In re Amendments to the Tenn. Rules of Crim. Procedure, 2018 Tenn. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 9, 2018):
Advisory Commission Comments .
The 2018 amendment removes the word “shall” and inserts “may” in the section of the rule regarding the exclusion of evidence, and makes Rule 41 more consistent with recent statutory changes, see 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 252 codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-108, and recent case law, see State v. Reynolds, 504 S.W.3d 283, 313 (Tenn. 2016) (recognizing a good-faith exception to the judicially created exclusionary rule, which permits the introduction of evidence obtained “when the law enforcement officers’ action is in objectively reasonable good faith reliance on binding appellate precedent that specifically authorizes a particular police practice” [italics added]); see also State v. Tuttle, 515 S.W.3d 282, 308 (Tenn. 2017) (negligent mistakes in wording of search warrant insufficient to invalidate search warrant). In Reynolds, the Tennessee Supreme Court also clarified that Rule 41, a procedural rule, does not provide greater protection than applicable substantive law on the exclusionary rule and its exceptions. The amendment makes clear that this procedural rule does not take precedence over applicable substantive law related to the exclusionary rule and its exceptions.