State of Tennessee v. Kenneth McCormick
494 S.W.3d 673
Tenn.2016Background
- At 2:45 a.m. Sgt. Trivette observed a Tahoe blocking ~75% of a grocery-store entrance with engine running, lights on; the driver (McCormick) was slumped over the wheel.
- Trivette parked behind the Tahoe, activated rear blue lights for safety, approached for a welfare check, opened the door after tapping windows, smelled alcohol, and found an open beer; McCormick was unsteady and failed field sobriety tests.
- McCormick was arrested for DUI, refused blood testing, and inventory of the car revealed additional beers and a prescription Xanax.
- Trial court denied McCormick’s suppression motion, concluding the stop was a community-caretaking welfare check; jury convicted McCormick of first-offense DUI.
- On appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court the State asked the Court to revisit State v. Moats; the Court granted review and reconsidered Moats’ limitation of the community-caretaking doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer's parking behind car and activating rear blue lights was a "seizure" | (State) Implicitly contended it did not require Hodari D. standard here; alternatively, relied on community caretaking | McCormick: activation and positioning amounted to a seizure that lacked reasonable suspicion | Court assumed seizure for analysis and did not resolve Hodari D. adoption; proceeded to assess exception applicability |
| Whether community-caretaking doctrine is limited to consensual encounters under Tennessee law | State: urged Court to overrule Moats and treat community caretaking as an exception to warrant requirement | McCormick: argued seizure lacked reasonable suspicion and exception did not apply | Court overruled Moats and held community-caretaking is an exception to warrant requirements under federal and Tennessee constitutions |
| What test governs community-caretaking exception | State urged adoption of exception with appropriate limits | McCormick urged maintaining Moats limitation to consensual encounters | Court adopted a two-part objective test: (1) specific, articulable facts objectively warranting a caretaking action; and (2) officer's conduct and intrusion reasonably tailored to the caretaking need |
| Application of the exception to facts (welfare check → field sobriety) | State: officer reasonably performed welfare check and subsequent detention justified | McCormick: argues initial seizure lacked reasonable suspicion; evidence should be suppressed | Court held Trivette had objectively reasonable grounds for a welfare-check caretaking action and that intrusion was appropriately tailored; by time of tests officer had at least reasonable suspicion; suppression denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U.S. 433 (recognizing police "community caretaking" functions and upholding warrantless vehicle search as reasonable)
- State v. Moats, 403 S.W.3d 170 (Tenn. 2013) (prior Tennessee decision limiting community caretaking to consensual encounters — expressly overruled)
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (Fourth Amendment ‘‘objective reasonableness’’ and irrelevance of officer's subjective intent)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (2011) (warrant requirement generally inferred; reasonableness is the Fourth Amendment touchstone)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (defining seizure by force or submission to authority — discussed but not adopted)
- State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. 2008) (framework for three tiers of police-citizen interactions and seizure analysis)