ÿWPC! …U:V % 0Ü–w@r 4² Æ Õ 0 Ý 0Dý 0JA 0T‹ 0^ß 0h= 0r¥ 0| 0†“ 0 1u©U, 0dJ B®U,ËU*÷B)!DCJ AMÆÚ­ ×Mv~$vÓ¢ D3u 0@¨ AOèÆ7 0Dý D/A! Bp!, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ =>E?@EABeCDEDFÓ€ypÑ lus3|xQ(Ð(3A$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€lƒXXdæXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¼Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€!ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€!XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ28,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€!ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€the€State€has€not€responded€to€the€appelleeððs€allegationÏregarding€appellate€procedure.€Ì ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€!ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that,€even€if€her€argument€had€merit,€our€"supreme€court€hasÏheld€that€it€has€the€authority€to€transform€an€appeal€improperly€filed€under€RuleÏ3€into€a€proper€appeal€under€Rule€10.€€òòState€v.€Gallaheróó,€730€S.W.2d€622,€623Ï(Tenn.€1987).€€We€have€the€same€power€over€appeals€filed€in€this€Court."€€òòStateÏv.€Smytheóó,€No.€01C01„9102„CR„00046€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Nov.€2,Ï1992).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££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  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò òßL€$%#;+'h|` | `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àFEBRUARYÏSESSION,€1996Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9402„CR„00079Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCOCKEÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€BENÏW.€HOOPER€II,€JudgeÌò òBARBARA€COPELANDó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(StateÏAppeal€„€Suppression€of€SearchÏà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àWarrant)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellantóó:ÌÌC.€Philip€Owensà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ380€East€Main€Streetà àÌNewport,€TN€€37821à àà àà àMichael€J.€Fahey,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAlfred€C.€Schmutzer,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àO.€Duane€SloneÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à125€Court€Avenue,€Suite€301EÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€€37862ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓÌà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThis€is€an€appeal€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€pursuant€to€Rule€3(c)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€€On€November€29,€1993,€theÏœappellee,€Barbara€Copeland,›€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€all€evidence€seizedÏpursuant€to€a€search€warrant€issued€and€executed€for€her€residence€onÏDecember€12,€1992.€€The€Cocke€County€œCircuit›€Court€found€that€the€searchÏwarrant€was€fatally€defective€because€the€allegations€in€the€affidavit€wereÏinsufficient€to€justify€the€issuance€of€the€warrant.€€Accordingly,€€the€trial€courtÏgranted€the€motion€to€suppress.€€The€State€appeals€the€order€of€the€trial€courtÏsuppressing€the€evidence€seized€from€the€appellee's€residence.€€After€a€reviewÏof€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌÌà àOn€December€9,€1992,€Blaine€Hartsell,€Chief€Deputy€of€the€Cocke€CountyÏSheriff's€Office,€obtained€a€search€warrant€for€the€appellee's€residence.€€TheÏaffidavit€for€the€search€warrant€recited€the€following€facts:ÌÓÓà8 àOn€December€8,€1992,€a€reliable€and€confidential€source€ofÏinformation€told€me€that€source€had€been€on€above€describedÍpremises€when€marijuana,€cocaine,€and€other€types€of€drugs€wereÏpurchased,€this€all€occurred€within€the€previous€72€hours.€€TheÏreliable€confidential€source€has€given€affiant€good€and€reliableÏinformation€in€the€past€which€has€led€to€the€seizure€of€illegal€drugs.€ÏThe€reliable€and€confidential€source€is€a€citizen€of€Cocke€County.€ÏThe€reliable€and€confidential€source€is€known€to€affiant€and€otherÏoffices€[sic]€as€being€a€truthful€person€in€Cocke€County.€€The€aboveÏdeft€[sic]€is€known€to€several€law€enforcement€offices€[sic]€as€to€beÏinvolved€in€drug€trafficing€[sic].€€This€occurred€in€Cocke€County.ÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌDeputies€with€the€Cocke€County€Sheriff's€Office€executed€the€warrant€that€sameÏday.€€€The€officers€recovered€cocaine,€cash,€and€other€items€from€the€appellee'sÏresidence.ÌÌà àOn€November€29,€1993,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€appellee'sÏmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€recovered€in€the€search.€€At€the€hearing,€ChiefÏDeputy€Hartsell€testified€that,€approximately€one€week€prior€to€the€issuance€ofÏthe€search€warrant€in€this€case,€he€arrested€Beth€Gregg€for€theft€of€property.€AtÏthis€time,€Gregg€indicated€that€she€did€not€want€to€go€to€jail€and€agreed€toÏprovide€information€to€the€sheriff's€department.€€Gregg€had€supplied€informationÏto€the€sheriff's€department€on€two€previous€occasions.€€Approximately€two€daysÏbefore€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant,€Gregg€came€to€the€sheriff's€office€andÏprovided€Hartsell€with€the€information€used€to€obtain€the€search€warrant.€ÏHartsell€testified€that,€during€this€meeting,€Gregg€informed€him€that€she€hadÍbeen€to€the€appellee's€house€on€December€7.€€She€then€gave€him€directions€toÏthe€appellee's€residence.€€Hartsell€admitted€that€Gregg€did€not€describe€theÏappellee€nor€did€she€identify€the€appellee€by€any€name€other€than€"Big€Barb."€ÏHe€stated€that€€Gregg€told€him€that€"she€had€seen€the€drugs€„„€that€she€had€beenÏthere€when€marijuana€and€cocaine,€and€other€types€of€drugs€were€purchased."€ÏHowever,€Hartsell€conceded€that€he€never€asked€Gregg€if€she€had€seen€theÏappellee€in€possession€of€drugs.€€ÌÌà àGregg€also€testified€at€the€hearing.€€She€testified€that€she€had€spokenÏwith€Deputy€Hartsell€about€providing€information€that€could€lead€to€arrests.€ÏSpecifically,€on€December€8,€Hartsell€asked€the€informant€to€reveal€her€sourceÏof€crack€cocaine.€€Gregg€testified€that,€when€she€refused€to€provide€theÏinformation,€the€deputies€"threatened€her€with€jail€and€put€her€under€pressure."€ÏUltimately,€the€deputies€offered€her€"help"€with€her€own€criminal€charges€if€sheÏassisted€them.€€ÌÌà àTo€keep€herself€out€of€jail,€Gregg€informed€Hartsell€that€a€William€SiskÏhad€told€her€that€he€was€"getting€stuff€from€somebody€named€Barbara."€€SheÏadded€that€one€night€she€and€Sisk€were€driving€toward€Carson€Springs€whenÏhe€told€her€to€get€on€the€floorboard.€€Gregg€complied,€and€Sisk€stopped€his€truckÏat€a€house.€€Sisk€went€into€the€house€alone.€€Shortly€thereafter,€he€returned€toÏthe€truck.€€€When€they€returned€to€the€road,€Sisk€told€Gregg€"I€got€something"Íand€pulled€out€an€eight€ball€of€cocaine.€€Sisk€informed€Gregg€that€he€got€theÏcocaine€from€"Barb."ÌÌà àGregg€testified€that€she€did€not€know€"Barb,"€did€not€go€into€the€house,Ïcould€not€describe€the€house,€and€could€not€give€directions€to€the€appellee'sÏhouse.€€She€added€that€she€had€never€told€Hartsell€that€she€had€seen€theÏhouse.€€Furthermore,€she€testified€that€the€transaction€involving€Sisk€occurredÏmore€than€a€week€prior€to€her€conversation€with€Hartsell.€€Finally,€GreggÏasserted€that€she€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€whether€Sisk€received€"drugs"Ïfrom€the€appellee.€ÌÌà àAfter€taking€the€motion€under€advisement,€the€trial€court€granted€theÏappellee's€motion€to€suppress€finding€that€the€affidavit€supporting€the€searchÏwarrant€was€insufficient.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€affidavit€failedÏto€meet€the€"basis€of€knowledge"€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test€because€theÏinformant€had€no€personal€knowledge€of€the€drug€transaction.€€ÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òII.€€Appellate€ProcedureÌóóó óÌà àInitially,€the€appellee€contends€that€this€issue€is€not€properly€before€thisÏcourt.× ƒ& ××  ×€€The€State€brings€this€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€€R.€€App.€€P.€€3(c).