to suppression by way of the exclusionary rule. State v. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d 673, 679 (Tenn. 2016) (citations omitted); Echols, 382 S.W.3d at 277. Of course, these constitutional protections are implicated only if a search or seizure actually occurs. McCormick, 494 S.W.3d at 679. A consensual police-citizen encounter does not amount to a seizure and does not implicate the constitutional warrant’ requirement. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (“Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves ‘seizures’ of persons. Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclúde that a ‘seizure’ has occurred.”); McCormick, 494 S.W.3d at 679 (<HOLDING>). The point at which a consensual encounter
recognizing that a state courts adjudication  of private rights is not sufficient state action in the sense necessary to implicate constitutional protections recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights recognizing that deemed consolidation is consensual recognizing that consensual policecitizen encounters do not implicate constitutional protections holding that mandatory minimums do not implicate apprendi