ÿWPCi …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ4{  ž 0 ž 0D¨ w@ì 0J, 0Tv 0^Ê 0h( 0r 0| 0†~ 0 1u”U,  0d5U,™U>ÅU6B)9DCb B¥ AMÂU*Ç9v~ D3~vÓ± 0@„ AOÄÆ 0DÙ D/ BL˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ»{s 3|x‰ (º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó u v w Dx y Dz { D| } Ó€‰ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ17,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€  X„d&ÓÑ#€  Xd#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÑ7€†NXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€&($;+'h|¼ ` ´- `€€Lßà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àDECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#Ï02C01„9505„CC„00123€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àGIBSON€COUNTY€ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€DickÏJerman,€Jr.,€JudgeÌFREDDIE€LEON€CHISM,à àà à*à à(CertifiedÏQuestion€of€Law)Ìà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellantóóà àà àà àà àòòFor€AppelleeÌÓÓóóTom€W.€Criderà àà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌDist.€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorneyÏGeneral€and€ReporterÌ107€South€Court€Squareà àà à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌTrenton,€TN€€38382à àà àà àNashville,€TN€Ï37243„0493€ÌÌJ.€Diane€Stootsà àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,ÏIIÌAsst.€Public€Defenderà àà àAsst.€AttorneyÏGeneralÌTwenty„Eighth€Judicial€Dist.à à450€JamesÏRobertson€ParkwayÌ107€South€Court€Squareà àà àNashville,€TN€Í37243„0485ÌTrenton,€TN€€38382Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àClayburn€L.€Peeples,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTwenty„Eighth€Judicial€Dist.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à109€E.€First€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€€38382Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGarry€BrownÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à109€E.€First€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àTrenton,€TN€€38382ÌÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àÌOPINION€FILED€______________________à àà àÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇà@ àòòOPINIONóóà àÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€defendant,€Freddie€Leon€Chism,€pled€guilty€toÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell€andÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia;€he€reserved€the€right€toÏappeal€as€a€certified€question€of€law€the€denial€of€his€motionÏto€suppress.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€11(e)€and€37(b)(2).€€TheÏtrial€court€imposed€Range€I€concurrent€sentences€of€three€yearsÏfor€the€possession€with€intent€to€deliver€or€sell€cocaine€andÏeleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€possession€of€drugÏparaphernalia.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€theÏaffidavit€in€support€of€the€search€warrant€was€inadequate€(1)€byÏfailing€to€establish€the€reliability€of€the€informant€andÌ(2)€by€failing€to€establish€probable€cause.€€Because€theÏaffidavit€upon€which€the€search€warrant€was€based€is€inadequate,Ïwe€must€reverse€the€convictions,€suppress€the€evidence€acquiredÏin€the€search,€and€remand€this€action€to€the€trial€court€for€anyÏfurther€proceedings.ÌÌà àà àOn€June€16,€1994,€a€warrant€was€issued€for€the€searchÏof€the€defendant's€residence€in€Gibson€County.€€When€the€policeÍexecuted€the€search€warrant,€they€found€plastic€baggies€withÏcocaine€residue,€a€flask€containing€freshly€made€cocaine,Ïtwenty„five€dollars€in€cash,€and€a€plate€and€pan€suitable€forÏcooking€and€cutting€cocaine.€€The€supporting€affidavit€providedÏas€follows:€€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[A]ffiant€has€a€confidential€and€reliableÏinformant€who€has€furnished€informationÏthat€has€proven€to€be€truthful€that€RonnieÏLynn€Johnson€delivers€powdered€cocaine€toÏFreddie€Chism€at€the€above€aforementionedÏaddress€on€a€continuous€and€regular€basis,Ïand€that€Ronnie€has€Freddie€ChismÏmanufacture€cocaine€into€crack€for€sales.€ÏThe€informant€has€personally€observed€thisÏin€the€past€on€more€than€1„occassion.€ÏFurthermore€officers€doing€surveillance€onÏChism's€residence€corraborated€this€byÏobserving€Johnson€and€other€known€drugÏdealers€frequenting€Chism's€residence€inÏthe€past€5„days....