State v. McCraney

1 Citing case

  1. United States v. Collazo

    818 F.3d 247 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 121 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that further investigation was justified because the passenger's admission to purchasing prescription drugs from a relative established a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity

    A second line of cases holds that where the record does not include any information regarding the speed and following distance of the vehicle allegedly violating § 55–8–124(a), probable cause does not exist to stop the vehicle for following too closely. See United States v. Tullock, 578 Fed.Appx. 510, 513–14 (6th Cir.2014) (concluding that there was no probable cause in the absence of any testimony establishing either the speed of the vehicles or the distance between them); State v. Baldwin, No. W2011–02383–CCA–R3–CD, 2012 WL 1656285, at *3 (Tenn.Crim.App. May 10, 2012) (finding no reasonable suspicion—and thus necessarily no probable cause—where “there was no proof establishing the distance between the vehicles or the speed that they were travelling”); State v. McCraney, No. W2003–00011–CCA–R9–CD, 2003 WL 21998487, at *3–4 (Tenn.Crim.App. Aug. 22, 2003) (same). Although the above cases stake out the boundaries of the issue before us, they do not resolve the present case because Hill testified that Collazo's van was travelling approximately 70 miles per hour while maintaining a following distance of less than four car lengths behind the tractor-trailer.