Courts of Appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court, and the United States Supreme Court. We also offer appellate brief compliance review and filing through the Lex Group. 

Not only are we seasoned legal research experts, our team is also highly skilled in legal writing. Over the years, we have prepared briefs in every state and federal court, including Tennessee state courts. Our attorneys can provide you with high quality trial briefs to help you win your case.

Pleadings and Discovery

Since our founding, The National Legal Research Group has assisted attorney-clients with pleadings in all states, including Tennessee, and federal court. We can prepare pleadings and responses for complaints, pre and post-trial motions, motions in limine, motions for summary judgment, motions to compel, motions to dismiss, and a large variety of other legal pleadings you may need for your case.  

From relatively simple state court proceedings to intricate multidistrict litigation, NLRG attorneys can help with many discovery-related services such as: the preparation of interrogatories, deposition preparation, requests for production, deposition summaries, motion to compel discovery, and requests for admissions.

Legal Document Review

As fellow attorneys, we understand the immense amount of time that reviewing simple legal documents can cost you. We also understand that each document can be critical to your case and must be reviewed meticulously. We can save you a significant amount of time by assisting with your review process. This can help you predict upfront cost and meet your deadlines. We have completed over 170,000 projects since our founding, including those involving detailed Tennessee law research.

Telephone or Email Reports

For more affordable options, when a written product is not required, we can provide detailed telephone and email reports. This allows the access to our legal research assistance and expert analysis of legal issues, but at a lower overall cost.

Legal Memoranda

NLRG's experienced attorneys  prepare unbiased legal memoranda for case evaluation, trial and appellate preparation, or any other purpose prior to or in support of litigation or transactional analysis. Our team of attorneys can help with preparing persuasive legal memoranda including all of the relevant legal arguments, binding authorities, and citations to ensure acceptance into the courtroom.

If you are finding yourself overwhelmed with a case, and need additional legal research and writing expertise, please complete the form on this page to have our expert attorneys review your case and discuss how we can help. 

Testimonials:

" I am not practicing law now, but I always used your services in the past and I steer young attorneys to you now... You guys are great! I've won several lawsuits in the past with your help. "

- John M. Roberts, former Director of Chamber of Commerce, Livingston, TN

"I appreciated your work product and professionalism. I will use your service again!"

- Nancy King Crawford, Nashville, TN

"I was completely satisfied with Doug Plank's research. I do not believe you could have improved your service in this matter. It was of the highest level."

- Robert H. Leonard, Knoxville, TN

2421 Ivy Road, Suite 220 / Charlottesville, VA 22903-4673 Toll-Free:  (800) 727-6574    /     Direct:  ( 434) 817-6574

© 2016 National Legal Research Group, Inc. 

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

A state police officer shot and killed Garner as he was fleeing the scene of the crime. Despite knowing that Garner was unarmed, the police officer believed that he was justified in shooting him to prevent his escape. Garner's father brought a constitutional challenge to the Tennessee statute that authorized the use of deadly force in this situation. The state prevailed in the trial court, but the state appellate court ruled that the statute was unconstitutional.

• Byron Raymond White (Author)
• William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
• Thurgood Marshall
• Harry Andrew Blackmun
• Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
• John Paul Stevens

When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened.

• Sandra Day O'Connor (Author)
• Warren Earl Burger
• William Hubbs Rehnquist

This decision responded to the evolution of the common law, which formerly imposed a death sentence for most felonies. Shooting a non-violent fleeing felon historically would have been permitted because it would have been the same result as if he had been caught and convicted. This is no longer the situation, and the Supreme Court adjusted the rule regarding the use of deadly force to account for it.

U.S. Supreme Court

Tennessee v. Garner

No. 83-1035

Argued October 30, 1984

Decided March 27, 1985*

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

A Tennessee statute provides that, if, after a police officer has given notice of an intent to arrest a criminal suspect, the suspect flees or forcibly resists, "the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest." Acting under the authority of this statute, a Memphis police officer shot and killed appellee-respondent Garner's son as, after being told to halt, the son fled over a fence at night in the backyard of a house he was suspected of burglarizing. The officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" the suspect was unarmed and thinking that he was 17 or 18 years old, and of slight build. The father subsequently brought an action in Federal District Court, seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for asserted violations of his son's constitutional rights. The District Court held that the statute and the officer's actions were constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed.

Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22.

(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. Pp. 7-12.

(b) The Fourth Amendment, for purposes of this case, should not be construed in light of the common law rule allowing the use of whatever force is necessary to effect the arrest of a fleeing felon. Changes in the legal and technological context mean that that rule is distorted almost beyond recognition when literally applied. Whereas felonies were formerly capital crimes, few are now, or can be, and many crimes classified as misdemeanors, or nonexistent, at common law are now felonies. Also, the common law rule developed at a time when weapons were rudimentary. And, in light of the varied rules adopted in the States indicating a long-term movement away from the common law rule, particularly in the police departments themselves, that rule is a dubious indicium of the constitutionality of the Tennessee statute. There is no indication that holding a police practice such as that authorized by the statute unreasonable will severely hamper effective law enforcement. Pp. 12-20.

(c) While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous. Pp. 20-22.

710 F.2d 240, affirmed and remanded.

WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, post p. 22.

• Opinions & Dissents
• Oral Arguments
• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

At the Tennessee Law Review , our goal is to advance justice for the State of Tennessee and beyond by providing a forum for thoughtful, topical, and nuanced legal scholarship. We are committed to publishing the voices of our exceptional authors who offer solutions to a variety of legal issues facing our State and our country at large. In each volume, we aim to promote and instigate respectful discourse within the legal profession and offer compelling and useful solutions that hold the potential to impact law and society.

We take great pride in highlighting the exceptional contributions made by our members, whose dedication and scholarly prowess enrich our journal.

TENNESEE LAW REVIEW BLOG

The  Tennessee Law Review , first published in 1922, is the oldest legal publication in Tennessee and the oldest law journal at the University of Tennessee College of Law. The publication covers a broad range of legal topics, including national and state legal developments.

The quarterly journal of legal scholarship is edited and published by second and third year students at the University of Tennessee College of Law, with guidance from faculty advisors. Articles are authored by professors, practitioners, and law students addressing topics of interest to legal scholars, practicing attorneys, legislators, judges, and students.

Subscribe & Submit to The Tennessee Law Review

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

Appeals court upholds Tennessee sex offender registry, reversing lower court ruling

A federal appeals court upheld Tennessee's sex offender registry law Wednesday, 14 months after a lower court ruled it was an unconstitutional punishment for some offenders . While it identified some parts of the law "potentially unconstitutional," the state will be allowed to enforce most of them under the ruling.

The ruling concerned how Tennessee enforces its sex offender registry on those who committed sexual crimes before the current registry was created in 2004.

Court overturns ruling that registry unconstitutional for pre-2004 convictions

The court reversed a March 2023 federal district court ruling that the registry's requirements were so harsh that people convicted before 2004 and later placed on the registry were subject to punishments that didn't exist when they were sentenced, which violates constitutional protections against retroactive punishment.

As part of that lower court ruling, U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger blocked Tennessee from continuing to enforce its sex offender registry law on the eight plaintiffs in the case, which effectively opened a pathway for anyone with a pre-2004 sex offense and money for a lawyer to get off the registry , at least temporarily.

The three-judge appeals court panel of Eugene Edward Siler Jr., John Nalbandian and Stephanie Dawkins Davis — Bush, Trump and Biden appointees, respectively — disagreed with Trauger.

Judges: Law mostly OK, but some portions 'potentially unconstitutional'

Noting that Tennessee's "registration laws are broad and complicated," the judges said the law regulates registrants in "many ways previously endorsed by the courts."

But as for perhaps the most restrictive parts of Tennessee's law — which restrict where people on the registry can live, work and travel — the court acknowledged them as "potentially unconstitutional" but said the plaintiffs hadn't sued the right people, so the court can't do anything about it. (The plaintiffs sued Tennessee Bureau of Investigation Director David Rausch and Gov. Bill Lee. The appeals court dismissed Lee from the case.)

"The potentially unconstitutional portions — those provisions categorizing offenders and prohibiting them from living, working, and traveling within certain areas — are enforced by a diffusion of state officers and prosecutors which are not parties here," the judges wrote.

Still, it's possible that something Rausch is responsible for might not pass muster, the judges said. They are sending the case back to Trauger to decide that and then enter a new order.

"Based on the record before this court, we cannot say with finality that Director Rausch does not enforce any unconstitutional provisions of the Tennessee Act, but the district court can make that determination on remand," the judges wrote.

Specifically, they said categorizing registrants as violent or non-violent sexual offenders based on the crime they were convicted of "without an individualized assessment" may be "questionable" under court precedent.

More: Tennessee's legal struggles with its sex offender registry could cost taxpayers

What does Tennessee's sex offender registry do?

