PC not shown between informant’s observations and possible theft. “Here, there is no indication that the items described by the informant were consistent with the description of the items taken from the victim. The document failed to establish a nexus between the crimes against the victim and the place to be searched. As conceded by the state, the affidavit in support of the search warrant did not establish probable cause and was, therefore, improperly issued.” The items can hardly be considered to be “voluntarily surrendered” in the face of a warrant that turns out to be invalid. Consent as a fall back position for the state also failed because of the absence of evidence in the record from which anyone could conclude that the alleged consent was voluntary. Since the state carried the burden on that, it failed. State v. Anderson, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 628 (August 17, 2006).<\/p>\n
Search issue was resolved in first appeal, and it would not be revisited after retrial and in the second appeal. State v. Vaughan, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 630 (August 16, 2006):<\/p>\n
Under the “law of the case” doctrine, when an initial appeal results in a remand back to the trial court, the decision of the appellate court established the law of the case, which must be followed on remand by a trial court and an appellate court upon a second trial and appeal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
PC shown under TN’s Aguilar-Spinelli<\/em> standard. In executing search warrant for counterfeiting evidence, search of necessity will take officers into closed places. State v. Lewis, 2006 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 634 (August 16, 2006):<\/p>\n
During their authorized search for the above extensive list of items connected to the suspected counterfeit check operation, the officers would necessarily have opened dresser drawers, searched in closets and shelves, and looked under furniture, thereby uncovering not only the original bag of cocaine but also the other items, including the police scanner, plastic bags, and scales, which Agent Robbins testified that he recognized from his experience as associated with the sale of illegal drugs. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evGMco.b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading