WPC pp#X}=V|U[|V-~Ynzd?7UC[J_;Q % 0 UB 4  n U: f 4 "< w@^  U:U: B D3 0D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, AOp 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\    pe D  D D  D e Ӏ  XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX  July27,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX  July26,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  7;XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi        XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7   r*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  r   r*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  r   8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%DATNASHVILLE@@66-R   AUGUST1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellant, h   )  No.01C019710CC00502       h   )       h   )  MontgomeryCounty   v.    h   )       h   )  HonorableJohnH.Gasaway,Judge       h   )MIKIEASH,    h   )  (Criminaltrespass;possessionofmarijuana) h`     h   ) Appellee. h   ) 4, FortheAppellant:   h      p FortheAppellee:  JohnKnoxWalkup   h      p ThomasR.Meeks  AttorneyGeneralofTennessee     p 137FranklinStreet ~v Ѐand    h      p Clarksville,TN37041 d\ TimothyBehan   h      p (ATTRIAL) JB AssistantAttorneyGeneralofTennessee p      x   0 ( 425FifthAvenueNorth h      p GregoryD.Smith ! Nashville,TN372430493 h      p OnePublicSquare,Suite321 !     h      p Clarksville,TN37040JohnWesleyCarney,Jr. h      p (ONAPPEAL) #  DistrictAttorneyGeneral̀andArthurBieberAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral204FranklinStreetClarksville,TN37041OPINIONFILED:____________________ORDEROFDISMISSALREVERSED;CASEREMANDEDJosephM.TiptonJudge >:639 Ї @)DOPINION @@DD/D   ThestateappealsasofrightfromtheMontgomeryCountyCircuitCourtsorderdismissingcriminaltrespassandmarijuanapossessionchargesagainstthedefendantuponitsdeterminationthathewasillegallyarrestedandsearched.Thestatecontendsthatthedefendantwaslawfullyarrestedforcriminaltrespassandthatthemarijuanadiscoveredwaslawfullyfoundpursuanttothearrest.Wereversethedismissalorderandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofwhetherthedefendanthadnoticethathedidnothavetheownersconsenttobeonthepropertyonwhichhewasarrestedfortrespassing. ThiscaseinvolvestheClarksvilleHousingAuthoritysattempttokeepnonresidentsoutofitsvarioushousingprojectsiftheyaresuspectedofcommittingcriminaloffensesontheAuthoritysproperty.TheAuthoritypreparesawrittennoticeformthatissignedbytheExecutiveDirectorandinstructstherecipientnottoenterAuthorityproperty,specifyingareasincludingthesidewalksandyards.Thenoticeprovidesthatpresenceonanysuchpropertywillsubjectthe  rec e ipient    toachargeofcriminaltrespass.ThenoticeisservedbyClarksvillepoliceofficerspatrollingtheareas,whofillinthenameandaddressofthesuspectontheformanddeliverthenoticetothesuspect.Thesuspectsnameisplacedonalistforfuturereferencebythepolice. Atthesuppressionhearing,SpecialOperationsOfficerMartyWatsontestifiedthatonOctober30,1996,hesawthedefendantonthesidewalkonCaldwellLane,partofAuthorityproperty.Healsosaidthatatonepoint,thedefendantwasintheyardattheprojects.Hesaidhesawamaleapproachthedefendant,thedefendant reachoutasifhewerehandingsomethingtothemale,andthemalehandthe 5.4 defendantwhatappearedtobemoney.OfficerWatsonsaidthatthemalescarwasstopped,andmarijuanawasfoundinthecar.  OfficerWatsontestifiedthatheandanotherofficerapproachedthedefendantandaskedhimforhisnameandaddress,whichheapparentlygaveasMikieAsh,livinginRamblewood.Thedefendantdeniedpreviouslyreceivinganoticeletter,andOfficerClarkbegantoprepareone.However,anotherofficercheckedthenoticelistandfoundthatMikieAshhadbeenservedonApril2,1996.Thedefendantwasarrestedandlaterfoundtohavemarijuanainhispossession. TheApril2noticeletterreflectsthatitwasservedbyAgentB.ClinarduponMikieLeromeAsh,2404RamblewoodDrive.Italsoshowsthatthepersonrefusedtosignthenoticeortotakeacopyofit. Indecidingthecase,thetrialcourtanalyzedtheprovisionsofthecriminaltrespassstatute,whichprovideasfollows:  8 CriminalTrespass.(a)Apersoncommitscriminaltrespasswho,knowingthepersondoesnothavetheownerseffectiveconsenttodoso,entersorremainsonproperty,oraportionthereof.Knowledgethatapersondidnothavetheownerseffectiveconsentmaybeinferredwherenoticeagainstenteringorremainingisgivenby:  x x 8   (1)Personalcommunicationtothepersonbytheownerorbysomeonewithapparentauthoritytoactfortheowner;  x x 8 ....  x x 8   (b)Itisadefensetoprosecutionunderthissectionthat:  x x 8   (1)Thepropertywasopentothepublicwhenthepersonenteredandremained;  x x 8   (2)Thepersonsconductdidnotsubstantiallyinterferewiththeownersuseoftheproperty;and  x x   706  :   :    :    :   8   (3)Thepersonimmediatelyleftthepremises uponrequest.  x x 8   (c)Forpurposesofthisseciton, entermeansintrusionoftheentirebody.  x x 8   (d)CriminaltrespassisaClassCmisdemeanor.  x x   Tenn.CodeAnn.3914405.ThetrialcourtacknowledgedthatthedefendantwasonAuthoritypropertyknowingthathedidnothavetheAuthorityseffectiveconsentintermsofthedefendantknowingtheofficersapparentauthorityinservingthenoticeletter.Itnotedthatthesefactscompliedwithsubsection(a)ofthecriminaltrespass  statute.  However,itdeterminedthatundersubsection(b),itisadefenseif(1)thepropertyisopentothepublic,(2)thepersondoesnotsubstantiallyinterferewiththeownersuseoftheproperty,and(3)thepersonimmediatelyleavesthepremisesuponrequest.Thetrialcourtconcludedthattheimportofsubsection(b)(3)isthatapersonmustbeaskedtoleaveimmediatelyandthenfailtoleavebeforeheorshehascommittedcriminaltrespass,evenifthepersonhasbeenpreviouslynotifiedtostayofftheproperty.Thetrialcourtessentiallyconcludedthatthefailuretoadvisethedefendanttoleaveimmediatelymeantthathewasnotcommittinganoffenseunderthecriminaltrespassstatuteandthathissubsequentarrestwasillegal. Thestatecontendsthatthepolicehadprobablecausetoarrestthedefendantandthatthetrialcourtsrelianceuponthestatutorydefensetoprosecutionplacesanimproperlegalstandardofbeyondareasonabledoubtuponthepolicesauthoritytoarrestpersons.ItreliesuponStatev.KennethAntonioLillard,No.01C01 ,%* 9602CC00051,RutherfordCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.Feb.12,1997),inwhichthiscourtheldthatprobablecausetoarrestforcriminaltrespassexistedwhentheofficerknewthatthedefendanthadbeenorderedtostayawayfromthepropertywherehewasfound.Slipop.at3.  5.4  Thedefendantrespondsthatorderinghimtoleavethepremises immediatelyisaconditionprecedenttoacriminaltrespassoccurringandthatwithouttheorder,  no  probablecauseto  arrest  exi s ts.     Heassertsthatthestatespositionwouldimproperlylimittheapplicationofthestatutorydefensetoatrial.Also,thedefendantseekstodistinguishLillard,notingthatitinvolvedacourtordertostayawayand 80 evidencethattheofficerknewLillardhadbeensoordered,whiletheevidenceinthepresentcasedoesnotshowthattheofficersknewifthedefendanthadactallybeentoldtostayaway.Thedefendantnotes,aswell,thatLillarddoesnotindicateifthe   defensein  Tenn.CodeAnn.  3914405(b)wasevenconsidered. Asforthestatesassertionthatthetrialcourtusedthewronglegalstandard,wedisagree.Probablecausetobelievethatanoffensehasbeencommittedisafactspecificstandardthatisobjectiveinnature.Ifthefactsknowntothepolicesufficientlyreflectthatthedefendantwasonpropertyopentothepublicanddoingnothingtointerferewiththeownersuseoftheproperty,thentherewouldbenocriminaltrespassuntilthedefendantwasorderedtoleaveimmediatelybutfailedtocomply.Obviously,theoffensewouldbecommittedwhentheordertoleavewasgivenbutnotfollowed.Thus,webelievethatthetrial  court   analyzedthefactsunder  