Registrants must follow residence, work and travel restrictions, including a prohibition against living or working within 1,000 feet of schools, day cares or public parks. Much of their information is broadly disseminated and reported to businesses. In 2014, the General Assembly passed a provision that placed offenders against children on the registry for the rest of their lives.

There is little to no proof that sex offender registries are effective at reducing crime. The state has admitted as much, writing in a 2021 lawsuit: “Defendants have no evidence showing that the Act generally reduces the incidence of criminal offenses, other than statements of law enforcement,” and “Defendants have no empirical evidence showing that the Act provides any other societal benefits, other than statements of law enforcement.”

One lawyer following the case was expecting the appeals court to rule against the law given its similarities to a Michigan law that was partially struck down by the court in 2016.

More: Prosecutors said she was a victim. She still had to register as a sex offender in Tennessee.

Evan Mealins is the justice reporter for The Tennessean. Contact him at  [email protected]  or follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter,  @EvanMe a lins .

Tennessee Authorizes Death Penalty for Child Sexual Assault in Direct Challenge to Supreme Court Precedent

• Facebook Share
• Tweet Tweet
• Email Email

Posted on May 17, 2024

• Crimes Punishable by Death
• Recent Legislative Activity

United States Supreme Court

On May 9, Governor Bill Lee of Tennessee signed a bill authorizing the death penalty for aggravated rape of a child, following Florida’s passage of a similar law last year. Both laws contradict longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding the death penalty unconstitutional for non-homicide crimes. Tennessee’s law takes effect on July 1. The state has had a death penalty moratorium in place since May 2022 after Governor Lee learned that state officials had failed to test execution drugs for bacterial contamination; he ordered a subsequent independent investigation which found that the state had systematically failed to follow lethal injection protocols. Governor Lee did not release a statement upon signing the bill and has issued no recent updates on the status of the moratorium.   

The Supreme Court held in Coker v. Georgia (1977) that the use of the death penalty is disproportionate to the crime of rape, violating the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court extended that ruling to child rape in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008). While the Court emphasized the “hurt and horror inflicted” by perpetrators of child rape and the “years of long anguish” endured by the victim, the Court noted that only a handful of states authorized the death penalty for child rape and only two men in the entire country were on death row as a result, making the punishment unconstitutionally “unusual” for the crime. The Court further noted the disproportionate nature of the punishment of death on a person who had not caused death, raising concerns about the “incongruity” between child sexual abuse and the “harshness” of the death penalty. “When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint,” the justices wrote.   

Critics have argued that such laws could further traumatize victims. Maria DeLiberato , Executive Director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, pointed out that 30% of child sex abuse victims are abused by family members and 90% of victims know their abuser. “You’ve got this whole dynamic where a child is going to bear the weight of a possible death sentence to a neighbor, an uncle, a grandfather,” she said. Similarly, the Court noted in Kennedy that it “is not at all evident that the child rape victim’s hurt is lessened when the law permits the death of the perpetrator,” as death penalty cases “require a long-term commitment by those who testify for the prosecution” and victims would have to relive their trauma through law enforcement interviews and testimony for decades. The practice “forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice,” the Court wrote.   

There is also evidence that such laws increase the risk of wrongful execution. The Kennedy Court discussed research showing children have a heightened susceptibility to suggestion or fabrication in law enforcement interviews. The National Registry of Exonerations has identified over 300 wrongful convictions involving child sex abuse.   

Governor DeSantis and Florida legislators designed their bill as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Kennedy . “This bill sets up a procedure to be able to challenge that precedent,” DeSantis said. Florida prosecutors announced their first case under the law in December. Some Tennessee legislators made the same argument; state Senator Janice Bowling suggested that “the atmosphere is different on the Supreme Court” and the bill’s sponsors were “simply challenging a ruling.” (Governor Lee denied signing the bill to “test” it in court.) These efforts come amidst challenges at the Supreme Court to the “evolving standards of decency” test used in Kennedy and numerous landmark capital punishment cases. A pending death penalty case from Alabama challenging the test, Hamm v. Smith , has been relisted by the Court fourteen times without a certiorari decision, and advocates recently appeared to sidestep a nearly-identical challenge to the test in a case argued before the Court in April.   

• Maria DeLiberato
• Ron DeSantis
• Janice Bowling

National Registry of Exonerations Database ; Kimberlee Kruesi, ​ “ Tennessee gov­er­nor OKs bill allow­ing death penal­ty for child rape con­vic­tions ,” Associated Press , May 14 , 2024 ; Ashley Harding, ​ “ Death penal­ty for child rape goes into effect in Florida ,” News 4 JAX , October 1 , 2023 ; Kennedy v. Louisiana ( 2008 ); Coker v. Georgia ( 1977 ). 

