Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Jerome Antonio McElrath

Tenn. Ct. App.March 12, 2019No. W2015-01794-SC-R11-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Justice Roger A. Page and Chief Justice Jeffrey S. Bivins, joins
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

We granted the State's permission to appeal in this case to determine whether to adopt, as a matter of state law, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009), and if so, whether the Herring good-faith exception permits introduction of the evidence in this case. A Union City police officer arrested the defendant without a warrant because he was on a list of individuals who had been "barred" from housing authority property. The list in question was maintained by the Union City Police Department. Upon performing a search incident to arrest, the officer seized marijuana from the defendant. Nineteen days later, the same officer arrested the defendant on the same property based on the same list and again seized marijuana from the defendant. It was later discovered that the list was incorrect and that the defendant's name should have been removed prior to the date of his arrests. The trial court suppressed the evidence in both cases, and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. The trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals based their decisions on Tennessee's not having yet adopted Herring's good-faith exception. Upon discretionary review, we adopt the good-faith exception as set forth by Herring but conclude that neither of the defendant's arrests falls within the good-faith exception. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a Union City police officer named Jerome Antonio McElrath who was arrested without a warrant because he appeared on a list of people who had been "barred" from a location. The case centered on whether evidence gathered during his arrest could be used against him in court, specifically focusing on what's called the "good-faith exception" to evidence rules. The Tennessee Court of Appeals ruled in McElrath's favor. The court had to decide whether to adopt a federal rule that sometimes allows illegally obtained evidence to be used in court if police officers acted in "good faith" - meaning they believed they were following proper procedures even if they made a mistake. The court ultimately determined that this exception should not apply in McElrath's case, meaning the evidence against him could not be used. This ruling matters for workers, especially those in law enforcement, because it reinforces protections against improper arrests and searches. It shows that even when officers believe they're acting correctly, there are still legal limits on how evidence can be gathered and used. The decision helps ensure that proper procedures must be followed, which protects everyone's rights in the workplace and beyond.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.