697 S.W.3d 634
Tenn.2024Background
- During a 2020 traffic stop in Tennessee, police used a drug-sniffing canine on a vehicle after the driver declined consent to search.
- The canine alerted police to potential drugs, but the dog could not distinguish between now-legal hemp and still-illegal marijuana.
- Officers found marijuana, a loaded gun, plastic bags, and a scale in a backpack associated with Andre Green, the vehicle's passenger.
- Green moved to suppress, arguing the canine's alert could no longer create probable cause due to hemp’s legalization.
- The trial court agreed and suppressed the evidence, but the appellate court reversed, finding probable cause still existed.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to clarify the effect of hemp legalization on probable cause involving canine alerts.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canine Alert & Probable Cause: Does a drug-sniffing dog's alert (which cannot distinguish hemp from marijuana) still support probable cause? | Alerts are unreliable post-hemp legalization, as dogs cannot tell legal hemp from marijuana. | A trained canine’s alert remains sufficient; at minimum, it contributes to probable cause under totality of circumstances. | Canine alert may still contribute under totality of circumstances despite hemp legalization. |
| Per Se Rule From Prior Case: Does State v. England mandate per se probable cause from a canine alert? | England does not establish a per se rule; context matters. | England supports a per se rule or at least strong weight for alerts. | England does not establish a per se rule; focus is totality of circumstances. |
| Totality of Circumstances: Did the facts here create probable cause under the automobile exception? | No, given legalization of hemp and ambiguous evidence, no probable cause existed. | Yes, the alert plus occupants' suspicious behavior supported probable cause. | Probable cause existed based on totality: canine alert, suspicious responses, conduct. |
| Suppression of Evidence: Should evidence from the search be suppressed? | Yes—no valid probable cause. | No—search was proper under the automobile exception. | No—suppression reversed, indictments reinstated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (establishing totality-of-the-circumstances approach for probable cause)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (U.S. 2013) (drug-sniffing dog alerts evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- State v. England, 19 S.W.3d 762 (Tenn. 2000) (probable cause based on canine alert requires reliability and context, not a per se rule)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (U.S. 1949) (probable cause is based on practical considerations for reasonable people)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (U.S. 1925) (establishing the automobile exception to the warrant requirement)