€€Ronnie€Johnson,€JeffÏYoung,€and€Ronnie€Germaine€Young€are€knownÏin€the€community€to€be€cocaine€dealers.Ò 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌÓ  Óà àà àIÌÓ  Óà àà àInitially,€an€affidavit€is€an€indispensableÏprerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€any€search€warrant.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„6„103;€òòState€ex€rel.€Blackburn€v.€Foxóó,€200€Tenn.€227,Ï230,€292€S.W.2d€21,€23€(1956).€€It€must€establish€probableÏcause.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„104;€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€ÏProbable€cause€has€been€generally€defined€as€a€reasonable€groundÏfor€suspicion,€supported€by€circumstances€indicative€of€anÍillegal€act.€€òòSeeóó€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€378,€380„81,€181ÏS.W.2d€351,€352€(1944).ÌÌà àà àAlso,€fundamental€to€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrantÏis€the€requirement€that€the€issuing€magistrate€make€anÏindependent€determination€that€probable€cause€exists.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€337€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€BecauseÏthe€magistrate€must€make€an€independent€determination,€it€isÏimperative€that€the€affidavit€contain€more€than€conclusoryÏallegations.€€"ððRecital€of€some€of€the€underlying€circumstancesÏin€the€affidavit€is€essential€if€the€magistrate€is€to€performÏhis€detached€function€and€not€serve€merely€as€a€rubber€stamp€forÏthe€police.ðð"€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€338€(quoting€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Ventrescaóó,€380€U.S.€102,€108„09€(1965)).ÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  Óà àà àWe€will€first€consider€the€defendant's€argument€thatÏthe€affidavit€fails€to€establish€the€informant's€reliability.€ÏThe€general€rule€is€that€if€the€information€in€the€affidavit€isÏsupplied€by€a€confidential€informant,€the€adequacy€of€theÏaffidavit€is€measured€by€a€two„pronged€test:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€€whether€the€affidavit€contains€theÏbasis€of€the€informant's€knowledge€(theÏ"basis€of€knowledge€prong");€andÌÌ(2)€€whether€the€affidavit€includes€aÏfactual€allegation€that€the€informant€isÏcredible€or€the€information€is€reliableÏ(the€"veracity€prong").Ì€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€432,€436€(Tenn.€1989)(relyingÏupon€òòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108€(1964)€and€òòSpinelli€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410€(1969)).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòAguilaróó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€thatÏa€search€warrant€was€improvidently€issued€by€the€magistrateÏbecause€the€affidavit€did€not€contain€any€underlyingÏcircumstances€indicative€of€illegal€activity€or€any€factsÏdisclosing€the€credibility€of€the€informant€or€the€reliabilityÏof€the€information€given.€€378€U.S.€at€114.€€Although€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€no€longer€employs€the€òòAguilar„SpinellióóÏtest,€our€supreme€court€has€determined€that€the€test,€"if€notÏapplied€hypertechnically,€provide[s]€a€more€appropriateÏstructure€for€probable€cause€inquiries€incident€to€the€issuanceÏof€a€search€warrant€...€[and]€is€more€in€keeping€with€theÏspecific€requirement€of€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€...."€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€436.Ìà àà àÌà àà àA€conclusory€allegation€of€the€informant's€reliabilityÍis€insufficient€to€satisfy€the€veracity€prong.€€òòSpinelli€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€at€416.€€"It€disallows€any€evaluation€byÏthe€magistrate€and€requires€that€the€magistrate€accept€theÏaffiant's€conclusions€not€only€that€the€prior€information€wasÏcredible€but€also€that€it€was€relevant€and€indicative€ofÏreliability.€€By€its€nature,€such€an€allegation€voids€theÏmagisterial€function."€€òòState€v.€Stephen€Udzinski,€Jr.óó,€No.Ï01C01„9212„CC„00380,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€Nov.€18,€1993).€€Thus,€the€affidavit€must€include€theÏspecific€underlying€circumstances€which€establish€theÏreliability€of€the€confidential€informant.