Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals hears arguments on suppression and forfeiture in State v. Flamini

The Court of Criminal Appeals heard argument in State of Tennessee v. Michael Flamini over whether evidence seized during a traffic stop should have been suppressed and whether later forfeiture proceedings were improperly used at trial.

Appellant counsel Jonathan Harwell told the three-judge panel the key Fourth Amendment question was “pulling out of the car, holding on to him, putting the handcuffs on him, and the pat frisk,” and argued those steps happened “before the officer testifies he sees the suspicious item in the seat of the car.” Harwell said the state never argued plain‑view at trial and that the state’s theory on appeal (search incident to arrest) represented a new, post‑trial theory not supported by the suppression‑hearing evidence. He also argued the arresting officer did not attempt to verify Flamini’s identity before handcuffing…