Apr 24, 2024

Supreme Court Roundup: Justices Hear Oral Arguments on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Cruel and Unusual Punishment; Defend Positions on Stays

Apr 17, 2024

Justices Sotomayor and Jackson Issue Dissents Over Supreme Court’s Refusal to Review Two Capital Misconduct Cases

Mar 13, 2024

Tennessee Death Row Prisoner’s New Appeal Alleges Innocence, Prosecutorial Misconduct, and Ineffective Counsel

Leila Lawlor Publishes “Building Belonging” in the Tennessee Law Review The article examines a number of law schools to assess how well the schools retain their students.

By Law Communications May 24, 2024

You must be logged in to post a comment.

• Environment
• Immigration
• Investigates
• Cash for Clout
• Election 2024

Appeals court: Wildlife officers’ warrantless searches of private property are unconstitutional

In a blistering and unanimous opinion, the judges called twra’s legal defense of its tactics a “disturbing assertion of power on behalf of government”, by: anita wadhwani - may 13, 2024 5:00 am.

Hunter Hollingsworth, at his family’s Benton County property, successfully sued the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency/ (Photo: John Partipilo)

State game wardens cannot enter private property in Tennessee without a warrant, the state’s Court of Appeals ruled last week.

The decision puts in check a unique power wielded for decades by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency to secretly patrol and surveil Tennesseans’ privately-owned lands for potential violations of hunting, fishing and wildlife laws.

TWRA officers don’t seek permission from a judge before entering private property, need no supervisor approval, keep no records of their searches and don’t inform property owners — sometimes donning camouflage or installing cameras to secretly monitor activities based on the suspicions of an individual officer.

The blistering and unanimous opinion by a three-judge panel compared TWRA’s tactics to British customs officials who were granted unlimited “writs” by the king of England to conduct arbitrary searches in the years leading to the Revolutionary War — abusive actions that would go on to inform the establishment of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th Amendment protecting Americans from illegal government searches and seizures.

State wildlife agency sued over secret surveillance on private land

“The TWRA searches, which it claims are reasonable, bear a marked resemblance to the arbitrary discretionary entries of customs officials more than two centuries ago in colonial Boston,” the judges wrote.

“The TWRA’s contention is a disturbing assertion of power on behalf of the government that stands contrary to the foundations of the search protections against arbitrary governmental intrusions in the American legal tradition, generally, and in Tennessee, specifically.”

The decision concluded TWRA’s warrantless forays onto private property violate Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, which reads in part: “The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

It will require TWRA to seek judicial warrants based on probable cause a crime has been committed before entering private property — the same rules that bind every other law enforcement agency in the state.

TWRA claimed unfettered power to put on full camouflage, invade people’s land, roam around as it pleases, take photos, record videos, sift through ponds, spy on people from behind bushes—all without consent, a warrant, or any meaningful limits on their power

– Joshua Windham, Institute for Justice

TWRA officials are “carefully reviewing the Court’s Opinion and will consult with the Attorney General’s office in the coming days,” Emily Buck, an agency spokesperson said Friday.

An attorney for Hunter Hollingsworth and Terry Rainwaters, two Benton County men who challenged TWRA’s warantless searches of their separate properties, called the decision “a massive win for property rights in Tennessee.”

“TWRA claimed unfettered power to put on full camouflage, invade people’s land, roam around as it pleases, take photos, record videos, sift through ponds, spy on people from behind bushes—all without consent, a warrant, or any meaningful limits on their power,” said Joshua Windham, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian-leaning law firm.

“This decision confirms that granting state officials unfettered power to invade private land is anathema to Tennesseans’ most basic constitutional rights,” he said.

State law allowing TWRA to “go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise” in order to “enforce all laws relating to wildlife” is constitutional, but not as applied by TWRA officials, the appeals court ruled.

The court concluded that the state law does not apply to property that is in active use, such as for hunting, fishing, farming, camping and land that is posted and gated — a not-uncommon description of properties owned in rural areas of the state that are used entirely for farming or recreation even if unoccupied full-time.

“When considering uses of real property other than as a home, there is nothing in the Tennessee Constitution that suggests a lesser regard for uses of property more common in rural areas than those more typical of urban or suburban areas,” the court wrote.