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€this€court€found€an€affidavit€to€beÏinadequate€when€the€informant,€who€claimed€to€have€seenÏmarijuana€on€the€premises€to€be€searched,€was€described€only€asÏa€"reliable"€person€who€"ððhas€given€information€against€hisÏpenal€[interest]€and€...€has€given€information€that€affiant€hasÏchecked€and€found€to€be€correct.ðð"€841€S.W.2d€at€339.€ÏSimilarly,€in€the€consolidated€case€of€òòState€v.€Landon€Gaw€&ÏState€v.€Ronald€Wayne€Nailóó,€No.€01C01„9410„CC„00351,€slip€op.€atÏ6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Oct.€26,€1995),€this€courtÏheld€an€affidavit€which€merely€stated€that€the€"informant€hasÍprovided€accurate€and€reliable€information€in€the€past€toÏOfficer€Winfree"€failed€to€establish€the€veracity€of€theÏinformant.ÌÌà àà àThe€affidavit€here€is€similar€to€the€affidavits€inÏòòMoonóó€and€òòGawóó.€€It€contains€nothing€more€than€a€conclusoryÏallegation€of€the€informant's€veracity:€€"confidential€andÏreliable€informant€who€has€furnished€information€that€has€provenÏto€be€truthful€...."€€€In€our€view,€that€allegation€fails€toÏadequately€establish€the€veracity€of€the€informant€under€theÏguidelines€first€established€in€òòAguilaróó€and€òòSpinellióó.€€The€kind,Ïquality,€and€nature€of€the€information€previously€given€by€theÏinformant€was€not€provided€to€the€issuing€magistrate.€€Thus€theÏmagistrate€had€to€rely€entirely€upon€the€affiant's€assertionÏthat€the€informant€was€reliable.ÌÌà àà àThe€failure€to€establish€the€veracity€of€theÏconfidential€informant,€however,€is€not€necessarily€fatal€to€theÏaffidavit.€€The€ruling€in€òòJacuminóó€provides€that€"independentÏpolice€corroboration€could€make€up€deficiencies€in€either€prong"Ïof€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€atÏ436;€òòseeóó€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€303€U.S.€at€414„15.€€Thus€weÍmust€consider€whether€the€police€corroboration€alleged€in€thisÏaffidavit€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€veracity€prong€ofÏòòJacuminóó.Ìà àà àÌà àà àThis€court€first€addressed€the€issue€of€how€muchÏpolice€corroboration€is€needed€to€support€a€determination€ofÏreliability€of€information€in€òòMoonóó.€€The€question€was€framed€asÏfollows:€€"'Can€it€fairly€be€said€that€the€tip,€even€whenÏcertain€parts€of€it€have€been€corroborated€by€independentÏsources,€is€as€trustworthy€as€a€tip€which€would€pass€òòAguilaróó'sÏtests€without€independent€corroboration?'"€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841ÏS.W.2d€at€340€(quoting€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€atÏ414„15).€€In€òòMoonóó,€the€court€found€the€affidavit€to€beÏinadequate€due€to€a€conclusory€allegation€of€corroboration,€Ïunaccompanied€by€any€underlying€facts:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ["]Certainly,€more€than€the€corroborationÏof€a€few€minor€elements€of€the€story€isÏnecessary,€especially€if€those€elementsÏinvolve€non„suspect€behavior.€€It€isÏequally€certain,€though,€that€the€policeÏneed€not€corroborate€every€detail€of€anÏinformant's€report€to€establish€sufficientÏevidence€of€his€veracity."€...€€[I]t€is€notÏnecessary€that€the€events€observed€by€theÏpolice€supply€probable€cause€by€themselvesÏor€that€they€point€unequivocally€in€theÏdirection€of€guilt.€€òòIt€is€sufficient€thatÏthey€are€ððunusual€and€invitingÍexplanation,ðð€though€ððas€consistent€withÏinnocent€as€with€criminal€activityóó.ðð€€Thus,Ïwhen€an€untested€informant€says€that€he€hasÏseen€horse€race€bets€taken€at€a€steel€plantÏand€then€passed€through€the€fence€toÏdefendant,€police€observation€of€packagesÏbeing€passed€to€the€defendant€on€severalÏoccasions€ððwas€sufficient€to€establish€theÏrelibility€of€the€informer€in€thisÏinstance.ðð€€Similarly,€where€an€informerÏsaid€narcotics€were€being€sold€in€a€certainÏrecord€shop€and€that€he€had€purchasedÏnarcotics€and€seen€others€there,€this€wasÏadequately€corroborated€by€a€half€hourÏsurveillance€of€the€shop€resulting€inÏððpersonal€observation€of€known€narcoticÏaddicts€entering€the€premises,€speakingÏwith€a€clerk,€going€to€the€rear€of€theÏstore€and€then€exiting€with€no€apparentÏpurchase.ðð["]ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ ° Ò€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒòòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€341€(emphasis€added)(quoting€òòÌÌUnited€States€v.€Bushóó,€647€F.2d€357,€363€(3rd€Cir.€1981)€and€1€ÌÌWayne€R.