State of Tennessee v. David Walter Troxell

Summary

In this dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Frank F. Drowota argued that a vehicle search did not exceed the defendant’s consent to search for weapons “in the vehicle.” He concluded that examining the truck’s undercarriage and gas tank was objectively reasonable because weapons could be concealed there, and would have affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, consent to search for weapons "in the vehicle" objectively encompassed all areas in the vehicle that could contain or conceal weapons, including the undercarriage and gas tank; the search therefore did not exceed the scope of consent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a motorist's consent to search for weapons "in the vehicle" objectively permits officers to inspect areas of the vehicle, including the undercarriage and gas tank, that could contain or conceal weapons.
2. Whether the defendant's failure to object to the breadth of the search indicated that the search remained within the scope of the consent.

Disposition

other