The ruling does not apply to privately-owned acreages that are left wild and unused — land the U.S. Supreme Court has dubbed “wild or waste lands” and concluded in a so-called “open fields doctrine” are not subject to traditional search and seizure Constitutional protections. The open fields doctrine has long allowed law enforcement to enter such properties without a warrant.

Judges strike down Tennessee law allowing warrantless searches by state wildlife officials

Hollingsworth, on whose property TWRA officers secretly installed a camera that captured areas where he hunted with friends, camped and was intimate with his girlfriend, said last week he was thankful for the decision and the lawyers, including local attorney Jack Leonard, who had pursued his case since 2018

“TWRA’s abuse of power had to stop,” Hollingsworth said. “For as long as I can remember, these officers have acted like a law unto themselves. But nobody — not even a game warden — is above the Constitution, and yesterday’s decision makes that crystal clear.”

Buck, the TWRA spokesperson, noted that the agency at the outset of the legal challenge, “voluntarily implemented a landowner consent process to enter private property and officers have already received additional training on obtaining search warrants when appropriate.”

“The Agency will continue to serve the sportsmen and women of our state by fulfilling its statutory public trust responsibility of protecting wildlife populations. The Agency is also committed to preventing poaching and illegal activity on both public and private property.”

TWRA has 60 days to appeal the decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our website. AP and Getty images may not be republished. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of any other photos and graphics.

Anita Wadhwani

Anita Wadhwani is a senior reporter for the Tennessee Lookout. The Tennessee AP Broadcasters and Media (TAPME) named her Journalist of the Year in 2019 as well as giving her the Malcolm Law Award for Investigative Journalism. Wadhwani is formerly an investigative reporter with The Tennessean who focused on the impact of public policies on the people and places across Tennessee.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom , the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

Related News

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

State v. Hamm

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals affirming the judgment of the trial court granting Defendants' motion to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence who is subject to a search condition does not require officers to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity prior to conducting the search. Law enforcement conducted a warrantless search of the residence of a probationer and her husband, resulting in the discovery of illegal drugs and drug-related contraband. Pursuant to probation conditions imposed in a previous case, the probationer had agreed to a warrantless search of her person, property, or vehicle at any time. In affirming the trial court's decision to grant Defendants' motion to suppress, the court of criminal appeals concluded that the State was required to have reasonable suspicion to support the probation search and that the State lacked such suspicion in this case. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because of the probation conditions to which the probationer was subject, the probation search of portions of the probationer's residence was constitutionally allowable; and (2) the search of probationer's husband's personal belongings located within Defendants' shared bedroom was proper pursuant to the doctrine of common authority.

Authoring Judge: Justice Roger A. Page

Trial Court Judge: Judge Jeff Parham

The Obion County Drug Task Force conducted a warrantless search of the residence of probationer Angela Hamm and her husband, David Hamm, which yielded illegal drugs and drug-related contraband. Defendant Angela Hamm had agreed, pursuant to probation conditions imposed in a prior case, to a warrantless search of her person, property, or vehicle at any time. We granted the State’s appeal in this case to consider whether the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence who is subject to a search condition requires officers to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity prior to conducting the search. We conclude that it does not and therefore reverse the trial court’s judgment and the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision affirming the same.

The Supreme Court reversed the court of criminal appeals' decision affirming the trial court's judgment granting Defendants' motion to suppress, holding that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence who is subject to a search condition does not require officers to have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity prior to conducting the search.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Tennessee Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Managing Substance Use Disorders
• Health Equity
• Data Resources
• Additional HHS Resources
• Overdose Prevention Resources
• Management and Treatment of Pain
• Clinical Practice Guideline at a Glance
• Clinical Care and Treatment
• Health Care Provider Toolkits
• Electronic CDS Tools for Opioids
• Strategies and Partnerships
• Resources for Public Health Professionals
• Journal Articles
• MMWR Articles
• Guides and Meeting Reports
• Related Publications

Overdose Data to Action

Drug-Free Communities (DFC)

Overdose Prevention

Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) Study

What CDC is Doing

Polysubstance Overdose

For Health Care Professionals

Overdose Prevention for Health Care Providers

2022 CDC Clinical Practice Guideline at a Glance

For Public Health Professionals

What You Should Know About Xylazine

Health Equity and Drug Overdose

Overdose Resource Exchange (ORE)

Public Health Considerations for Strategies and Partnerships

Overdose prevention is a CDC priority that impacts families and communities. Drug overdose is a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S.

For Everyone

Health care providers, public health.