€LaFave,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó€ðð€3.3(f),€at€683€(2d€ed.€ÌÌ1978)).€€ÌÒ Œ ÒÒ ° ÒÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1993),€this€court€reviewed€a€warrantless€arrest€where€probableÏcause€was€based€on€an€anonymous€informant's€tip€and€policeÏcorroboration.€€The€defendant€argued€the€arrest€was€illegalÏbecause€the€officer€did€not€have€a€basis€for€determining€theÏreliability€of€the€informant.€€By€use€of€the€standard€in€òòMoonóó,Íwe€found€the€presence€of€probable€cause.€€Although€the€policeÏofficer€did€not€have€a€basis€for€determining€the€informant'sÏreliability,€the€corroboration€was€substantial.€€The€policeÏofficer€saw€cash€change€hands€and€observed€the€defendantÏ"approaching€cars,€leaning€inside€windows,€and€going€back€andÏforth€from€his€shirt€and€pants€pockets€while€leaning€into€theÏcars."€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€536.€€€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€affidavit€contains€something€more€than€aÏconclusory€allegation€of€police€corroboration;€police€had€seenÏ"other€known€drug€dealers€frequenting€Chism's€residence€in€theÏpast€[five]€days."€€The€degree€of€corrobation,€however,€fallsÏfar€short€of€that€in€òòMarshallóó.€€The€characterization€"known€drugÏdealers"€is€just€as€conclusory€as€the€bare€assertion€that€theÏinformant€was€reliable.€€At€best,€the€observations€by€theÏofficers€corroborated€"minor€elements€of€the€story,"€that€is,Ïthat€persons€who€were€commonly€known€as€drug€dealers€had€visitedÏthe€residence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€341.€€ÌÌà àà àTraditionally,€the€"inference€that€persons€who€talk€toÏnarcotics€addicts€are€engaged€in€the€criminal€traffic€inÏnarcotics€is€simply€not€the€sort€of€reasonable€inferenceÍrequired€to€support€an€intrusion€by€the€police€upon€anÏindividual's€personal€security."€€òòSibron€v.€New€Yorkóó,€392€U.S.Ï40,€62€(1968).€€Similarly,€in€òòSpinellióó,€the€affidavit€allegedÏthe€defendant€was€an€"associate€of€[known]€bookmakers€...€andÏ[known]€gamblers."€€393€U.S.€at€414.€€The€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€characterized€that€allegation€as€a€"bald€andÏunilluminating€assertion€of€suspicion€that€is€entitled€to€noÏweight€in€appraising€the€magistrate's€decision."€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àà àIt€would€be€difficult€indeed€to€distinguish€theÏallegations€here€from€those€in€òòSpinellióó.€€In€each€case,€theÏmagistrate€was€asked€to€infer€illegal€activity€by€theÏassociation€with€"known"€violators.€€Because€the€ruling€inÏòòSpinellióó€was€the€basis€for€our€supreme€court's€holding€inÏòòJacuminóó,€we€are€bound€to€apply€its€rationale€to€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€order€to€meet€state€constitutional€standards,€aÏsearch€warrantððs€affidavit€must€allege€facts€which€are€"invitingÏof€explanation"€by€the€suspect.€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€atÏ341.€€For€example,€if€the€affiant€alleged€that€the€police€hadÏobserved€Johnson€carrying€small€packages€into€or€away€fromÏChism's€residence,€this€might€have€supported€an€inference€thatÍJohnson€was€either€delivering€or€receiving€cocaine.€€If€theÏaffidavit€contained€allegations€that€the€drug€dealers€made€briefÏvisits€to€Chism's€house,€that€might€have€supported€an€inferenceÏthat€they€were€there€for€business€rather€than€personal€reasons,Ïsuch€as€the€purchase€or€delivery€of€illegal€drugs.€€In€theÏcontext€of€prior€case€law,€however,€the€bare€allegation€thatÏChism€had€been€visited€by€Johnson€and€other€known€drug€dealers,Ïwithout€more,€had€insufficient€probative€value.€€ÌÌà àà àSome€earlier€Tennessee€cases€may€have€implied€that€theÏobservation€of€a€defendant€associating€with€known€drug€dealersÏor€users€is€adequate€corroboration€of€an€allegation€that€theÏdefendant€is€involved€in€illicit€drug€activity.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€437;€òòState€v.€Billy€JeromeÏMcMillin€&€Donna€Day€McMillinóó,€No.€03C01„9110„CR„00322,€slip€op.Ïat€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€September€18,€1992).€ÏThese€cases,€however,€should€not€be€read€as€holding€that€theÏmere€observation€of€the€defendant€associating€with€known€drugÏdealers€or€users€is€sufficient€to€establish€probable€cause.