State v. Ingram, 2011 Tenn. LEXIS 4

Two controlled crack cocaine buys were conducted by a confidential informant (CI) for the Drug Task Force; CI recorded at Hampton’s house, delivering $150 in cash for crack to the defendant’s supplier; the defendant is the CI’s nephew.
The first buy led officers to observe a white round-body Caprice and the defendant near Hampton’s residence; surveillance and DMV data tied the Caprice and defendant to the Saint Ann Street address.
A second controlled buy occurred about 45–60 minutes later at Hampton’s house; the CI did not see the defendant that time.
At the Shell station after the second buy, officers, with probable cause from surveillance and CI information, stopped the defendant for stop-sign violations and traffic issues, with children in the back seat.
Director Lane searched the defendant’s person without consent after stating probable cause to arrest for distribution; $621 in cash was found; a subsequent consent-based search of the residence yielded cocaine, marijuana, a pistol, and paraphernalia.
The defendant was advised of Miranda rights but was not in custody; later, a ten-count indictment was filed; the trial court denied suppression; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed in part, and this Court grants review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s person was valid as incident to arrest.	State—probable cause to arrest justified a search incident to arrest.	Ingram—no custodial arrest occurred; hence no valid search incident to arrest.	The warrantless search of the defendant’s person was invalid; no arrest occurred at the time.
Whether the warrantless search of the defendant’s residence was valid based on voluntary consent and not tainted by the prior illegal search.	State—consent to search residence was voluntary and independent of the prior search.	Ingram—consent tainted by the illegal search of the person.	Residence search was valid due to voluntary, attenuated consent.

State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn.2008) (warrantless searches presumptively invalid; recognizes exceptions to warrant rule)
State v. Berrios, 235 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn.2007) (consent search evaluated under voluntariness where not tainted by prior illegality)
Crutcher v. State, 989 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn.1999) (arrest must be imminent/contemporaneous with search to justify search incident to arrest)
Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113 (U.S.1998) (cannot justify search incident to arrest by probable cause alone; requires actual arrest)
Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (U.S.1975) (attenuation analysis for consensual searches after illegality; Brown factors)
Garcia, 123 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn.2003) (attenuation framework for tainted consensual searches)
Huddleston, 924 S.W.2d 666 (Tenn.1996) (discusses attenuation and misconduct considerations)
Rodriguez v. State, 254 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn.2008) (harmful error standard for improperly admitted evidence)
Brown (Tenn.), 311 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn.2010) (harmless error standard and evidentiary impact in suppression)
State v. Crutcher, 989 S.W.2d 295 (Tenn.1999) (see above)