€€RuleÏ3(c)€provides€only€the€following€circumstances€in€which€the€State€may€appealÏas€of€right€in€criminal€actions:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€criminal€actions€an€appeal€as€of€right€by€the€state€lies€only€fromÏan€order€or€judgment€entered€by€a€trial€court€from€which€an€appealÏlies€to€the€Supreme€Court€or€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals:€(1)€theÏsubstantive€effect€of€which€results€in€dismissing€an€indictment,Ïinformation,€or€complaint;€(2)€setting€aside€a€verdict€of€guilty€andÏentering€a€judgment€of€acquittal;€(3)€arresting€judgment;€(4)Ïgranting€or€refusing€to€revoke€probation;€or€(5)€remanding€a€childÏto€the€juvenile€court.€€The€state€may€also€appeal€as€of€right€from€aÏfinal€judgment€in€a€habeas€corpus,€extradition,€or€post„convictionÏproceeding.ÌÌÓÓÌà àThe€appellee€asserts€that€the€record€does€not€support€any€of€theseÏconditions.€€Specifically,€the€appellee€argues€that€the€record€does€not€indicateÏthat€the€courtððs€order€granting€suppression€would€result€in€a€dismissal€of€theÏpresentment€in€this€case.€€Moreover,€the€appellee€maintains€that€the€State€couldÏonly€have€brought€the€appeal€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€or€10€and€even€thatÏprocedure€is€questionable.€€€We€disagree.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€Stateððs€appeal€is€proper€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(c)Ïbecause€the€trial€courtððs€order€has€the€òòsubstantiveóó€effect€of€dismissing€theÍindictment.€We€would€agree€that€the€record€could€have€reflected€with€greaterÏclarity€the€order's€implications.€€However,€ð ðRule€3(c)€does€not€require€the€entryÏof€an€order€of€dismissal€as€a€precondition€to€a€Stateððs€appeal.ðð€€òòState€v.€ÏUdzinskióó,€No.€€01C01„9212„CC„00380€(Tenn.€€Crim.€€App.€€at€Nashville,€Nov.€Ï18,€1993).€€€Although€we€are€cognizant€of€the€fact€that€a€suppression€order€doesÏnot€always€have€the€effect€of€a€dismissal,€in€the€present€case€we€have€noÏdifficulty€in€concluding€that€the€suppression€of€the€evidence€effectively€results€inÏthe€dismissal€of€the€indictment.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€the€State€is€properlyÏbefore€this€court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€€R.€€App.€€P.€€3(c).× ƒ' ××  ×€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€€Brownóó,Ï898€ÌS.W.2d€749,€750€(Tenn.€€Crim.€€App.€€1994);€òòState€v.€€Leeóó,€No.€€01C01„9406„CC„00211€(Tenn.€€Crim.€€App.€€at€Nashville,€June€28,€1995);€òòUdzinskióó,€No.€Ï01C01„9212„CC„00380.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òIII.€€Sufficiency€of€€the€Affidavitóóó óÌÌà àWe€now€address€the€final€and€dispositive€issue€in€this€case.€€That€is,Íwhether€the€affidavit€was€sufficient€to€support€the€issuance€of€the€searchÏwarrant.ÌAs€stated€previously,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€the€affidavit€underlying€the€searchÏwarrant€was€insufficient.€€Specifically,€the€court€found€that€the€affidavit€fails€toÏmeet€the€"basis€of€knowledge"€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.€€The€StateÏcontests€this€finding.€€We€agree€with€the€findings€of€the€trial€court€and€affirm€itsÏjudgment.ÌÌà àAn€affidavit€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€anyÏsearch€warrant.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103€(1990).€€Before€a€search€warrantÏmay€issue,€an€affidavit€òòmustóó€set€forth,€on€its€face,€facts€that€establish€probableÏcause.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„104€(1990).€€Probable€cause€has€generallyÏbeen€defined€as€a€reasonable€ground€for€suspicion,€supported€byÏcircumstances€indicative€of€an€illegal€act.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„104;€òòState€v.ÏJohnsonóó,€854€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Probable€cause€toÏsupport€the€issuance€of€a€warrant€must€appear€in€the€affidavit,€and€judicialÏreview€of€the€existence€of€probable€cause€will€not€include€looking€to€otherÏevidence€provided€to€or€known€by€the€issuing€magistrate€or€possessed€by€theÏaffiant.€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àWhen€the€affidavit€in€the€warrant€is€based€upon€information€supplied€by€aÏconfidential€source,€the€adequacy€of€the€affidavit€is€measured€by€a€two„prongedÍtest:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€whether€the€affidavit€contains€the€basis€of€the€informant'sÏknowledge;€andÌÌà à(2)€€whether€the€affidavit€includes€a€factual€allegation€that€the€Ìà àinformant€is€credible€or€the€information€is€reliable.