WPC3 <*,pMcg,& N<郙dɻVaPIae@4~OMH67몬ϻȾ@DlZߑ:l5 +Tr֐l?.2M}\r5#2Ds^Ar>j&;| d=Ӈ(Z~rmݟY=}.#4?kCe`$m5Mi'',t|i]6 ϋ\IĘW*.('a?,ܸ#EM~'0*wdlRT9of-tkEؾdžWKo޳[wp# 7ALFT[Ybn/{Ae.V$KwC*@eڮQc= ak y2lY}Lp^NUNe I%]q-wR:gA |%EG Ć4pl,};KE!$# F UNQ % 0( U: w@ 4G [ -j U:   U: B D3   0DJ J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J AO  0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regular D#eD E!"D#ӀuM%3|x, ##d#,cAZ"Arial Regular  X(XXX e'X X(   Ad FILED X(X e'  January7,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  8X(XXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T j  #r *<,(j 8` `@EF` 8ttxP~  rߛ#@ T INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @'TATNASHVILLE@#TOCTOBER1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @33-T)  ` @33-T) p NO.01C019708CR00365   L   ` Appellee,@33-T)  8  @33-T) p DAVIDSONCOUNTY     VS. @33-T)   @33-T) p HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER,   RODNEYFORD, @33-T) p JUDGE    @33-T) ` Appellant.@33-T) p (AggravatedRobbery) d #X<XXX(M# X(XXX<@--$T DISSENTINGOPINION  L  ` Irespectfullydisagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthattherewasanillegalentryintothedefendantshome.BecauseIbelievetheentryintotheresidenceandtheseizureofpropertywereproper,Ifurtherdisagreethatthemattershouldberemandedforfurtherproceedingstodeterminetheadmissibilityofthewrittenconfession.Iwouldaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. ` Themajorityconcludesthattherewerenoexigentcircumstancesthatwouldjustifytheentry.Idisagree.ThetestimonyatthesuppressionhearingrevealedthatatthetimeMorrisenteredtheresidenceonBoatnerDrive,theofficerswereunawarewhoactuallyresidedthere.Specifically,theydidnotknowthatthiswasthedefendantsresidence.Theofficersapproachedthepremisesandknockedonthefrontdoor,whichtheyhadeveryrighttodo.Theythenheard running.Thedefendantexitedtherearofthepremises.Therecorddoesnotindicatethatthedefendanttoldtheofficersitwashisresidence.TheofficerscalledforMorris,buthedidnotrespondeventhoughtheofficersknewhewasinside.Theofficersopenedadoorattherearofthepremises,announcedwhotheywereandagaincalledforMorris.Again,Morrisfailedtorespond.AtthatpointtheyenteredthepremisesandsubsequentlyapprehendedMorris. ` TheofficershadanarrestwarrantonMorrisforaveryseriousandviolentoffense;namely;aggravatedrobbery.Indeterminingwhetherexigentcircumstances# j7<XdXXd7   j7<XdXXd7   j7<XdXXd7   j7<XdXXd7   j#d#  #existforentryintopremisestomakeanarrest,thegravityoftheunderlyingoffense ;(7=  j7<XdXXd7  # j7<XdXXd7   j7<XdXXd7   j7<XdXXd7  # j7LXdd7  isanimportantfactor.Welshv.Wisconsin,466U.S.740,753,104S.Ct.2091,80  МL.Ed.""2d732(1984).Furthermore,basedupontheofficersinvestigationoftheunderlyingoffense,Morriswasreasonablybelievedtobearmed;hewasreasonablybelievedtobeinthepremisesbeingentered;andtheentrywasmadepeaceably.  d SeeDormanv.UnitedStates,435F.2d385(D.C.Cir.1970)(acaseanalyzedin  0 Welshv.Wisconsin).    ` OfequalimportancewastheabilityofMorristohideordestroythephysicalevidencerelatingtothepriorrobbery.KnowingthatMorrisisinsideandisnotrespondingtothecallsoftheofficers,aretheofficersthenexpectedtoleavehiminthepremiseswhileoneoftheirnumberappliesforandpossiblysecuresasearchwarranttwohourslater? ` Thisdoesnotseemreasonabletome.A commonsenseapproachdescribedinWelshleadsmetotheconclusionthattheentrywasproperlybased D uponexigentcircumstances.Welc x !s!h,466U.S.at753,104S.Ct.at2099. `  ` Havingfoundtheentrytobeproper,Iwouldfurtherfindthesearchandseizureofthephysicalevidencetobejustifiedunderthe protectivesweepdoctrine.Therewerearticulablefactswhich,takentogetherwiththerationalinferencesfromthosefacts,wouldwarrantareasonablyprudentpoliceofficertobelievethattheareatobesweptharboredanindividualposingadangertothoseonthearrestscene.Marylandv.Buie,494U.S.325,337,110S.Ct.1093,108L.Ed.2d276(1990).The &("& officerswereinformedthatsomeoneelsewasinside.Furthermore,theofficerswereseekingtoarrestsomeonethoughttobeadangerousfelon.Theywereawarethatthefelonallegedlyhadaccomplicesinthecommissionoftheunderlyingviolentooffensewhichinvolvedstolenweapons.Theofficershadarighttoconducttheprotectivesweepfortheirownsafety.Theevidencefoundinplainviewwasproperlyadmissibleinevidence. ` Forthesereasons,Irespectfullydissent. `     h      p ___________________________ `     h      p JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE