State of Tennessee v. Calvin Cathey - Dissenting

I must dissent from the holding of the majority that the search warrant, despite its failure to name the city in which it is to be executed, nevertheless identifies Appellant’s residence with sufficient specificity. As noted by the majority, the federal and state constitutions as well as statutory law require that a search must particularly describe the place to be searched. U.S. Const. amend. IV; Tenn. Const. art. I, § 7; T.C.A. § 40-6-103. The majority also correctly points out that this “specificity” requirement is met if the description of the place to be searched “particularly points to a definitely ascertainable place so as to exclude all others, and enables the officer to locate the place to be searched with reasonable certainty without leaving it to his discretion.” State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 572 (Tenn. 1993) (citing Hatchett v. State, 346 S.W.2d 259, 259 (Tenn. 1961); State v. Cannon, 634 S.W.2d 648, 650 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982)).