theappropriatestandard. However,webelievethatthetrialcourtmisappliedthecriminaltrespasslawrequirements.Weconcludethataspecificorderbyanownertoapersontostayawayfromtheownerspropertyconstitutesnoticesufficienttomakeaknowingreturnbythepersontothepropertyaviolationofthecriminaltrespassstatute.Inthisrespect,webelievethattheordertostayawayeffectivelyprovidesthenoticethatisattheheartofthedefenseprovidedbythestatute.Thatis,itisquestionabletoinferguiltyknowledgeoftrespassingwhenthepersonisonpropertyopentothepublicandactinginnocuouslythus,theneedforthepersontobe  asked  toleave.Ontheotherhand,a 706 specificordertoaspecificpersontostayoffspecificpropertycarriesnosimilarquestionastothepersonsknowledgewhenheorsheentersuponthatproperty.  Thetrialcourtsreasoningwouldmeanthateveniftheofficers,asagentsfortheHousingAuthority,stoodatthepropertylineandtoldthedefendantnottoenter,thedefendantwouldnotbecriminallytrespassingifhethenenteredthepropertyuntilhewasrequestedtoleavebutfailedtodoso.Wedonotbelievethat  Tenn.CodeAnn.  3914405(b)providessuchadefensethatwouldallowpersonstopersistincontinuedentriestobarredproperty.Thus,weagreewithLillardthatifanofficerknows h` thatapersonhasbeenorderedtostayoffhousingprojectpropertyandsubsequentlyseesthepersonontheprohibitedproperty,theofficercanlawfullyarrestthepersonforcriminaltrespass. However,thisdoesnotendouranalysis.Amisdemeanorarrestwithoutawarrant,asoccurredinthepresentcase,mayonlyoccurforanoffensecommittedorthreatenedtobecommittedintheofficerspresence.Tenn.CodeAnn.407103(a)(1).Obviously,thedefendantspresenceontheAuthorityspropertywaspersonallyobservedbythearrestingofficers.However,theirknowledgethatthisconstitutedacriminaltrespassdependeduponthereportofothersthatthedefendant  knew  thathedidnothavethe  Authoritys  effectiveconsenttobeontheproperty.Wemustnowdeterminewhetherthearrestingofficerscouldrelyuponthisreportsuchthattheoffensecanbesaidtohaveoccurredwithinthepresenceofthearrestingofficers. AreviewofTennesseecasesrevealsthatourcourtsinitiallyadoptedastrictinterpretationofthe inthepresencerequirement.InHurdv.State,119Tenn. (2 +0 583,593,108S.W.2d1064,1066(1907),oursupremecourtdeterminedthatanattemptedmisdemeanorarrestforillegallycarryingapistolwasillegalbecausetheoffensedidnotoccurinthepresenceofthearrestingofficer.Thecourtstatedthatthe 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   officer wasattemptingtoarrestthedefendantforamisdemeanorwhichwasnot  committedinhispresence;butthefactofitscommissionwascommunicatedbyothers,andtheinstructionofthetrialjudgethat[theofficer]hadlawfulauthoritytoarrestdefendantwithoutawarrantwaserroneous.Id.Similarly,inHughesv.State,145 l d Tenn.544,569,238S.W.2d588,595(1922),oursupremecourt,relyingonHurd, 80 statedthefollowing:  8 Underourstatute...anofficermaywithoutawarrantarrestapersonforapublicoffensecommittedinhispresence.Thatmeansthattheoffense,orthefactsconstitutingtheoffense,mustberevealedinthepresenceoftheofficer.Anofficercannotlawfullyarrestapersonwithoutawarrantandsearchhispersonforthepurposeofascertainingwhetherornothehasviolatedthelaw.Evenifthepersonarrestedwereinfactviolatingthelaw,theoffensewasnotinlegalcontemplationcommittedinthepresenceoftheofficer,andsuchanarrestisunauthorized,wherethefactsconstitutingtheoffenseareincapableofbeingobservedorarenotobservedbytheofficer.  