Legal Opinion

State v. Blye

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 2004No. E2001-01227-SC-R11-CDPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., J.,

delivered the opinion of the court,

in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., and E. RILEY ANDERSON, JANICE M. HOLDER, and WILLIAM M. BARKER, JJ., joined.

We granted permission to appeal in this case to consider whether the Sixth Amendment entitles the defendant to participate, through counsel, in the determination of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant to seize a sample of the defendant’s blood. Because we find that the defendant has no such entitlement, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

I. Facts and Procedural History

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Kirby v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Coleman v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. Maine v. MoultonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. United States v. AshSupreme Court of the United States · 1973

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. RollinsTennessee Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Anthony H. Dean v. State of TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2006
  3. Blye v. TennesseeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Larry Wade v. State of TennesseeCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2018
  5. State of Tennessee v. Kevin Dewitt Ford and Clifford Sylvester WrightCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 2005

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API