The opinion
03/07/2025
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
January 21, 2025 Session
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD ANDREW ARCHEY
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Coffee County
No. 16CC1-2022-CR-48017 William A. Lockhart, Judge
___________________________________
No. M2024-00755-CCA-R9-CO
___________________________________
In this interlocutory appeal, the State asks us to review the trial court’s pretrial suppression
of data from the Defendant’s cell phone. Before searching the cell phone, law enforcement
officers sought and obtained a search warrant, which a magistrate authorized based upon
its finding that probable cause existed to support the search warrant. The Defendant filed
a motion to suppress the evidence found on the phone, and the trial court granted the
motion. The State asked for, and the trial court granted, an interlocutory appeal to review
the trial court’s ruling on the motion. After review, we reverse the trial court’s order
granting the Defendant’s motion to suppress.
Tenn. R. App. P. 9 Interlocutory Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court
Reversed
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT L.
HOLLOWAY, JR., and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.
Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Edwin Alan Groves, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General; and C. Craig Northcott, District Attorney General, for the appellant,
State of Tennessee.
Andrew Justice, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, for the appellee, Ronald Andrew Archey.
OPINION
I. Facts
This case arises from the killing of Logan Tindale and Chasity Hill, both of whom
were shot to death on September 18, 2021. In March 2022, the Coffee County grand jury
indicted the Defendant and co-defendant Blake Hickerson for two counts of first degree
murder, two counts of felony murder, one count of especially aggravated burglary, one
count of employment of a firearm during the commission or attempted commission of a
dangerous felony, one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and one count
of tampering with evidence.
On September 21, 2021, two days after the murder, law enforcement sought a search
warrant to search the Defendant’s cell phone. Investigator Brandon Reed, a criminal
investigator with the Coffee County Sheriff’s Department, submitted an affidavit in support
of the search warrant that read as follows:
On September 19th, 2021, Coffee County Sheriff’s deputies responded to [an
address in] Coffee County, TN, to a call of two people being shot. When
deputies arrived, they discovered the victims, Logan Tindale, and Chasity
Hill. Both victims were deceased when the deputies arrived. When
investigators arrived, it appeared that the victims suffered from gunshot
wounds.
During the course of the investigation, we learned of a suspect [the
Defendant] . . . through Ms. Kensey Nichole Smotherman. Ms. Smotherman
advised [that the Defendant] came to her residence on September 18th, 2021
and when she noticed him, he was standing at her bedroom doorway. Ms.
Smotherman advised she [was] unsure of when or how he got in the
residence. Ms. Smotherman advised he asked her several questions about
her where abouts along with Logan Tindale and Chasity Hill nights before.
Ms. Smotherman advised not long after [the Defendant] told her to come
outside and put her hands over her ears. Ms. Smotherman advised [the
Defendant] escorted her to a tree out front of the residence and he went inside
and she heard approx. 6 gunshots. Ms. Smotherman advised that [the
Defendant] came back out and le[d] her back into her bedroom when she
heard Ms. Chasity Hill say “don’t kill me” and she then heard another shot.
Ms. Smotherman advised [the Defendant] told her not to come out of her
bedroom and he left. During [the Defendant] being there he had mentioned
“two brothers being in the room with Mr. Tindale and Ms. Hill”. Ms.
Smotherman advised she didn’t come out of the bedroom until the next
morning (daylight) when she went straight to Ms. Saundra Perry’s residence
and told her about it. Ms. Perry went to the residence [where the shooting
occurred] and located Mr. Tindale and Ms. Hill deceased. Ms. Perry then
notified Police.
On this same date, Investigator Gullett and myself spoke with Ms.
Lisa Partin [the Defendant’s girlfriend] down the road from the crime scene.
We asked Partin about [the Defendant’s] where abouts and she advised she
2
hadn’t talked with him since the night before when he got mad at [a
neighbor’s residence] and walked away from the residence. Ms. Partin
advised me I could look through her phone. Upon looking through her call
log I noticed that she had spoke[n] with [the Defendant] on several occasions
on 09/18/21 through 09/19/2021. Ms. Partin had previously advised that [the
Defendant] had broke[n] his phone the night he got mad at [the neighbor’s]
residence.
Later in the evening on September 19th, 2021, [the Defendant] got into
contact with Deputy Kelly Smith (SRO Coffee County Sheriff’s Department)
and was inquiring [about] what was going on and said he heard Investigators
needed to speak with him. Deputy Smith advised him we needed to clarify
some stuff with him. [The Defendant] advised Deputy Smith where he was
and advised him to tell [Investigators] to come talk to him. [The Defendant]
advised Deputy Smith he was at his residence [in Hillsboro, Tennessee].
Investigator Brandon Gullett, Investigator John Anthony, Investigator
Blake Simmons, Investigator Jason Maloney and myself went to the
residence to make contact with [the Defendant]. We had already learned that
[the Defendant] was living in an outbuilding/shed on the back of the property
at [a house on] . . . A Street. I first attempted to make contact at the front
door [of the house] with no contact. We then went to the back yard where
the outbuilding/shed was when [the Defendant] came from the back of the
property through what appeared to be the B Street area. [The Defendant] did
advise while we were there and pointed out which outbuilding/shed he was
living in. [The Defendant] agreed to come to the Sheriff’s Department and
speak with us about this matter. While in route [the Defendant] was
mirandized (all recorded) and some questions w[ere] asked while in route.
Upon arrival at the Sheriff’s Department [the Defendant] was again
asked about the incident and he denied even being on the property with
Investigator Gullett and myself in the room. Sheriff Chad Partin then came
in and Investigator Gullett left and [the Defendant] still denied being at the
residence [where the shooting occurred]. Sheriff Partin and myself walked
out for approx. 20 minutes and went back in. Upon going back in [the
Defendant] advised us that he indeed did go to the property but was victim
of kidnap. [The Defendant] advised he was forced to go there by 2 unknown
masked men in a small black or blue car on B Street in Hillsboro, Tn. [The
Defendant] advised they told him he was going in the residence and he went
to Ms. Smotherman’s bedroom while the two unknown men were in the
3
hallway. [The Defendant] advised he was finally able to get Ms.
Smotherman to the front door but she wouldn’t leave. [The Defendant]
advised he heard and saw gunshots inside the residence but still couldn’t get
Ms. Smotherman to leave. [The Defendant] advised after the incident he left
[the scene of the shooting] and walked to his outbuilding/shed [on] A Street.
At one point I asked [the Defendant] about his jacket he had on and he
advised the jacket he was wearing the night of the incident was in his
outbuilding/shed and that it was a zip up jacket with a hood dark blue in
color. While speaking with [the Defendant] he gave me consent to look in
his phone. [The Defendant] had made several phone calls on Facebook
Messenger after [when he said] the incident happened. [The Defendant] at
this point advised he didn’t want to answer anything else until his attorney
arrived.
On September 20th, 2021, Investigator Gullet and Investigator James
Sherrill went . . . and spoke with Ms. Lisa Partin [the Defendant’s girlfriend]
again. While speaking with Ms. Partin she advised Investigators that [the
Defendant] told her that [victim] Tindale was in his vehicle when he arrived
and he took him back inside. [The Defendant] then told her that [victim]
Chasity [Hill] begged him not to shoot her and she (Hill) gave him no choice.
[The Defendant] told Ms. Partin that he took care of business. Ms. Partin
advised the shotgun in question was a brown sawed off shotgun which she
saw prior to [the Defendant] going to [the scene of the shooting]. Ms. Partin
advised the shotgun would be in a tote or in the truck around back which she
saw [the Defendant] carrying away from the outbuilding/shed towards the
C10 truck.
The affiant, Officer Reed, then stated that “through [his] training and experience [he
knew] that” people kept “information stored on their phones such as text messages about
evidence, videos, photos/images of the evidence, call logs to and from people involved,
locations and other important evidence . . . .” He asserted that the Defendant’s phone
“possibly has important information (data) relating to the crime of First Degree Murder.”
The magistrate agreed and issued a search warrant for the Defendant’s phone for
evidence pertaining to the crime(s) of first degree murder and other related offenses. It
allowed the phone to be subject to a complete forensic examination.
When examining the phone, law enforcement officers found phone calls and text
messages between the Defendant’s phone and the alleged getaway driver, Lexie Anderson,
4
who the State believed was using co-defendant Hickerson’s cell phone to communicate
with the Defendant.
On November 8, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to suppress the data gathered
from his cell phone. In the motion, he acknowledged that he was “likely present [at the
crime scene] in some capacity” but said that there was conflicting evidence about whether
he shot either victim. He contended that the affidavit did not establish probable cause
because it made “little or no effort to show any probable cause that damning evidence
would be found in the phone.” He asserted that the search warrant was defective for lack
of probable cause because the affidavit never tied the crime to the cell phone. He asserted
that because there was no nexus between the crime and the cell phone, the Fourth
Amendment required suppression of the evidence gleaned from the search.
At a hearing on the motion, the Defendant’s counsel (“Counsel”) argued that the
evidence from the cell phone should be suppressed because “there [was] just an utter lack
of probable cause in the search warrant affidavit . . . .” Counsel agreed that the Defendant’s
girlfriend, Ms. Partin, and Ms. Smotherman provided probable cause that the Defendant
committed the crimes but he argued that there was no nexus in the affidavit that supported
the search of the phone.
The State informed the trial court that some of the messages at issue were also
available to the State because the State had received copies from a third party. From the
Defendant’s phone, the State sought to introduce the phone call log and three relevant texts.
The State recounted the standard of review, which required the trial court to give the
magistrate’s determination great deference. The State noted that the affidavit included that
a witness, Ms. Smotherman, placed the Defendant at the scene of the shooting on the day
of the shooting and around the time of the shooting and that cell phones have the ability to
track location, meaning the cell phone data could confirm the witness’s account. Further,
Ms. Smotherman indicated that the Defendant said there were two other brothers in the
room with the victims. The cell phone data would show whether there was communication
between those brothers and the Defendant around the time of the murder. The State also
noted that the affidavit indicated that the affiant had spoken with the Defendant’s girlfriend,
Ms. Partin, who showed him her phone and indicated that she had spoken with the
Defendant around the time of the murders. Ms. Partin was also the mother of one of the
victims.
The State noted that the affidavit indicated that the Defendant used his cell phone
to call law enforcement to come in for questioning. He then spoke with officers and told
them that he was not at the scene of the shooting. This made location tracking important,
as indicated in the affidavit. The State said the trial court was within its discretion when it
5
used a commonsense inference that the Defendant may have had his cell phone with him
at the time of the offense and that the cell phone data would show whether he was at the
location of the shooting.
The trial court then stated:
The issue that I’m running into is getting into the reasonableness of that
inference because if you take that to its fullest extent you can search anyone’s
cell phone at any time that is involved in any crime if you can establish
probable cause that they are involved in whatever crime.
The trial court expressed concern that this was too broad an implication. The State said
that case law required that the trial court make a reasonable inference as to whether there
would be useful information on the cell phone to be searched. The State also noted that
the Defendant granted law enforcement consent to look at his phone, which showed he had
made several calls on Facebook Messenger shortly after the shooting.
The State also argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because law
enforcement officers relied upon it in good faith. Had it been denied, the officers could
have presented additional evidence to bolster the necessity of the search warrant. It further
noted that, if the trial court granted the motion to suppress, the State could also then file a
second affidavit to search the cell phone, which was still in its possession, based upon the
other evidence gathered during the investigation.
After further argument, the State asked to make an offer of proof regarding what it
found on the cell phone that it would seek to introduce at trial. The trial court took that
request under advisement, but the court ultimately did not allow the State to make an offer
of proof.
On February 29, 2024, the trial court issued a written order granting the Defendant’s
motion to suppress. The order stated:
[T]he Defendant argues that the search warrant lacked probable cause
inasmuch as there was not a reasonable nexus to the crime being investigated
and the Defendant[’]s cell phone. After a review of the warrant, pleadings
and argument of counsel the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons outlined
below.
The warrant in question was obtained by Inv. Brandon Reed on
September 21, 2021. It was introduced as an exhibit to the hearing. The
6
warrant lays out thoroughly the probable cause that Defendant was at the
residence when the killings occurred. This is based in large part . . . on his
admission to being there during an interrogation.
However, the warrant itself is for the electronic cellular telephone data
of the Defendant. In the affidavit the only reference to a cell phone is to
communications with Lisa Partin, the Defendant[’s] girlfriend, and that he
had used Facebook Messenger to make some calls in the days following the
killings. These assertions alone do not show a nexus between the crime and
the place to be searched, here the phone, as is required.
The State argues essentially if you are suspected of a crime and own
a cell phone, that the reasonable inference is that you would carry that cell
phone with you during the crime and it would likely have evidence of a crime
or communication of the crime following the crime. The Court believes that
is not a reasonable inference and that the Fourth Amendment requires more
specific and articulable facts of why information pertaining to the crime
would be on the phone.
On April 1, 2024, the State sought an interlocutory appeal to the trial court. The
trial court granted the motion and certified the following issue for interlocutory appeal:
Whether the trial court erred by suppressing all data from the [D]efendant’s
cell phone after finding that the search warrant affidavit failed to establish
probable cause.