x x   See  also ,    Sheltonv.State,460S.W.2d869,874(Tenn.Crim.App.1970)(holdingthat d\ officers,whorelieduponthedefendantswifesreportthatthedefendanthadbeatenher,illegallyattemptedtoarrestthedefendantforamisdemeanornotcommittedintheirpresence);Williamsv.State,506S.W.2d193,197(Tenn.Crim.App.1973)  (holding #  that an  offenseisnotcommittedinthepresenceofanofficerwhenitscommissioniscommunicatedtohimby  another . );    Statev.Duer,616S.W.2d614,615(Tenn.Crim. `'X $ App.1981)(holdingthat awarrantisnotdispensedwithjustbecauseothershavecommunicatedfactstotheofficertoshowthattheoffensehasbeencommitted);State *#( v.Blankenship,757S.W.2d354,357(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(holdingthathadthe ,%* defendantbeenarrestedforleavingthesceneofanaccident,itwouldhavebeenillegalbecausetheaccidentdidnotoccurinthepresenceofthearrestingofficerbutwasreportedtohimbytheotherpersoninvolvedintheaccident). Morerecently,courtsinTennesseeandotherstateshavetakenalessstringentapproachtothepresencerequirementincertainlimited  circumstances,   706 including  theinvolvementofmorethanonelaw   enforcementofficer.  InStatev.Bryant,  678S.W.2d480(Tenn.Crim.App.1984),anofficersradargun  registered  thedefendantsspeedatwelloverthelimit,andtheofficerbeganpursuit.Unabletocatchthedefendant,theofficerradioedadescriptionofthedefendantscarandrequestedassistance.Asecondofficerheardthedispatchandstoppedthedefendant,eventhoughtheofficerhadnotwitnessedanyunlawfulactionbythedefendant.Thecourtrecognizedthatotherstateshadtakenamoreliberalapproachtothepresencerequirementandstatedthat:  8 itisfrequentlyheldthatinlightoftheincreasedspeedwithwhichoffendersmayfleefromawitnessingofficerandmoderncommunicationstechniquesavailabletothepolice,anoffensemaybesaidtohavebeencommittedinthepresenceofthearrestingofficerifheisincommunicationwithandisassistingthewitnessingofficer.  x x nLId.at483.Thecourtheldthatthepresencerequirementdidnotdeprive apursuing  officer,whohasgroundsuponwhichtoarrestafleeingoffender,oftheassistanceofafellowofficerwhenthatassistanceisrequestedinareliablemanner.Id.;but  see  Id.at 0 ( 485(  Templeton  ,S.J.,dissenting)(notingthatexpediencyandadvancedtechnologyarepoorreasonsforchangingthemeaningofastatute). Twounreportedcaseshavereachedconclusionssimilartothe  majoritys  holdinginBryant.InStatev.MaxieLewisHunter,No.89101III,SumnerCounty ,)$"& (Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.13,1989),adeputysherifffollowedthedefendantashepulledintoagasstationandsawthatthedefendantwasintoxicated.HecalledaHendersonvillepoliceofficerwith  jurisdiction,  andwhentheofficerarrived,theofficersawthatthedefendantwasintoxicatedandarrestedthedefendantforDUI.Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotiontodismiss,concludingthattheoffensewasnotcommittedinthepresenceofthearrestingofficer.Apanelofthiscourtreversedthedismissal,holdingthat theinformationinquestionwasquitespecificand...hadbeenconveyedfromonelawenforcementofficer,whohadobservedthecommissionofthe 706 offense,toanotherlawenforcementofficer...whomadethearrestinthepresenceofthewitnessingofficer.Slipop.at3.Thecourtfurthernotedthat thefactssuggesttheconstructivepresenceofthearrestingofficerduringthecommissionoftheoffense,ifnothisactualpresence,andconcludedthatthepurposeofthepresencerequirement,topreventgroundlessmisdemeanorarrestsofcitizensbasedonhearsayorspeculation,hadnotbeenfrustrated.Slipop.at4.  Th  iscourtreachedthesame   result  undersimilarcircumstancesinStatev.   TeriL.Hopson,No.03C019601CC00007,WashingtonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.  Jul y .    8,1997).Inthatcase,  we  notedthatthestrictandliteralinterpretationofthepresencerequirementhasbeenrelaxedincertaincircumstancestoallowanofficertomakeanarrestforamisdemeanoreventhoughitwasnotcommittedintheofficerspresence.Slipop.at45;see  also  Statev.DavidC.Doyal,No.03C019712CR  00552,KnoxCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.Sept.10,1998)(notingthat onoccasion,thiscourthasinterpretedtheofficerspresencebroadly,findingitmayexistwherethearrestingofficerdidnotwitnessthecrimebuthasreceivedinformationfromanotherlawenforcementofficialwhowaswitnesstothemisdemeanor).Otherjurisdictionshaveallowedawarrantlessarrestbyanofficerwhowasnottheofficerwhowitnessedthemisdemeanor.SeeBrownv.State,442  N.E.2d  1109,1115(Ind.1982);Robinsonv. `'X $ State,243A.2d879,887(Md.1968);Statev.  