Nashville, Tenn. – The Tennessee Supreme Court today held that the warrantless seizure of a firearm did not violate the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that the firearm was seized properly under the “plain view exception.” Seizures made without first obtaining a warrant generally are considered unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and any evidence seized as a result of a warrantless seizure cannot be used at trial. However, there are a few exceptions including the plain view exception which states that law enforcement officers who see incriminating evidence in plain view may seize the evidence without first obtaining a warrant, and the item may be admitted into evidence at trial.
In this case, an officer of the Jackson Police Department responded to a report of an automobile accident and discovered the vehicle located on the wrong side of the road and partially in the front yard of a residence. After seeing a handgun in the passenger seat of the car and discovering shortly thereafter that the driver, Ambreia Washington, was a felon, the officer arrested him and seized the firearm. Washington was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Before trial, Washington moved to suppress the firearm as evidence because the officer seized it without obtaining a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, and the Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court affirmed Washington’s conviction. In its analysis, the Court noted the elements necessary to satisfy the plain view exception, including the requirement that the incriminating character of the evidence must be “immediately apparent.” The Court clarified that this element is not a strict temporal requirement. The Court thus concluded that the officer lawfully seized the handgun even though he learned that Washington was a felon a few moments after first seeing the firearm in the passenger seat. Accordingly, the firearm was admissible into evidence.
Justice Dwight E. Tarwater joined in the Court’s opinion and wrote a separate concurring opinion to further address the plain view doctrine’s “immediately apparent” requirement and its interplay among the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
To read the unanimous opinion in State v. Ambreia Washington, authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins, and the separate concurring opinion authored by Justice Dwight Tarwater, visit the Supreme Court opinions section of TNCourts.gov.