interpreted as generally requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before undertaking a search or seizure. See Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452, 459, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) (stating that under the Fourth Amendment “a warrant must generally be secured”); State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710, 722 (Tenn. 2008) (“[A]s a general matter, law enforcement officials cannot conduct a search [or effect a seizure] without having first obtained a valid warrant.” (citations omitted)). Indeed, warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unreasonable, and any evidence discovered as a result of a warrantless search or seizure is subj mes a seizure is not susceptible of precise definition. Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (<HOLDING>); State v. Daniel, 12 S.W.3d 420, 425 (Tenn.
recognizing that there is no litmuspaper test for distinguishing a consensual encounter from a  seizure recognizing that the right to control test used for distinguishing independent contractors from employees is not particularly helpful in distinguishing volunteers from employees recognizing that distinguishing trespassers from nontrespassers is a heavy burden recognizing that deemed consolidation is consensual recognizing the test for business nexus is distinct from transactional nexus and its test for dissociation