Standish  ,363A.2d404,406(N.H. ,)$"& 1976);Statev.Lyon,706P.2d516,51920(N.M.Ct.  App.  1985). *#(  Ourreviewofcasesfromotherjurisdictions  revealsthe  use  ofthe police  teamapproach,whichprovidesthat anacttakingplacewithintheviewofoneofficer[is]inlegaleffectwithinthe[presenceand]viewoftheothercooperatingofficers.Prosserv.Parsons,141S.E.2d342,346(S.C.1965).InPeoplev.Dixon,222  N.W.2d   3,2 749(Mich.1974),thecourtapprovedawarrantlessmisdemeanorarrestfordrivingonasuspendedlicensewhenthearrestingofficersawthe  defendantdriving  butwas 706 advisedbyheadquartersthatthedefendantslicensehadbeensuspended.Itconcludedthatpoliceofficersworkingtogetheronacasemay combinetheircollectiveperceptionssothatifthecompositeotherwisesatisfiesthepresencerequirementthatrequirementisdeemedsatisfiedalthoughthearrestingofficerdoesnothimselfwitnessalltheelementsofthe  offense.  Id.at  75152  ;   see   also  Statev.Chambers,299 80   N.W.2d  780,782(Neb.1980)(holdingthattoarrestapersonforamisdemeanorin  theofficers  presence, [  a]n  officermakinganarrestmayrelyuponthecollectiveknowledgeofalltheofficersinvolvedinthecase.);but  see  Pennv.Commonwealth,412  S.E.2d     189,19192(Va.Ct.App.1991);  Tomlin  v.State,869P.2d  334,33839  (Okla.  1994).   h`  OurreviewofthecaselawfromTennesseeandotherjurisdictionsandourapplicationoftheirprinciplestothefactsinthepresentcaseleadustoconcludethatthe policeteamapproachisaviabledoctrineinTennesseeandisapplicableinthepresentcase.ThearrestingofficersinthepresentcasewitnessedthedefendantspresenceontheAuthoritysproperty,howevertheylearnedofthefactthatthedefendanthadbeenpreviouslywarnedtostayoffthepropertyfromalistgeneratedbythepolicefor  officers  patrollingthearea.Theusebyoneofficerofreliableinformationfromanotherofficerdoesnotfrustratetheneedtoprotectcitizensfromharassmentandbaselessarrests.Furthermore,itassiststhepolice,whenworkingtogetherasaunit,ineffectuatingtimelyandexpedientarrests.ToholdotherwisewouldhavethepracticaleffectofmakingthenoticelettersmeaninglessunlessthesameofficerwhoservedtheletterhappenedtobepatrollingonthesamedayasuspecthappenedtobepresentonAuthorityproperty. Nevertheless,wemustremandthecaseforfurtherconsiderationbythetrialcourtrelativetothereliabilityoftheinformationonthelistregardingthe  defendant s   having knowledge  thathewasbarredfromenteringAuthorityproperty.  Although  thelistreflectsthat  Mikie   Lerome  Ashwas servedwithabarletteronApril2,whichhe 706 refusedtosignortoacceptacopy,thereisnowaytodeterminebyinferenceorotherwisethatthedefendanthadsufficientknowledgeofthecontentsofthelettersuchthatheknewthathewasbarredfromreturningtoAuthorityproperty.Absentevidencetothe  effect  thatthedefendantknewthattheletterbarred  thedefendant  him  fromenteringAuthorityproperty,  i.e.,showingthat  beingplacedonthelistas servedreliablymeansthatthe  person,includingthedefendant,  hasbeentoldthecontentsoftheletter,thereisinsufficientevidencethatthedefendantknewthathedidnothavetheownerseffectiveconsenttobeontheproperty.Therefore,theevidencewouldnotshowthatthemisdemeanoroffenseofcriminaltrespasswasbeingcommittedinthepresenceofthe  officer s .   Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,wereversethetrialcourtsorderofdismissalandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforadeterminationofwhetherthedefendanthadactualnoticethathedidnothavetheAuthoritysconsenttobeontheproperty.    h      p   __________________________    h      p   JosephM.Tipton,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________JoeG.Riley,Judge___________________________ThomasT.Woodall,Judge