“[T]he prosecution has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the police officer or agency responsible for the broadcast, bulletin or flyer had a reasonable suspicion, supported by specific facts, that a criminal offense had been, or was about to be, committed before the acts of the officer relying upon the information can be said to be legal.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he prosecution has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the police officer or agency responsible for the broadcast, bulletin or flyer had a reasonable suspicion, supported by specific facts, that a criminal offense had been, or was about to be, committed before the acts of the officer relying upon the information can be said to be legal.”
- findings on a motion to suppress evidence seized in a search
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO REHEAR
The appellee, Steven Moore, has filed a petition to rehear pursuant to Rule 39, Tenn.R.App.P. The appellee alleges that the opinion of this Court “overlooks or misapprehends a material fact or proposition of law, and the opinion relies upon matters of fact or law upon which the parties have not been heard and are open to reasonable dispute.” The appellee further alleges that the opinion is in conflict with existing law. We disagree.
This Court is satisfied that the correct result was reached as to each issue raised by the appellee. Accordingly, the petition to rehear is denied.
(s) Jerry Scott JERRY SCOTT, JUDGE
(s) Joe B. Jones JOE B. JONES, JUDGE
(s) Allen R. Cornelius ALLEN R. CORNELIUS, JR. S.J.