€€InÏòòJacuminóó,€the€fact€that€one€vehicle€registered€to€a€known€drugÏdealer€and€a€second€vehicle,€believed€to€have€been€driven€byÏsomeone€suspected€of€being€involved€in€illegal€drugs,€had€beenÍseen€at€the€defendant's€house€was€inadequate€to€satisfy€theÏbasis€of€knowledge€prong.€€778€S.W.2d€at€436.€€In€the€òòMcMillinóóÏcase,€this€court€held€that€police€who€observed€the€defendantÏbeing€visited€by€several€known€addicts€"marginally€satisfied€theÏveracity€prong,"€where€each€of€the€visits€lasted€for€no€longerÏthan€fifteen€minutes.€€òòState€v.€McMillinóó,€òòsupraóó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€examples€of€adequate€police€corroboration€given€inÏòòMoonóó€involve€more€than€mere€association€with€other€persons€knownÏto€be€breaking€the€law.€€In€the€example€involving€illegal€drugs,Ïthe€police€observed€several€known€narcotic€addicts€behaving€in€aÏmanner€suggestive€of€illegal€drug€sales.€€The€documented€policeÏcorroboration€in€this€case€did€not€reach€that€level.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant€also€challenges€the€probable€causeÏrequirement€of€the€affidavit€because€it€failed€to€state€the€dateÏor€time€when€the€informant€saw€the€illegal€activity.€€In€òòStateÏv.€Bakeróó,€625€S.W.2d€724,€726€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981),€thisÏcourt€held€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[T]he€absence€of€a€specific€date€in€theÏaffidavit€setting€out€when€the€illegalÏactivity€was€observed€is€not€required€ifÍthe€affidavit€sets€out€sufficient€factsÏfrom€which€the€magistrate€issuing€theÏwarrant€could€find€probable€cause€toÏbelieve€the€illegal€activity,€or€otherÏmatters€justifying€a€search,€are€occurringÏor€are€present€on€the€premises€when€theÏsearch€warrant€is€issued.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌThis€court€also€stated€that€"there€must€be€something€set€out€inÏthe€affidvit€which€would€give€probable€cause€to€believe€theÏillegal€activity€was€continuing€at€the€time€the€search€warrantÏwas€issued."€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€625€S.W.2d€at€626€(discussing€theÏholding€in€òòWelchance€v.€Stateóó,€173€Tenn.€26,€114€S.W.2d€781Ï(1938)).€€The€date€requirement€is€not€a€"literal"€one,€as€longÏas€the€issuing€magistrate€can€find€there€is€probable€cause€toÏbelieve€there€is€illegal€activity€occurring€on€the€premises€atÏthe€time€the€warrant€is€issued.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McCormickóó,€584ÏS.W.2d€821,€824€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€argues€that€since€the€illegal€activity€wasÏdescribed€as€occurring€on€a€"continuous€and€regular€basis,"€theÏmagistrate€could€have€found€probable€cause€that€the€activity€wasÏoccurring€at€the€time€the€search€warrant€was€issued.€€TheÏopinion€in€òòBakeróó,€however,€establishes€that€an€affidavit€whichÏdescribes€the€activity€in€the€present€tense€may€be€void€underÍsome€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€625€S.W.2d€at€726.€€If€anÏevent€a€person€saw€at€some€unidentified€point€in€the€past€is€theÏbasis€for€determining€whether€the€illegal€activity€isÏcontinuous,€and€if€there€is€nothing€in€the€affidavit€to€connectÏthe€past€observation€to€the€time€when€the€search€warrant€isÏissued,€the€affidavit€may€be€void.€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€625€S.W.2dÏat€726.ÌÌà àà àThe€holding€in€òòBakeróó€controls€here.€€While€theÏactivity€is€described€as€regular€and€ongoing,€the€basis€for€thisÏallegation€is€something€the€informant€observed€at€someÏunidentifiable€time€in€the€past.€€While€the€date€of€theÏobservations€is€not€essential,€there€must€be€something€in€theÏaffidavit€"from€which€the€magistrate€issuing€the€warrant€couldÏfind€probable€cause€to€believe€the€illegal€activity€...€isÏoccurring€...€when€the€search€warrant€is€issued."€€òòState€v.ÏBakeróó,€625€S.W.2d€at€726.€€The€only€part€of€this€affidavit€whichÏcould€connect€it€to€the€time€when€the€search€warrant€was€issuedÏis€the€police€observation€of€"known€drug€dealers"€frequentingÏthe€premises€over€the€past€five€days€prior€to€the€applicationÏfor€the€search€warrant.€€As€stated,€however,€the€mere€presenceÏof€drug€dealers,€without€more,€does€not€establish€probableÍcause.Ìà àÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€convictions€are€reversed€and€the€caseÏremanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€