This court considered all of the criteria expressed in Rule 9 of the Tennessee Rules of
Appellate Procedure, which provides for interlocutory appeals, and agreed with the trial
court that the State’s application should be granted.
II. Analysis
On appeal, the State asserts that the trial court erred when it granted the Defendant’s
motion to suppress because the affidavit provided probable cause. Further, even if not, the
law enforcement officers reasonably relied upon the magistrate’s determination that
probable cause existed. The Defendant contends that the trial court correctly ruled that his
motion to suppress should be granted because there was no probable cause to support the
warrant.
7
In reviewing a motion to suppress, this Court is bound by the trial court’s findings
of fact unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. Saine, 297 S.W.3d 199,
205 (Tenn. 2009); State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tenn. 2001). We are mindful that
“[q]uestions of credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value of the evidence, and
resolution of conflicts in the evidence are matters entrusted to the trial judge as the trier of
fact.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996). The prevailing party in the trial
court is afforded “the strongest legitimate view of the evidence adduced at the suppression
hearing as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that
evidence.” Id. While we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact, the application of the
law to those facts is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo with no
presumption of correctness. Saine, 297 S.W.3d at 205 (citing State v. Yeargan, 958 S.W.2d
626, 629 (Tenn. 1997)). We also review the trial court’s conclusions of law de novo. Id.
(citing State v. Carter, 160 S.W.3d 526, 531 (Tenn. 2005)).
Both the federal and state constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Article I, section 7 of the
Tennessee Constitution similarly guarantees “[t]hat the people shall be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures.” These
constitutional provisions are “identical in intent and purpose.” State v. Hamm, 589 S.W.3d
765, 771 (Tenn. 2019). “[U]nder both the federal constitution and our state constitution, a
search without a warrant is presumptively unreasonable, and any evidence obtained
pursuant to such a search is subject to suppression unless the state demonstrates that the
search was conducted under one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant
requirement.” State v. Cox, 171 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tenn. 2005).
In this case, law enforcement sought, and a magistrate granted, a search warrant.
The Defendant contends that the search warrant for his residence was unsupported by
probable cause because it failed to establish a sufficient nexus between his cell phone and
the murder. Generally, courts will presume that a search was reasonable if it was conducted
pursuant to a valid warrant. State v. McElrath, 569 S.W.3d 565, 570 (Tenn. 2019). A
sworn and written affidavit containing allegations from which a magistrate may determine
whether probable cause exists is an “indispensable prerequisite” to the issuance of a search
warrant. State v. Henning, 975 S.W.2d 290, 294 (Tenn. 1998). The affidavit must present
facts from which a “‘neutral and detached magistrate, reading the affidavit in a common
sense and practical manner’” may determine the existence of probable cause for issuance
of the search warrant. Carter, 160 S.W.3d at 533 (quoting Henning, 975 S.W.2d at 294).
“To ensure that the magistrate exercises independent judgment, the affidavit must contain
more than mere conclusory allegations by the affiant.” Henning, 975 S.W.2d at 294. The
8
probable cause determination of a neutral and detached magistrate is “entitled to ‘great
deference’ by a reviewing court.” State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430, 431-32 (Tenn. 1989).
To establish probable cause, the affidavit must show a nexus among the criminal
activity, the place to be searched, and the items to be seized. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 247,
273 (Tenn. 2002); State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 572 (Tenn. 1993). In determining
whether the nexus has been sufficiently established, we “consider whether the criminal
activity under investigation was an isolated event or a protracted pattern of conduct [,] . . .
the nature of the property sought, the normal inferences as to where a criminal would hide
the evidence, and the perpetrator’s opportunity to dispose of incriminating evidence.”
Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 275; see also Smith, 868 S.W.2d at 572. Our supreme court has upheld
a magistrate’s determination where the magistrate “could reasonably infer” that evidence
was in the location for which the search warrant was sought. Saine, 297 S.W.3d at 206.
In determining whether probable cause supports the issuance of a search warrant,
reviewing courts may consider only the affidavit and may not consider other evidence
provided to or known by the issuing magistrate or possessed by the affiant. Carter, 160
S.W.3d at 533. The affidavit in this case did not contain direct information connecting the
object of the search, the cell phone, with the murder. The affidavit did not state, for
example, that there would likely be pictures of the victims contained on the phone. We
must therefore determine whether it was reasonable for the magistrate to infer that
information connecting the Defendant to the location of the murders and communications
with others involved in the murders would be located on the Defendant’s cell phone.
