WPCQ # VU:a % 0Dw@4% 9 0H 0D  0J 0Tf 0^ 0h 0r 0| 0n 0 1u 0d U*]B)DC AM B@]m{v~vf D39 0@l AO 0D D/ B4HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,cAZ"Arial RegularX($X 7r8D9:e;D<D=>U? ӀK R3|xK(8(3$ !X     0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G d  !  #d#!   X  !   YYY FILED!X September2,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk  c !#d#!   X   $       !Itisinterestingthatinthetrialcourtpolicetestifiedthatinfacttheyhadknockedandannounced0 beforeenteringtheappelleesresidence.OnappealtheStatetakestheratherinconsistentpositionthatlawenforcementfearsofanexplosionwarrantedanunannouncedentry.Ifpolicetestimonybelowistobebelieved,officersdidnotbelieveanunannouncedentrywasnecessaryfortheirprotection.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   2  ' dxdP Pd ! . !   X  ݛ    7AXXdd7    \RA'\ќR$&#A1-j|i` , `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ JULY1996SESSION̛̜STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) NO.01C019511CR00377      ) Appellant    ) DAVIDSONCOUNTY      ) V.      ) HON.SETHNORMAN,JUDGE      )JAMESA.HEARN,    ) (Suppression)      ) Appellee    )      )@ CONCURRINGOPINION IconcurfullywiththeresultreachedbytheCourtthattheevidenceinthiscasemustbesuppressed.IdisagreehoweverwiththeholdingthattheStatesfailureinthetrialcourttoarguetheexistenceofexigentcircumstancesprecludesconsiderationinthiscourtofthatargumentduetoawaiver.IbelievethisCourtshouldbefreetoexaminethevalidityofasearchusinganyappropriatelegalanalysiswheretherecordinthecasepermitsustodoso.TheprobleminthiscaseisnotthattheStatehaswaivedassuchtheargumentthatexigentcircumstanceswarrantadeparturefromtheknockandannouncerule;butratherthefailuretolitigatethisissuebelowhasleftthiscourtwitharecordwhichisinsufficientforustoconcludethatanunannouncedentrywasappropriate. TheStatecitesthecaseofStatev.Gabbard,877P.2d1217(Or.App.1994);forthepropositionthatabeliefonthepartofofficersexecutingasearchwarrantthatamethamphetaminelabmaybeonthepremisestobesearchedis,standingalone,sufficienttocreateexigentcircumstancestherebycreatinganexceptiontotheknock  andannouncerule.However,IdonotreadGabbardasholdingthisatall. InGabbardtheofficesreceivedinformationthedayofthesearchthatthedefendantandanotherwereintheprocessofcookingmethamphetamine.Inaddition,theyrecalledandverifiedthattheyhadanoutstandingarrestwarrantfortheindividualallegedlywithdefendantandhadadescriptionofthatpersonscarwhichwasparkedatdefendantsresidence.Whentheofficerswenttoinvestigate,defendantcameoutofalightedshedandclothinghadthesmellofPCP,aprecursortomethamphetamine,andtheofficerobservedthatthedefendantappearedundertheinfluenceofmethamphetamine.Thecourtfoundthatthisinformationconstitutedprobablecausetolookthroughthecracksintheshedwallswheretheofficerobservedanoperatingmethamphetaminelab.Thecourtfurtherobservedthatexigentcircumstancesexistedonlyiftheofficerhadprobablecausetobelievethemethamphetaminelabwasoperatingatthetimeastheexigentcircumstancesexceptionwastriggeredonlyiftherewasanimmediatedangerofexplosionandthisdangerexistedonlyifanoperatinglabweresuddenlyshutdownatthewrongtime.Thecourtfoundthisprobablecausebytheofficersobservationofthedefendantwhenhecameoutoftheshed.877P.2dat1219,1221,1222. Thus,thelevelofknowledgeofthepoliceastothepotentialdangertothemselvesandotherswasfargreaterthanamerebeliefthatamethamphetaminelabmightbeonthepremises. IncontrasttoGabbard,theStatesfailureintheinstantcasetoraisebelowtheissueoftheexistenceofexigentcircumstances,whilenotstrictlyawaiverofthatissue,hasresultedinarecordreflectingonlyabeliefonthepartofofficersthata  methamphetaminelabmightbeintheresidence. '   ׀Inmyopinionthatbeliefstandingaloneisinsufficienttocreatetheexigentcircumstancesnecessarytojustifyadeparturefromtheknockandannouncerule. EvenifpolicewerecertainthatamethamphetaminelaboratorywaspresentinAppellantsresidence,inmyopinionthatstandingalonewouldnot,astheStatesuggests,justifyablanketexceptiontotheknockandannouncerule.OnlyrecentlytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasrejectedthenotionthattheFourthAmendmentpermitsblanketexceptionstotheknockandannouncerule.InRichardsv.Wisconsin,___U.S.___,117S.Ct.1416(1997);theCourtheldthatthereasonablenessofeach noknockentryforthepurposeofexecutingasearchwarrantmustbejudgedundertheparticularcircumstancesofeachcase.TheCourtnotedthat [I]faperseexceptionwereallowedforeachcategoryofcriminalinvestigationthatincludedaconsiderablealbeithypotheticalriskofdangertoofficersordestructionofevidence,theknockandannounceelementoftheFourthAmendmentsreasonablenessrequirementwouldbemeaningless.Id.at142021. IthereforeconcurinthejudgmentoftheCourt.̜      _____________________________      JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE