State of Tennessee v. Torrian Seantel Bishop

The Defendant, Torrian Seantel Bishop, negotiated a plea agreement with the State under which he entered a conditional guilty plea to unlawful possession of a weapon and theft of property but reserved for appellate review a certified question, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, regarding whether officers had probable cause to search his car. See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1564346 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2024) (Bishop I),case remanded (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2024). We concluded that the certified question was dispositive and that the officers had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the Defendant’s car based upon the officer’s smelling the odor of marijuana in the Defendant’s car. The Tennessee Supreme Court remanded the case for us to reconsider our decision in light of its decision in State v. Green, holding that the smell of marijuana could be considered as a factor in a totality of the circumstances analysis when determining whether an officer had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of acar.697 S.W.3d 634, 644 (Tenn. 2024). Upon reconsideration, we determined that the certified question was not dispositive and dismissed the appeal. See State v. Torrian Seantel Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 4798895, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2024)(Bishop II), perm. app. granted(Tenn. Mar.14, 2025). On appeal of that decision, our supreme court clarified the requirements for certified questions of law reserved for appeal as part of a conditional guilty plea, reversed our opinion in Bishop II, and remanded the case for this court to consider the merits of the certified question. See State v. Bishop, ---S.W.3d---, No. W2023-00713-SC-R11-CD, 2026 WL 2329478(Tenn. 2026)(Bishop III). Upon this remand, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.