State of Tennessee v. Charlotte Lynn Frazier and Andrea Parks, M2016-02134-CCA-R3-CD

Background

In a multi-defendant methamphetamine investigation, a Twenty-Third Judicial District circuit judge (the magistrate) issued electronic-interception warrants and later issued search warrants for homes of Charlotte Frazier (Montgomery County) and Andrea Parks (Robertson County), both outside that judge’s judicial district.
Searches pursuant to those warrants uncovered large quantities of methamphetamine, other drugs, weapons, and substantial cash.
Frazier and Parks moved to suppress, arguing the magistrate lacked territorial authority to issue warrants for property outside his district; the trial court granted suppression.
The State obtained interlocutory permission to appeal; the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals consolidated the appeals.
The central legal question was whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-106 (which lists various judges as “magistrates”) authorizes a circuit judge to issue search warrants for property located anywhere in Tennessee, and whether any defect was constitutional or non-constitutional (i.e., whether suppression was required).

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-1-106 authorizes circuit judges to issue search warrants for property anywhere in the state	§ 40-1-106 designates circuit judges as magistrates “throughout the state,” so they may issue warrants statewide	§ 40-1-106 merely identifies which officers are magistrates and does not expand their territorial jurisdiction	The statute is ambiguous but legislative history and related statutes show § 40-1-106 defines who is a magistrate, not jurisdiction; magistrate lacked authority to issue warrants outside his district
Whether the magistrate actually had some other lawful authority (e.g., interchange, designation) to act outside his district	Implicit claim that prior involvement (wiretap) and familiarity justified issuance; relied on Attorney General opinion	No interchange, appointment, designation, or other lawful ground was shown to authorize out-of-district action	No evidence of interchange/appointment/designation; magistrate was not authorized to act outside his district
Whether the warrants are merely voidable (procedural error) or void ab initio (constitutional defect requiring suppression)	Any error was non-constitutional (violation of rule/statute) and should not mandate suppression; good-faith or statutory exceptions apply	Warrants issued by someone without authority are void ab initio and searches violate Fourth Amendment and Tenn. Const. art. I, § 7	Because a magistrate lacking legal authority issued the warrants, they are void ab initio; searches were unconstitutional; suppression affirmed
Whether good-faith or statutory exceptions salvage the seized evidence	Evidence admissible under Tennessee’s Exclusionary Reform Act or the good-faith doctrine	Constitutional violation excludes application of those state statutory or limited good-faith exceptions	Neither Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-108 nor the Davidson good-faith exception applies to warrants invalid under the U.S./Tennessee Constitutions; evidence not saved

Key Cases Cited

Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1972) (states have flexibility in designating magistrates so long as they are neutral and detached)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (probable-cause standard for warrants)
United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1932) (warrants must derive from magistrates empowered to issue them)
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (Fourth Amendment embraces common-law protections at framing)
United States v. Krueger, 809 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2015) (warrants issued by unauthorized officials are void ab initio)
United States v. Master, 614 F.3d 236 (6th Cir. 2010) (warrant signed by one lacking authority is void)
State v. Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016) (limited good-faith exception for certain non-constitutional affidavit defects)
State v. Blye, 130 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. 2004) (persuasive precedent that a court lacked authority to issue a warrant for conduct outside its district)
State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017) (warrants require a neutral, detached magistrate and probable cause)