Divided Tennessee Supreme Court Adopts “Good-Faith Exception” to the Exclusionary Rule

In Tennessee, the protections provided in the Article 1 Section 7 of the state constitution regarding search and seizure have long been held to be identical to the protections provided by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  However, the Tennessee Rules of Evidence do not always track the Federal Rules of Evidence. In criminal cases, this can mean that, even though the constitutional protections are ostensibly the same at the state and federal level, evidence that would be admissible in one forum may not be admissible in another.  A divided Tennessee Supreme Court recently took a step toward a unified interpretation of the evidence rules.

In criminal matters, the “exclusionary rule” applies to block the admission of evidence that was obtained illegally, for example, evidence that is obtained by police without a warrant.  There are several exceptions to the rule both at the state and federal level. Historically, however, Tennessee had failed to recognized the so-called “good-faith exception.”  The good-faith exception, created by the United States’ Supreme Court in 1984, provides that if an officer reasonably believes that his search for evidence is lawful, then the evidence will not be excluded, even if the search was ultimately illegal. Tennessee had not previously ruled upon the matter.

In an opinion issued on March 12, 2019, the Tennessee Supreme Court adopted the Exclusionary Rule while at the same time excluding the evidence that was at issue in the case. You can read the majority opinion here. The effect of this outcome is to provide some guidance as to the proper application of the exception, although this is a matter that Justice Kirby takes issue with, as she filed an opinion dissenting from the majority’s interpretation of the good-faith in this case. Justice Lee also filed a separate opinion.  Justice Lee agreed that the evidence should be excluded in this case but dissented from the adoption of the exception, characterizing the majority opinion not as one that adopts the good-faith exclusionary rule, but as an opinion that excuses the police from negligent record-keeping. You can read Justice Lee’s opinion here.

Tennessee Supreme Court Argument Marks Third Appellate Review in Ten Year Old Case

When litigation begins, lawyers try to prepare their clients for delays.  Sometimes a civil trial is delayed because it takes longer to gather materials than expected, because a witness is unavailable, or because a judge’s docket is full. Sometimes, litigation is protracted not because of delays but because of appeals.  This is why it is important to have an experienced appellate litigation team–one that understands the procedure and strategy necessary to handle a matter no matter how long it may take for justice to prevail.

While the appellate process in the U.S. attempts to streamline matters, sometimes a fair application of the rules means that the same case will be heard on appeal multiple times. DPBC attorney Donald Capparella, who heads the firm’s appellate practice team, is familiar with this scenario. In fact, one of his recent Tennessee Supreme Court arguments provides an example of how a litigant can “win” a case multiple times and yet still be embroiled in litigation.

read more

New Standards for Determining Stock Value for Dissenting Shareholders

The Tennessee Supreme Court has endorsed new methods for determining the value of stock for dissenting shareholders, clarifying that there is no single required approach to determining stock value under Tennessee law.

The case of Athlon Sports, Inc. v. Dugan, concerned minority stockholders who were forced out during a company merger.  The stockholders sued for the value of their business interests.  The trial court held that Tennessee case law required use of the “Delaware Block” method of valuing stock. Upon reviewing the case, the Tennessee Supreme Court determined that the Delaware Block method, which other jurisdictions have criticized as outdated, is not the only allowable method of valuation and that trial courts may use a variety of methods to establish value.

Read the Court’s press release regarding the case (with links to the unanimous opinion) here.

 

Tennessee Rejects Preemption Rule When Vicarious Liability Admitted

Does comparative fault still apply for direct negligence claims when the employer has admitted vicarious liability?  In its recent ruling on a Tenn. R. App. P. 10 Extraordinary Appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has answered “yes.”

As a result of the recent ruling in Jones v. Windham, the Court of Appeals has rejected the so-called preemption rule, barring direct negligence claims against an employer when vicarious liability is admitted.  Instead, the “non-preemption rule” applies as it comports with Tennessee’s system of comparative fault.  read more


  • NEWS ARCHIVES

Dodson Parker Behm and Capparella PC
1310 Sixth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37208

Ph. 615-254-2291 | Directions

Terms of Use
Copyright Policy


The information found on this website is not intended as legal advice. You should not act on any information contained within the website without consulting legal counsel regarding your particular situation.

We’re proud to call Nashville’s Historic Germantown Neighborhood our home.
You’ll find us here 7:30 am – 5:00 pm weekdays.

Privacy Policy