Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Defense challenges stop for tint violation after firearm and drugs found; judge takes suppression motion under advisement

September 05, 2025 | Judge David D. Wolfe State of Tennessee, Judicial, Tennessee


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Defense challenges stop for tint violation after firearm and drugs found; judge takes suppression motion under advisement
Defense attorneys asked a judge to suppress evidence obtained after a parking‑lot encounter and search in the case of Ricky Joe Warren, arguing officers lacked the necessary articulable suspicion to approach and detain the vehicle on a window‑tint basis. The stop occurred in a Dollar General parking lot; officers later located a handgun in Warren’s waistband and controlled substances in the vehicle.

Deputy (Agent) Dave Norton and Detective Ronald Tilly of the 23rd Judicial District drug task force testified they were patrolling when they observed a red Chevrolet Tahoe with dark windows pull into the lot. Norton said he and Tilly approached; he recognized Warren from prior cases and asked whether he was on parole. Tilly testified he saw Warren’s hand on a pistol grip in his waistband as officers tried to get him out of the car, and Tilly removed the weapon. Officers later located controlled substances and paraphernalia; citations were issued to other occupants for paraphernalia and underage vaping.

Defense counsel argued the tint statute permits stops based on an officer’s belief but said that the belief standard is too subjective and effectively allows pretextual stops without a warrant or defined visual standard. The state relied on case law recognizing an officer’s experience in judging darker‑than‑legal tint, and on statutory language that authorizes a field test and detention where an officer reasonably believes the vehicle violates the tint rule. The judge took the motion under advisement, asked the parties to submit a supplemental brief on parole-search authority and constitutional limits, and set a brief timetable for filings before issuing a decision.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Tennessee articles free in 2025

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI