State v. Little
1978 Tenn. LEXIS 568, 560 S.W.2d 403 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A search warrant is invalid, and evidence obtained under it must be suppressed, if the supporting affidavit contains either (1) a false statement made with intent to deceive the court, or (2) a false statement, essential to the establishment of probable cause, that was recklessly made.
Facts:
- On March 8, 1973, Lt. Richard Ordway of the Metro Police Vice Squad applied for a search warrant for the residence of defendant Jo Ann Little.
- In his sworn affidavit, Lt. Ordway stated that a reliable informant saw Little in possession of narcotics in her Nashville residence on that same day.
- The affidavit further claimed that this informant had previously supplied Ordway with correct information that had resulted in two pending court cases.
- Lastly, the affidavit asserted that the informant's name was supplied to the magistrate issuing the warrant.
- In reality, Jo Ann Little did not arrive in Nashville until 8:00 A.M. on March 8th, after Ordway had already spoken to the informant, making it impossible for the informant to have seen her with narcotics in Nashville on that date.
- Lt. Ordway later admitted that the informant had never supplied him with information in the past, no cases were pending based on the informant's tips, and the informant's name was not supplied to the magistrate.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Jo Ann Little and Szeigis were convicted in a Tennessee trial court for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of resale.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and dismissed the charges, finding the trial court erred by not suppressing evidence from the search.
- The State of Tennessee, as the appellant, appealed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a false statement in a search warrant affidavit, made with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for the truth, invalidate the search warrant and require the suppression of evidence obtained from the search?
Opinions:
Majority - Fones, Justice
Yes. A search warrant based on an affidavit containing intentionally or recklessly made false statements that are material to probable cause is invalid, and any evidence seized as a result must be suppressed. The court adopts a two-part test allowing for the impeachment of a facially sufficient affidavit if there is: (1) a false statement made with intent to deceive the Court, whether material or immaterial, or (2) a false statement, essential to the establishment of probable cause, that was recklessly made. Here, Lt. Ordway's statements about the informant's past reliability and personal observation were admittedly false and essential to establishing probable cause. These statements were, at a minimum, recklessly made, as the information about his own prior dealings with the informant was entirely within his personal knowledge. Allowing evidence obtained through such an affidavit to stand would undermine the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and the role of the neutral magistrate.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical safeguard for the Fourth Amendment rights of defendants in Tennessee by clarifying when they can challenge the veracity of a police officer's affidavit. By adopting the two-part test from U.S. v. Luna, the court moved away from the traditional rule that a facially sufficient affidavit is unchallengeable. This holding ensures the integrity of the warrant-issuing process by holding law enforcement accountable for intentional or reckless falsehoods. The case serves as a significant precedent for motions to suppress, providing a clear framework for trial courts to evaluate claims of police misconduct in obtaining search warrants.
