ComputerForensicsDigest.com

Brief Summary: Defendant was indicted on one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication and one count of vehicular homiced by recklessness. Both counts were based in part on data obtained by police from the vehicle's air bag sensor module. Prior to trial, defendant successfully moved to have the evidence suppressed and the State appealed.

Facts: Shannon Holladay was involved in a fatal car crash. During the investigation of the accident, Tennessee Highway Patrol officers retrieved data from the air bag sensor module in Holladay's vehicle. Holladay moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it was collected during a warrantless search of her vehicle.

Tennessee Highway Patrol Trooper Bill Fox testified at the suppression hearing that he was asked by a member of the investigating team to retrieve the sensor data. Fox said that he had been trained in the retrieval of the data, although this was the first time he had done so. Fox went to the wrecked vehicle, cut a 1-2 inch hole in the carpet by the front passenger's seat and used a laptop to download the sensor data. He testified that he did not obtain a warrant nor consider seeking one.

The trial court concluded that the facts of the case did not support any exception to the general requirement of a search warrant and granted the motion to suppress. The State appealed, arguing that Holladay had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the sensor module.

Issue(s): Whether the trial court erred in granting Holladay's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from air bag sensor module.

Ruling: The Court of Criminal Appeals did not reach the substance of the trial court's ruling, concluding instead that it had no jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal.

Rationale: Under Rule 3(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, the State may appeal of right only under limited circumstances. One such circumstance is where the trial court's decision has "the substantive effect of which results in dismissing an indictment, information, or complaint."

The State argued that the exclusion of the air bag sensor module data had that precise effect. However, the Court of Criminal Appeals pointed out that the sensor module data was not relevant to the first count, since it offered no data on Holladay's alleged intoxication. As for the second count regarding recklessness, the Court pointed out that the State could offer a wide array of other evidence, including accident reconstruction testimony. Thus, the exclusion of the evidence did not have the practical effecting of dismissing the indictments against Holladay.

The Court also declined to find extraordinary circumstances meriting suspension of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.