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€432„36€(Tenn.€1989)€(rejecting€€the€"totalityÏof€circumstances"€test€set€forth€in€òòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,€103€S.Ct.€2317Ï(1983),€and€adopting€the€two„prong€test€developed€in€òòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.Ï108,€84€S.Ct.€1509€(1964),€and€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€89€S.Ct.Ï584€(1969)).€€This€test€is€commonly€referred€to€as€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.ÌÌà àTo€satisfy€the€"basis€of€knowledge"€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€aÏwarrant,€which€relies€on€information€supplied€by€a€confidential€informant,€mustÏdescribe€facts€that€permit€the€magistrate€to€determine€whether€the€informant€hadÏa€basis€for€his€information€that€a€certain€person€had€been,€was,€or€would€beÏinvolved€in€criminal€activity€or€that€evidence€of€€a€crime€would€be€found€at€aÏcertain€place.€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€InÏthe€context€of€a€€probable€cause€analysis,€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòSpinellióó€heldÏthat:ÌÓÓà8 à[i]n€the€absence€of€a€statement€detailing€the€manner€in€which€theÏinformation€was€gathered,€it€is€especially€important€that€the€tipÏdescribe€the€accused's€criminal€activity€in€sufficient€detail€that€theÏmagistrate€may€know€that€he€is€relying€on€something€moreÏsubstantial€than€a€casual€rumor€circulating€in€the€underworld€or€anÏaccusation€based€merely€on€an€individual's€general€reputation.ÌÌÓÓ393€U.S.€at€416,€89€S.Ct.€at€589.€€Additionally,€Tennessee€case€law€makes€itÏclear€that,€to€establish€probable€cause,€the€informant€must€describe€the€mannerÏin€which€he€gathered€the€information,€or€the€informant€must€describe€theÏcriminal€activity€of€the€suspects€with€great€detail.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòEarls€v.€Stateóó,€496ÏS.W.2d€464€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€477€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1972);€òòState€v.ÏVelaóó,€645€S.W.2d€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€the€present€case,€the€affidavitÏfails€to€identify€any€illegal€activity€by€the€appellee€and,€in€fact,€makes€noÏreference€to€the€appellee€whatsoever.€€Moreover,€the€affidavit€fails€to€establishÏwhether€the€informant€personally€observed€the€criminal€activity.€€Rather,€theÏaffidavit€simply€states€that€drugs€were€purchased.€€Accordingly,€the€affidavitÏdoes€not€satisfy€the€"basis€of€knowledge"€prong.ÌÌà àUnder€the€veracity€prong,€facts€must€be€revealed€which€permit€theÏmagistrate€to€determine€either€the€inherent€credibility€of€the€informant€or€theÏreliability€of€his€information€on€the€particular€occasion.€€òòMoonóó,€841€S.W.2d€atÏ338.€€Although€now€moot,€we€conclude€that€the€affidavit€satisfies€the€secondÏprong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test€because€the€affiant€indicated€that€the€source'sÏprior€information€had€led€to€the€"seizure€of€illegal€drugs."€€òòSeeóó€€òòState€v.€Henryóó,Ï680€S.W.2d€476,€478€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòState€v.€Scarlettóó,€No.€03C01„9409„CR„00315€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€13,€1995);€€òòUdzinskióó,€No.Ï01C01„9212„CC„00380.€€ÌÌà àThus,€we€conclude€that,€although€the€affidavit€satisfies€the€veracity€prongÏof€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€it€fails€the€"basis€of€knowledge"€test.€€In€essence,€theÏaffidavit€states€that€the€confidential€informant€was€on€the€premises€whenÏmarijuana€and€cocaine€€were€purchased.€€However,€the€affidavit€fails€to€Ïestablish€that€the€affiant€had€personal€knowledge€of€the€facts€or€had€personallyÏobserved€anything€recited€in€the€affidavit.€€Accordingly,€probable€cause€cannotÏbe€established€under€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.€€Thus,€the€affidavit€is€not€sufficientÏto€support€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€isÏaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€Judge