State of Tennessee v. Lindsey Brooke Lowe, 552 S.W.3d 842

Background

Lindsey Brooke Lowe gave birth secretly to twin boys at home; both infants were later found dead in a laundry basket and Lowe confessed to smothering them during an interview with Detective Malach.
Police obtained a search warrant for the Lowe residence; the judge signed three copies but mistakenly wrote “PM” on one copy and “AM” on the other two. Officers executed the warrant and seized evidence.
Lowe moved to suppress (1) the evidence seized under the warrant (arguing Rule 41 required three exact copies) and (2) her statement to Detective Malach (arguing Miranda and voluntariness defects).
Trial court denied both suppression motions, relying in part on the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act (Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-108) to avoid suppression for the clerical error; jury convicted Lowe of murder and aggravated child abuse.
Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review to decide (a) constitutionality of the ERRA under separation of powers, (b) whether Rule 41 technical defects require suppression, and (c) admissibility issues concerning defense experts and Lowe’s statement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lowe)	Held
1. Is the ERRA constitutional under Tennessee separation of powers?	ERRA is a valid legislative supplement permitting exclusionary-rule exceptions and can be read to supplement Rule 41.	ERRA improperly usurps this Court’s judicial authority to craft the exclusionary rule and its exceptions.	ERRA violates Tennessee Constitution’s Separation of Powers Clause and is unconstitutional.
2. Should evidence be suppressed for Rule 41 copy/time clerical discrepancy (AM/PM on one copy)?	Even without ERRA, a narrow good-faith exception should apply to harmless clerical errors by a magistrate; the State bears burden to show good faith and no prejudice.	Technical noncompliance with Rule 41 (exact copies) mandates suppression per precedent (strict enforcement).	Adopted a narrow good-faith exception: magistrate’s simple, good-faith clerical error producing an inconsequential variance does not require suppression; State must prove good faith and lack of prejudice. Evidence admitted.
3. Was Lowe’s postarrest expert (Dr. Auble) improperly excluded at suppression hearing?	The expert’s delayed exam and failure to review the interview made her opinion unreliable.	Testimony would show impaired understanding/voluntariness; trial court should have allowed question-and-answer offer of proof.	Trial court erred by not allowing Q&A offer of proof but exclusion of Auble’s testimony was not reversible error (report admitted under seal; opinion unreliable due to timing and lack of interview review).
4. Was Lowe in custody for Miranda purposes; was her confession voluntary; was defense expert (Dr. Kenner) properly excluded at trial?	Interview was non-custodial; Miranda warnings not required before initial questioning; Lowe’s waiver and statements were voluntary; Dr. Kenner’s trial testimony on reliability was not reliable or sufficiently founded.	Lowe contends she was effectively in custody (locked car doors, isolated interview), so Miranda required; also argues her waiver/incrimination were involuntary; seeks to admit Kenner’s testimony attacking reliability.	Trial court did not err: objective custody factors show not in custody; Miranda not required pre-interview; statements voluntary; exclusion of Kenner’s trial testimony on reliability was within discretion (insufficient foundation, methodological concerns).

Key Cases Cited

Hampton v. State, 252 S.W. 1007 (Tenn. 1923) (early Tennessee application of exclusionary rule for defective warrants)
Talley v. State, 345 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn. 1961) (statutory requirement for exact copies and strict enforcement)
State v. Coffee, 54 S.W.3d 231 (Tenn. 2001) (Rule 41 procedural safeguards and strict construction)
State v. Bobadilla, 181 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 2005) (endorsement of issuance time required; failure invalidates warrant)
State v. Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016) (adoption of a limited good-faith exception for officer clerical errors on affidavits)
State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283 (Tenn. 2016) (describing exclusionary rule as judicially crafted and the Court’s authority to adopt exceptions)