Appellate panel hears challenge to warrantless search after wreck; defense seeks suppression of firearm evidence

Summary

On appeal in Jeffrey Lane's case, defense counsel William Gill argued the seizure of a handgun from a wrecked, towed vehicle violated the Fourth Amendment and that the conviction for unlawful possession should be set aside; the state countered that inevitable discovery and an ongoing DUI investigation would have led to the firearm's discovery.

William Gill, an attorney with the public defender's appellate division representing appellant Jeffrey Lane, told an appellate panel that the handgun and other items seized from a wrecked car were obtained through a warrantless search and that Tennessee law requires suppression of that evidence.

“My understanding is it's now undisputed that that did not provide probable cause,” Gill said of officers' claimed plain‑view observation, and he urged the court to “reverse the judgment of the trial court and set aside Mister Lane's conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.”

The central dispute at argument was whether the officers' conduct fit any recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. Gill urged the court not to adopt a federal‑style public‑safety exception in Tennessee, saying, “no court in Tennessee no Tennessee court has ever recognized this exception to the warrant requirement,” and that the state waived the argument by failing to raise it below. He also pressed that the trial court relied primarily on a plain‑view rationale…

Appellate panel hears challenge to warrantless search after wreck; defense seeks suppression of firearm evidence

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading