WPC   f;s0{4HSn|W ׉3mf(G*2F6j ߫irO8BYl?MFPɞAe&$y^o:Tau *:i%&>w㹯0F蠜IOQXP(B V"4fI̥,s= u`ٿI4OfiU˴"d(ard~1"`%{C89=+实Crt$TtYsPqk(B`YD 8(Aj|ol5ByYTfG" ssITt u%J) ӕWeII/4)C婡x;e9o! 5PK'^K ,# hU>s % 0UB4n U:fV"^w@$U: B  0D; D3    AQ  0D 0D D/Q B HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi&3|x <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\     E   D  D D  Ӏ  ("  XXXXweXX   Ad FILEDXXwe   May21,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d(3$ !  'dxd'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd !  7XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi  ݛXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7 r&"<,(j 8` `@E  ` ttx$X rߛ 8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @~~%DATKNOXVILLE@@66-R   JULY1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellee, h   )  No.03C019709CR00408       h   )    h   )  SullivanCounty       h   )v.    h   )  HonorableEdgarP.Calhoun,Judge(at       h   )  thesuppressionhearing) z      h   )  HonorableLynnW.Brown,Judge(attrial) h`     h   )RICHARDM.PARROTTand  )  (Possessionofcontrolledsubstancesand 4, EDITHL.PARROTT, h   )  possessionofcontrolledsubstanceswith      h   )  theintenttosell)   Appellants. h   )  ForAppellantRichardParrott:    FortheAppellee: ~v CharlesR.Ray   h     JohnKnoxWalkup   x  JB 211ThirdAvenueNorth h     AttorneyGeneralofTennessee 0 ( Nashville,TN372198288 h      p and     x   !     h     JanisL.TurnerForAppellantEdithL.Parrott:    AssistantAttorneyGeneralofTennessee "     h     425FifthAvenueNorth x   #  JohnE.Herbison   h     Nashville,TN372430493 $! 2016EighthAvenueSouthNashville,TN37204 h     H.GreeleyWells,Jr. z&r#     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h     P.O.Box526    h     Blountville,TN376170526  (#  ,)$"&         h     OPINIONFILED:____________________AFFIRMEDJosephM.TiptonJudge >:639S Ї @)DOPINION @@DD/D   Thedefendants,RichardM.andEdithL.Parrott,appealasofrightfromtheirrespectivedrugconvictionsinajurytrialintheSullivanCountyCriminalCourt,specificallyMr.ParrottsconvictionsforpossessionofascheduleIIIdrugandpossessionofascheduleIVdrug,ClassAmisdemeanors,andMrs.ParrottsconvictionsforpossessionwithintenttoselloveronehalfgramofascheduleIIdrug,aClassBfelony,andtwocountsofpossessionofascheduleIIIdrug,aClassAmisdemeanor.Mr.Parrottreceivedanelevenmonth,twentyninedayconcurrentsentenceforeachconvictionwithfiftypercenttobeservedinthecountyjailandtheremaindertobeservedonprobation.Mrs.ParrottoriginallywassentencedasaRangeI,standardoffender,toservenineyearsintheDepartmentofCorrectionforthefelonyconviction,andshereceivedtwoelevenmonth,twentyninedaysentencesforthemisdemeanorconvictionswithfiftypercentofeachtobeservedinthecountyjail.Thetrialcourtorderedthesethreesentencestobeservedconcurrently.ThetrialcourtmodifiedMrs.Parrottsnineyearsentencetohaveherserveninemonthsincontinuousconfinementfollowedbynineyearsinacommunitycorrectionshousearrestprogram.Thedefendantspresentthefollowingissuesforourreview:  8 (1)whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppressthefruitsofthesearchbecausetheaffidavitsupportingthesearchwarrantcontainedintentionallyorrecklesslyfalsestatements,and  x x 8 (2)whetherthetrialcourterredinfailingtosuppressthefruitsofthesearchpursuanttoitsinherentpowertocontrolprocedingsatitsbarbecausetheassistantdistrictattorneyintentionallyincludedfalsestatementsintheaffidavitsupportingthesearchwarrant.  x x   Weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontosuppress. Theaffidavitinsupportofthewarrantforthesearchofthedefendants homestatesinpertinentpart: 6/5   8 OnOct.7,1992agentsofthe2dJudicialDrugTask Force(DTF)arrangedadrugdealinwhichDavidGilleywastodeliverDilaudid,acontrolledsubstance,toanundercoverofficerposingasaDilaudidbuyer.OnOct.Ϝ7 , 1992atabout8:25p.m.,agentsoftheDTFstoppedDavidGilleyandfoundinhispossession2bottlesofDilaudid(100tabletseach)andanunknownamountofDilaudidpowder.DavidGilleywassupposedtosell200Dilaudidtabletstotheundercoverofficerfor$4,000.00(fourthousand).GilleytoldtheofficersthathegottheDilaudidfromEdithParrot[sic],andthathewastogive$2000.00ofthe$4000.00toEdithParrot[sic]thenightofOct.7.AffianthasdiscoveredthatEdithParrot[sic]isemployedatChapmanDrugs,apharmaceuticaloutlet.OfficersgaveGilley$2000.00inmarkedDTFmoneyandputabodywireonhim,andwentwithhimtothehomeofEdithParrot[sic].OfficerslistenedandobservedasDavidGilleymetwithEdithParrot[sic]andgaveherthemarked$2000.00.EdithParrot[sic]acceptedthemoneyandquizzedDavidGilleyaboutanother$1000.00dueonanotherDilaudidsale.Parrot[sic]andGilleyalsowerehearddiscussingaValiumdeal.Thisconversationwasrecordedandoccurredatapprox.8:56p.m.,Oct.7,1992.GilleywassearchedbyDTFofficersbeforeandaftertheconversationwithParrot[sic].Hehadnoother  such$100  billsonhispersonatanytime,otherthantheDTFmoney.  x x   SullivanCountySheriffsDepartmentAgentJohnnyRayMurray,whowasassignedtotheSecondJudicialDrugTaskForce,signedtheaffidavit. Atthesuppressionhearing,anassistantdistrictattorneyinSullivanCountytestifiedthatonOctober7,1992,heassistedthepoliceinpreparingawarrantforthesearchofthedefendantshome.Hesaidthathespokewithfourofficers,KeithFeathers,JohnnyMurray,JerryRobinson,andSteveTerry,andbasedtheinformationinthesupportingaffidavitonwhattheytoldhim.HestatedthatthedetectivedivisionoftheBristolPoliceDepartmentis  anopenarea  andthatashetalkedwiththefourofficers,sometimesseveralofthemwouldbespeakingatonceandsometimeshewouldfocusononeindividual.HesaidthatinitiallyhethoughtthatoneormoreoftheofficershadpersonallyobservedthetransactionbetweenDavidGilleyandMrs.Parrott,butafterquestioningtheofficersandbefore  drafting  thewarrant,helearnedthatnoneofthefourhaddirectlyseenthetransaction. 706  :   TheassistantdistrictattorneytestifiedthattheofficerstoldhimthattheyfollowedDavidGilleytotheareaofthedefendantshome.Hesaidthatsomeoftheofficerswere  supposedto   remain  intheir  car s  and  listen  totheconversationbetweenGilleyandMrs.Parrottasitwasbeingrecorded.HesaidthatotherofficerswerestationedaroundthedefendantshouseandthatOfficerFeatherswasresponsiblefor  observingthe  transaction.  HesaidthatOfficerFeathersreportedthathewasnotabletokeepGilleyinsightbecauseGilleyhadgonebehindthedefendantshouseortoanadjacenthouse.He  stated  thatOfficerFeatherstoldhimthatoncehelostsightofGilley,hedidnotseehimagainuntilminuteslater. Theassistantdistrictattorneytestifiedthatthepartofthe  affidavit   indicating  thattheofficersobservedthetransactionbetweenGilleyandMrs.  Parrott  wasmisleading,butitwasnotfalse.Hesaidthathisexperiencewithcasesofthistypewasthatonehadtomove  quickly  to  recover  markedmoneyinasearch.Oncrossexamination,hesaidthathedidnotwritethattheofficerspersonallyobservedGilleygivingthetwothousanddollarstoMrs.Parrott,butheacknowledgedthattotheextentthattheaffidavitcouldbereadthatway,itwasmisleading.Hestatedthathewastryingtowritequicklyandefficientlybecausehewantedtheofficerstogettothedefendantshouseimmediatelybecausehedidnotknowwhatwould  happento  themarkedmoney.HetestifiedthatheaccompaniedOfficerJohnnyMurraytoJudgeKlyneLauderbackshousetogetthewarrantsigned. OfficerKeithFeatherstestifiedthathesawtheinformant,DavidGilley,atthelocationwheretheofficersplacedthebodywireonhimbeforehismeetingwithMrs.Parrott.HesaidthathethenwentthroughthealleybetweenPennsylvaniaAvenueandTennesseeAvenue,buthehadtroublewithsomedogsandcouldnotgetcloseenoughtoseeGilleymeetwithMrs.Parrott.HesaidthatheneversawGilleyatornearthedefendants  home,  andhedidnotseeMrs.Parrottatallthateveninguntiltheofficers 706 returnedtothedefendantshousetoexecutethewarrant.HesaidhenextsawGilleywhenthemeetingwasoverandtheofficersrecoveredthebodywire.Hesaidthatthistookplaceawayfromthedefendants  home,  buthewasnotsureoftheexactlocation. JudgeJ.KlyneLauderbacktestifiedthatheistheGeneralSessionsCourtjudgeinSullivanCounty.HesaidthatheheldthispositiononOctober7,1992,buthe  did  notremembersigningthesearchwarrantinthisparticularcase.Hesaidthathistypicalpracticeistoasktheaffiantifheorshehasreadthesearchwarrant,tohavetheaffiantswearthatwhatheorsheissigningistrue,tohavetheaffiantsignthewarrantinhispresenceandthentosignthewarranthimself.  AgentJohnny  MurraytestifiedthathedidnotseeDavidGilley  approach   thedefendantshouseandthatheneversawGilleymeetwithMrs.Parrott.Hestatedthathe,AgentRobinsonandLieutenantSteve  Terry  parkedwithinablockofthedefendantshouseand  ran  therecordingdevice.Hestatedthatordinarilytheofficershavetostaywithinafewhundredyardsoftheinformanttoreceivethetransmissionfromthewire. AgentMurraysaidthathesawGilleyinhiscarturningonthesidestreetnearthedefendantshouseandtravelinginthedirectionofthedefendantshouse.Hestatedthatthroughtherecordingdevice,heheardGilleydriving,  exitinghiscar,  and   talking  withafemaleaboutdrugshehaddelivered,moneyhehadbeenpaid,andmoneythathewasgivingtothefemale.HesaidthathenextsawGilleytwoorthreeminutesaftertheconversationended.HesaidthatGilleywasdrivinginthedirectionofthetelephonecompanyparkinglotwhereheandtheofficershadoriginallyparkedbeforeGilleywastogotothedefendantshouse.  5.4  AgentMurraytestifiedthathedidnotpersonallyknowtheidentityofthe femalewhospokewithGilley.HesaidthatbeforeGilleywaswired,GilleysaidthathewasgoingtomeetMrs.Parrott.AgentMurraytestifiedthatthedefendantshouseandthehouseofGilleysmotherinlawwere locatedtogether. AgentMurraytestifiedthattheassistantdistrictattorneydraftedthesearchwarrantbasedoninformationgiventohimbyLieutenantTerry,AgentRobinsonandhimself.Hesaidthattheassistantdistrictattorneywastoldthatofficerswereintheareaofthedefendantshousemonitoringtheconversationandthatoneofficerwassenttoobservethemeeting,butAgentMurraydidnotknowiftheassistantdistrictattorneywastoldthatMrs.ParrottwasseenwithGilley.HestatedthathewenttoJudgeLauderbackshousewiththeassistantdistrict  attorney,  andhesworethattheinformationinthesearchwarrantwastrue.HesaidthatalthoughhenowknowsthatnoonesawthemeetingbetweenGilleyandMrs.Parrott,hehadnotspokenwiththeofficerinchargeofobservingthemeetingatthetimehesworetothesearchwarrant. Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontosuppressfindingthatnothingindicatedanintenttolieonthepartoftheassistantdistrictattorneyandthatprobablecauseexistedevenwithouttheofficers  observations  becausetheofficersoverheardGilleysallegedconversationwithMrs.Parrott.InitsMemorandumOpinion,thetrialcourtfound:  8    The  affiantonthesearchwarrantindicatedthathedidnotknow [O] o fficerFeathersfailedtoobservethetransactionuntilafterthesearchwarrantwasissuedalthoughtheassistantdistrictattorneystestimonyappearedtoindicateotherwise.Regardless,thereisnoevidenceofwillfulintenttodeceivethemagistrateorevenofrecklessness.Thecourtfindsthatthe misleadinginformationistheresultofcarelesscompositionofconclusoryfacts.  x x   Thetrialcourtfoundthatprobablecausewaspresentevenwithouttheseconclusoryfactsbecauseof corroborrativefactsincluding,butnotlimitedto,theradiotransmitted 706  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT    †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   conversationwiththepersonallegedtobeEdithParrottandinculpatorystatementsof  Gilley.  Thetrial  courtfoundthattheinformantsreliabilitywasestablishedevenintheabsenceoftheconclusoryfacts. @tt!DI.FOURTHAMENDMENTVIOLATION  80  Thedefendantscontendthatthe  search  violatedtheir  Fourth   Amendment  righttobefreeofunreasonablesearchesand  seizures  becausetheaffidavitsupportingthesearchwarrantcontainedintentionallyfalsestatementsmadetodeceivethemagistrate.Thedefendantsarguethattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfactualfindingthatneithertheassistantdistrictattorneynortheaffiantactedwithawillfulintenttodeceiveoreven  recklessness.  Thedefendantsalsocontendthatthetrialcourtmadeanincorrectlegalconclusionwhenitdeterminedthattheinformantsreliabilitywasestablishedbycorroboratingfactssuchastheradiotransmission. InFranksv.Delaware,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourt  heldthat  that the < 4 fruitsofasearch  shouldbe  excludedwhentheaffidavitinsupportofthesearchwarrantcontainsdeliberatelyorrecklesslyfalsestatementsbytheaffiant,whicharematerialtotheestablishmentofprobablecause.438  U.S.  154,17273,98S.Ct.2674,2684(1978).The fraudulentmisrepresentationofamaterialfactwillinvalidateasearchwarrant.Statev.Little,560S.W.2d403,406(Tenn.1978).Oursupremecourthas 8)0"& definedtwosituationsinwhichfalseinformationwithinthesupportingaffidavitmandatestheapplicationoftheexclusionaryruledespitetheaffidavitsfacialsufficiency:  8 (1)afalsestatementmadewithintenttodeceivetheCourt,whethermaterialorimmaterialtotheissueofprobablecause,and  x x 8 (2)afalsestatement,essentialtotheestablishmentofprobablecause,recklesslymade.Recklessnessmaybeestablishedbyshowingthatastatementwasfalsewhenmadeandthataffiantdidnothavereasonablegroundsforbelievingit,atthattime.  x x  ~8v17   Id.at407.Thus,evenanimmaterial  statementintheaffidavit  willresultin  exclusionof  theevidence  if  thestatement  isintentionally  false.However, negligence  orinnocent  mistake  [is]insufficienttosupportexclusion.Franks,438  U.S.  at172,98S.Ct.at   2684;seeLittle,560S.W.2dat40607. l d  Atrialcourt'sfactualfindingsonamotiontosuppressareconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d   18,23(Tenn.1996);Statev.Jones,802S.W.2d221,223(Tenn.Crim.App.1990).   Theapplicationofthelawtothefactsasdeterminedbythetrialcourtisaquestionoflawwhichisrevieweddenovoonappeal.Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629 4, (Tenn.1997).@&D A.FALSESTATEMENT    Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtfoundthatthestatementsinthe ph affidavitthatofficerswentwithDavidGilleytothedefendantshomeandobservedGilleymeetingwithMrs.Parrottwereneitherintentionallynorrecklesslyfalsebut,instead,resultedfromthe carelesscompositionofconclusoryfacts.AgentMurray,theaffiant,testifiedthatatthetimehesoughttohavethewarrantsigned,hehadnotspokenwiththeofficerinchargeofpersonallyobservingthemeetingbetweenGilleyandMrs.Parrottanddidnotknowthattheofficerhadfailedtoobservethemeeting.AgentMurraysaidthattheassistantdistrictattorneyhaddraftedtheaffidavitafterinterviewingthevariousofficersinvolved.Theevidencesupportsthetrialcourtsfactualfindings. Thedefendantsfocustheirconcernonthetestimonyoftheassistantdistrictattorney,whoadmittedthatatthetimehedraftedtheaffidavit,heknewthattheofficershadnotpersonallyseenGilleymeetwithMrs.Parrott.Theassistantdistrictattorneytestifiedthatthestatementsweremisleadinginthesensethattheycouldbe 706 interpretedtoindicatepersonalobservation.Heexplainedthat  he  madethiserrorwhileattemptingtowritequicklyandefficientlyinordertogetthesearchwarrantandsecuretheevidenceassoonaspossible.Whilethistestimonysupportsthefindingthatthestatementsinquestionwereindeedfalse,itdoesnotgototheintentionalorrecklessdeceitoftheaffiant,AgentMurray.BothFranksandLittlepermittheapplicationofthe 80 exclusionaryrulewhentheaffiantintentionallyorrecklesslyseekstodeceivethemagistrate.SeeFranks,438  U.S.  at172,98S.Ct.2684(holding [t]hedeliberate   falsityorrecklessdisregardwhoseimpeachmentispermittedtodayisonlythatoftheaffiant,notofanynongovernmentalinformant);Little,560S.W.2dat40607(noting h` thattoforecloseinquiryintofalsestatementsinasupportingaffidavitwouldeffectivelytransferthediscretionwhichrestswiththemagistratetotheaffiant).Whenanalyzingfalsestatementsinafaciallyvalidsupportingaffidavit,wedonotlookbeyondtheconductoftheaffiant.@'D B.PROBABLECAUSE  0 (  Evenifweweretodeterminethattheaffiantrecklesslymadethestatementsinquestion,weagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthatprobablecauseforthesearchwarrantexistedevenwithoutan  officers   personal   observationofthetransaction.  Ifprobablecauseisbaseduponinformationfromaninformantratherthantheaffiant'spersonalknowledge,wejudgethesufficiencyoftheprobablecausebyapplyingthetwoprongedtestofAguilarSpinelli.Statev.Jacumin,778S.W.2d430, +#( 432,436(Tenn.1981).Thistestrequiresthestatetoestablishafactualbasisfortheinformationprovidedandtheveracityofthosesupplyingtheinformation.Id.at432. .', Theveracityprongmaybesatisfiedbyestablishinganinformant'sinherentcredibilityorbyestablishingthereliabilityoftheinformation.Spinelliv.UnitedStates,393U.S.410, 42,+0 415,89S.Ct.584,588  (1969);   Aguilar  v.Texas,378U.S.108,115,84S.Ct.1509, 4,2  1514(1964).However,anydeficiencyintheinformant'sinformationunderthistwo 5.4 prongtestmaybeovercomebyindependentpolicecorroboration.Jacumin,778  S.W.2dat436.  TheaffidavitinthepresentcasestatesthatGilleysaidMrs.Parrottgavehimdilaudidandthathewastogivetwothousanddollarsoftheproceedsbacktoherthatnight.Theaffidavitrevealsthatduringtherecordedconversation,GilleydiscussedtwootherdrugdealswithMrs.Parrott.AgentMurraytestifiedthatGilleyhadtoldhimthatheplannedtomeetwithMrs.Parrottthatnight.AgentMurraystatedthattheofficersaccompaniedGilleytotheareaofthedefendants  house,  andtheyobservedGilleydriveawayinthedirectionofthedefendantshouse.AgentMurraysaidthattheofficersheardandrecordedGilleysconversationwithafemale.TheindependentpolicecorroborationofGilleyslocationalongwiththerecordedconversationmakeGilleysidentificationof  Mrs.  ParrottreliableandyieldsufficientprobablecausetosupportthewarrantevenintheabsenceofanofficerspersonalobservationofMrs.Parrott.@""&D II.INHERENT  POWER   #   Thedefendantscontendthatpursuanttothetrialcourtsinherent  power  tosuperviseandcontrolproceedingsatitsbar,thetrialcourtshouldhaveexcludedthefruitsofthesearchinordertosanctiontheassistantdistrictattorneyforaffirmativelyincludingfalsestatementsintheaffidavit.Thedefendantsarguethatthisinherentpowerincludestheauthoritytosanctionattorneysforpursuingmattersinbadfaithandfor  acting  recklessly.Thestatemaintainsthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedthatthestatementsintheaffidavitdraftedbytheassistantdistrictattorneywerenotdeliberatelyorrecklesslyfalse.Whileweinnowayjustifytheassistantdistrictattorneysfailuretoprovidethemostaccurateportrayaloftheunderlyingfacts,wehold thattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthe 5.4 attorneysuseofmisleadingstatementsintheaffidavitwastheresultofhasteandnegligence.  Prosecutorshaveadutytosubmitaccurateinformationtothecourt.Stateexrel.Barnesv.Henderson,220Tenn.719,72728,423S.W.2d497,501 80 (Tenn.1968);seeStatev.Spurlock,874S.W.2d602,617(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)   (holdingthatthedistrictattorneyhasadutytocorrectfalsetestimony).Pursuanttotheirinherentpowertosuperviseandcontroltheirownproceedings,courtsmaysanctionattorneys butonlyforpursuingmattersinbadfaithorconductingthemselves  inareckless  m   manner .  񛀀Andrewsv.Bible,812S.W.2d284,291(Tenn.1991)(citations 4, Мomitted).    Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtfoundthatalthoughthedisputedstatementsintheaffidavitwere misleadingand notstrictlycorrect, thereisnoevidenceofwillfulintenttodeceivethemagistrateorevenrecklessness.Instead,thetrialcourtdeterminedthatthemisleadingstatementsresultedfromcarelessnessandtheuseofconclusoryfacts.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings. Thedefendantscontendthatcourtsusuallyreviewsupportingaffidavitswithadegreeofdeferencebecausetheseaffidavitsaretypicallycomposedhastilybypersonsinthemidstofacriminalinvestigationwhodonothavethebenefitofalawdegree.SeeUnitedStatesv.Vantresca,380U.S.102,108,85S.Ct.741,746(1965). *#( Thedefendantsarguethatbecauseanattorneydraftedthisaffidavit,thefalsestatementsshouldbeheldtoamorestringentstandardofreviewthantheintentionalorrecklessconductproscribedinLittle.However,wedonotbelievethattheassistant \0T). districtattorneyscarelesswordingoftheaffidavitrequiresthesuppressionofevidencegatheredinasearchpursuanttoawarrant,evenifwecouldimposesuchasanctionunderourinherentsupervisoryauthority. 706  Inconsiderationoftheforegoing,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontosuppress.    h      p ______________________________    h      p JosephM.Tipton,Judge    h      p    CONCUR:򀀀   GaryR.Wade,PresidingJudge򀀀  DavidH.Welles,Judge