“Articulating precisely what probable cause means is not possible. Probable cause
is more than a mere suspicion but less than absolute certainty. [T]he strength of the
evidence necessary to establish probable cause . . . is significantly less than the strength of
evidence necessary to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 299-300
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). When an affidavit is proffered to show
probable cause for a search warrant, “it must ‘set forth facts from which a reasonable
conclusion might be drawn that the evidence is in the place to be searched.’” State v. Tuttle,
515 S.W.3d 282, 300 (Tenn. 2017) (quoting State v. Smith, 868 S.W.2d 561, 562 (Tenn.
1993)). Thus, to prove probable cause exists, “the affidavit presented to the magistrate
must demonstrate a nexus between the criminal activity, the place to be searched, and the
items to be seized.” Id.
Giving deference to the magistrate, we conclude that it did not err when it
determined that the affidavit provided probable cause to support the search warrant. The
affidavit provided a sufficient nexus between the murders and a search of the cell phone.
The affidavit included the statement of a witness, Ms. Smotherman, who said that the
9
Defendant was at the scene of the murders when they occurred. The Defendant asked Ms.
Smotherman about where she, victim Tindale and victim Hill had been in the nights before
the shooting. He then walked the victim outside, told her to put her hands over her ears,
went back into the residence, and Ms. Smotherman heard six gunshots. The Defendant
escorted Ms. Smotherman back inside the house where she heard Ms. Hill say, “don’t kill
me.” She then heard another gunshot. The Defendant told Ms. Smotherman that there
were “two brothers” in the room with the victims.
The affidavit also included statements from the Defendant’s girlfriend, Ms. Partin.
Ms. Partin offered her phone to law enforcement officers who saw that the Defendant had
communicated with Ms. Partin by phone on several occasions on the day of the murder
before it occurred and the day after the murder. In a subsequent interview, Ms. Partin said
that the Defendant admitted shooting Ms. Hill. He also told her that Mr. Tindale was in
his vehicle when the Defendant arrived, and the Defendant took Mr. Tindale inside. Ms.
Partin said that she had seen the Defendant with a sawed-off shotgun.
The affidavit also detailed how the Defendant contacted investigators two days after
the shooting, using his cell phone. The Defendant spoke with two different sets of
investigators and twice denied being present at the shooting scene. He later changed his
story and said that he was present when the gunshots were fired but that he had been
kidnapped by two unknown masked men and taken to the residence. At first, the Defendant
gave officers consent to look at his phone, which showed that he had made several phone
calls using Facebook Messenger after the killings occurred.
The affidavit specifically said that affiant Investigator Reed, through training and
experience, knew that there could be valuable information stored on cell phones, including
evidence of text messages and evidence about locations. The affiant posited that the cell
phone belonging to the Defendant possibly had important data on it.
Applying the standard that the probable cause determination of a neutral and
detached magistrate is “entitled to ‘great deference’ by a reviewing court,” see Jacumin,
778 S.W.2d at 431-32, we conclude that the facts contained in the application for the search
warrant established a substantial basis on which the magistrate could conclude that
evidence of the Defendant’s “location” i.e. his presence and involvement in the murder
would be found on his phone. See id. The Defendant’s location at the scene of the murder
was clearly at issue. Ms. Smotherman placed him there, the Defendant at first denied being
present, but he later said he was present as a kidnapping victim. The Defendant offered
officers his phone, which showed he used it before and after the murders. Ms. Partin
showed that the Defendant had communicated with her by phone before and after the
murder. The magistrate did not err when it determined that the evidence in the affidavit
10
was sufficient to demonstrate a nexus between the Defendant’s location information which
could be found on his cell phone and his involvement in the crimes.
Further, the magistrate did not err when it reasonably inferred that there existed
probable cause based upon the sufficient nexus between the murders and the Defendant’s
phone, sufficient to establish probable cause, based upon the Defendant’s cell phone usage.
The affidavit states that the Defendant communicated with Ms. Partin via that phone before
and after the murder. It is reasonable to assume he had his phone with him between those
communications and during the murders. The affidavit also states that the murders were
committed by multiple people, one of whom was the Defendant, and it is reasonable to
assume that they communicated via cell phone around the time of the murders.
We acknowledge the trial court’s concern that giving law enforcement over-broad
access to potential suspect’s cell phone data may implicate constitutional protections. We,
however, do not think that the magistrate’s decision in this case lacked probable cause.
Accordingly, we hold that the search warrant for the Defendant’s phone was supported by
probable cause, and we reverse the trial court’s suppression of the evidence obtained during
that search.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the aforementioned reasoning and authorities, the trial court’s
ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
______S/ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER__
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE
11