An appellate panel in Tennessee heard arguments in the appeal of Steve May on whether police conducted unconstitutional, warrantless entries onto private property and whether evidence seized after those entries should have been suppressed.

In opening argument, defense counsel Daniel Turclay framed the case as a narrow dispute about the limits of police entry: "This is a case about a man and a dog," he said, describing a late‑night call about a man petting a homeowner's dog and a subsequent police encounter with a red Jeep on private land. Turclay told the panel the officers entered past fencing and a "no trespassing" sign, did not identify themselves, and that the operation involved three separate incursions — the initial approach, a later SRT return about 30–45 minutes later, and a warrantless breach of the dwelling where officers found Miss Hale with rifles. "Not 1, not 2, but 3 unconstitutional incursions," Turclay said, urging suppression of evidence obtained after those entries.

The state, represented in the record by counsel who identified himself as Alan Groves, urged the court to affirm. Groves argued the defendant lacks standing to challenge the initial entry because, he said, the defendant testified at trial that he lived in DeKalb County and that the property belonged to his girlfriend. "Our position is that the defendant lacks standing," Groves told the panel, and he urged the court to apply the open‑fields doctrine rather than treat the area as curtilage protected by the Fourth Amendment. Groves summarized the curtilage test — proximity to the home, enclosure, nature of use and steps taken to exclude view — and said the record shows only a waist‑high mesh fence and a metal cable at the entrance, not steps sufficient to create protected curtilage.

The panel pressed both sides on key factual points. Judges queried whether photographs in the record accurately reflected conditions at the time of the incident, and they explored whether the shots fired during the encounter and the later SRT entry could legitimately be treated as exigent circumstances or hot pursuit. Defense counsel emphasized the roughly 30–45 minute gap before the SRT returned and said that delay undercuts any hot‑pursuit justification. The state replied that trial briefing and parts of the suppression hearing were read as conceding exigent‑circumstances issues below, and argued waiver on appeal.

The court also heard competing arguments on the appellant's speedy‑trial claim. The state noted gaps in the trial record (including an absence of a transcript for certain pretrial motion hearings), an attorney withdrawal in August 2019 and disruptions caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic, and argued the claim was waived or, at minimum, not prejudicial given acquittals on many charged offenses. Defense counsel replied that at least one continuance immediately before trial was state‑caused and disputed the waiver theory.

The panel did not rule from the bench. After oral argument the court thanked counsel and said it would issue an opinion in due course. The argument record will form the basis for the panel's written disposition on standing, whether any of the entries were justified as exigent circumstances or hot pursuit, and whether any record gaps preclude appellate review of the speedy‑trial claim.

Next steps: the Court of Appeals will issue a written decision resolving the standing and suppression questions and addressing whether the speedy‑trial claim is reviewable on the present record.