ÿWPCJ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µÝbåw@í4- A 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U*Ï B)ù DC" AMe²v~Ä BBvÓ_ D32 0@e AO¥Æô 0Dº D/þ B-˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- Û{ÜÝEÞßà{áâEãäÓ€Ô¡¨ "|xí2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌSeptember€19,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€uXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.Ï01C01„9601„CC„00010Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àCOFFEE€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€GERALD€L.€EWELL,€SR.ó óÌò òOLIVER€LOWE,ó óà àà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Search€Warrant)ò òÌó óÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€COFFEE€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€G.€MITCHELL,€JR.à àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌP.O.€Box€1336à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMurfreesboro,€TN€37133Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGLENN€ERIKSONÌMICHAEL€J.€FLANAGANà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ95€White€Bridge€Roadà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37205à àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0488ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€MICHAEL€LAYNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àManchester,€TN€37355à àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓ›à àThe€Defendant€was€convicted€on€a€jury€verdict€of€possession€of€aÏSchedule€II€substance,€methamphetamine,€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€andÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€The€basis€of€this€appeal€is€the€trial€judgeððsÏdenial€of€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence€obtained€pursuant€to€aÏsearch€warrant.€€The€Defendant€argues€that€this€warrant€was€improperlyÏserved,€and€was€issued€without€probable€cause.€€We€find€the€search€warrantÏwas€œlegally€sufficient›€and€properly€served,€and€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà àThe€facts€in€the€record€are€summarized€as€follows.€€On€August€23,€1994,ÏOfficer€Steven€Luttrell€of€the€Manchester€Police€Department,€along€with€two€otherÏofficers,€traveled€to€the€residence€of€a€third€party€to€œinvestigate€that›€third€partyððsÏpotential€involvement€in€methamphetamine€trafficking.€€This€third€party€lived€nearÏthe€Defendant,€and€the€officers€went€to€this€neighborhood€with€the€knowledgeÏthat€the€Defendant€œmight€also›€be€in€possession€of€methamphetamine.€€At€someÏpoint€in€the€œinvestigation›€of€the€third€party,€the€officers€decided€to€go€to€theÏDefendantððs€residence.ÌÌà àUpon€arrival€at€the€Defendantððs€residence,€Officer€Luttrell€noticed€four€toÏfive€people€standing€outside,€including€the€Defendant.€€Luttrell€and€another€officerÏengaged€the€Defendant€in€conversation,€and€permitted€the€other€individuals€toÏleave€the€scene.€€The€officers€informed€the€Defendant€that€they€had€informationÏthat€he€was€in€possession€of€methamphetamine,€and€asked€the€Defendant€forÏhis€consent€to€search€his€residence.€€The€Defendant,€who€was€renting€theÏresidence,€indicated€that€he€was€not€sure€whether€he€had€the€authority€toÏauthorize€a€search.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant,€however,€did€allow€the€officers€to€step€into€the€residence.€ÏThe€officers€noticed€a€womanððs€purse,€and€asked€for€his€consent€to€search€it;Ïthe€Defendant€consented,€but€nothing€was€found.€€The€officers€also€requestedÏpermission€to€search€a€cabinet€above€the€sink.€€Consent€was€again€granted,Ïand€they€found€drug€paraphernalia,€some€containing€a€powder€residue.€€At€thisÏpoint,€Officer€Luttrell€advised€the€Defendant€of€his€Miranda€rights,€and€asked€theÏDefendant€for€his€permission€to€search€the€remainder€of€the€residence.€€TheÏDefendant€stated€that€he€œdid€not€believe€that›€he€could€œgive›€consent€without€theÏknowledge€of€the€owner.€€The€owner€was€contacted,€and€did€consent€to€theÏsearch.€€The€Defendant€then€said€that€he€would€not€consent€to€the€searchÏwithout€a€search€warrant.ÌÌà àWhile€the€other€officers€secured€the€Defendantððs€residence,€Officer€LuttrellÏleft€to€obtain€a€search€warrant.€€Luttrell€completed€and€signed€an€affidavit€inÏsupport€of€this€warrant,€and€presented€it€to€a€magistrate.€€The€affidavit€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àThat€on€œ8/23/94›€I€had€a€conversation€with€a€confidential€andÏreliable€informant.€€Said€informant€told€me€that€(he/she)€had€talkedÏto€said€Oliver€Lowe€within€the€prior€48€hours.€€That€Oliver€LoweÏshowed€(he/she)€a€powder€substance€that€informant€knew€to€beÏœmethamphetamine.€€That€Oliver€Lowe€told€informant€he€had€moreÏmethamphetamine›€at€his€camper€on€Glade€Trail€at€LakewoodÏPark.€€Said€informant€is€familiar€with€methamphetamine€with€itsÏcharacteristic€[sic]€from€prior€experience€with€the€drug.€€SaidÏinformant€knows€Oliver€Lowe€and€knows€Lowe€to€sellÏmethamphetamine.€€Said€informant€I€have€known€for€10€years.€ÏSaid€informant€has€give€[sic]€me€information€on€more€than€20Ïdifferent€œoccassions€[sic].›€€On€each€œoccassion€[sic]›€said€informantsÏ[sic]€information€has€proven€to€be€true€and€œaccurrate€[sic],›€and€hasÏalso€resulted€in€numerous€felony€arrest€[sic]€and€conviction€[sic].€ÌÌÌÓÓœà àThe›€original€copy€of€the€affidavit€was€signed€by€Officer€Luttrell€and€theÏmagistrate.€€A€search€warrant€was€then€issued,€and€Luttrell€took€a€copy€of€thatÏwarrant,€along€with€a€copy€of€the€affidavit,€back€to€the€Defendantððs€residence.€ÏLuttrell€served€the€warrant€and€affidavit€on€the€Defendant,€and€a€completeÏsearch€was€conducted.€€While€œboth€the›€search€warrant€served€upon€theÏDefendant€and€the€òòoriginalóó€affidavit€was€complete€with€all€the€requisiteÏsignatures,€the€òòcopyóó€of€the€œaffidavit›€served€upon€the€Defendant€did€not€containÏLuttrellððs€signature.€€The€search€yielded€a€quantity€of€methamphetamine,€drugÏparaphernalia,€and€one€Clonazepam€pill,€a€Schedule€IV€substance.€€TheÏDefendant€was€then€arrested.ÌÌà àOn€October€12,€1994,€the€Defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Coffee€CountyÏGrand€Jury€on€one€count€of€possession€of€methamphetamine,€a€Schedule€IIÏcontrolled€œsubstance;›€one€count€of€possession,€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,ÏClonazepam,€a€Schedule€IV€controlled€œsubstance;›€and€one€count€ofÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€On€November€3,€1994,€the€Defendant€filedÏa€motion€to€suppress€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€the€search€warrant.€€OnÏNovember€30,€1994,€Judge€Gerald€L.€Ewell,€œSr.›€œdenied€the›€motion€to€suppress.€ÏOn€June€29,€1995,€a€jury€trial,€in€front€of€Judge€Ewell,€was€convened.€€The€juryÏreturned€with€a€verdict€finding€the€Defendant€guilty€on€all€charges.ÌÌà àOn€August€30,€1995,€the€trial€court€held€a€sentencing€hearing.€€At€theÏhearing,€the€court€merged€the€misdemeanor€conviction€for€the€possession€withÏthe€intent€to€sell€a€Schedule€IV€substance€(Clonazepam)€with€the€felonyÏconviction€for€possession€with€intent€œto€sell€or›€deliver€methamphetamine.€€TheÏtrial€court,€as€imposed€by€the€jury,€œfined›€the€Defendant€$20,000€for€theÏmethamphetamine€conviction€and€$2,500€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€ÏFurther,€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€to€four€years€for€the€methamphetamineÏconviction€and€œeleven„months›€œtwenty„nine›€days€for€the€drug€paraphernaliaÏconviction.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€consecutively.ÌÌà àOn€September€1,€1995,€the€Defendant€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€OnÏSeptember€20,€1995,€the€trial€court€overruled€this€motion.€€The€Defendant€filedÏthis€timely€notice€of€appeal.ÌÌÓ  ÓI.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€first€issue€on€appeal€is€whether,€when€a€law€enforcement€officerÏserves€a€search€warrant,€together€with€the€affidavit€in€support€of€that€warrant,Ïthe€person€on€whom€the€warrant€is€served€must€receive€an€exact€copy€of€theÏoriginal€affidavit.Ìà àÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€a€search€warrant€shall€be€issued€only€on€the€basis€ofÏan€affidavit,€sworn€before€a€magistrate,€which€establishes€the€grounds€for€itsÏissuance.€€Stated€simply,€œð ðan›€affidavit€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€theÏissuance€of€a€search€œwarrant.ð𛀀òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€854€S.W.2d€897,€899€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993);€œòòseeóó€Tenn.›€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„6„103.€€Upon€execution,€a€signed,Ïexact€copy€of€the€warrant€ð ðshall€be€left€with€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€theÏwarrant€is€served.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c);€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€348€S.W.2d€295,Ï296€(Tenn.€1961).€€There€is€no€statutory€law€or€rule€mandating€that€a€signed,Ïexact€copy€of€the€supporting€affidavit€must€also€be€served€with€the€warrant.€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€836€S.W.2d€137,€141€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àDespite€the€fact€that€an€affidavit€is€integral€to€the€issuance€of€a€searchÏwarrant,€in€Tennessee,€it€is€not€considered€an€actual€part€of€the€warrant,€even€ifÏit€appears€on€the€same€printed€form€as€the€warrant.€€òòIdóó.€€Rather,€the€affidavit€isÏconsidered€the€evidence€upon€which€the€magistrate€must€determine€whetherÏthere€is€probable€cause€to€issue€the€warrant.€€òòHampton€v.€Stateóó,€252€S.W.Ï1007,€1009€(Tenn.€1923).€€A€search€warrant€may,€however,€be€construed€withÏa€supporting€affidavit€if€the€affidavit€accompanies€the€warrant€and€the€warrantÏexpressly€incorporates€the€affidavit€by€reference.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Blakeneyóó,Ï942€F.2d€1001,€1024€(6th€Cir.€1991).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Towneóó,€997ÏF.2d€537,€547€(9th€Cir.€1993).€€If€the€warrant€does€not€expressly€incorporate€theÏaffidavit,€the€affidavit€may€still€be€utilized€to€cure€deficiencies€in€the€warrant€itself€ifÏa€definite€reference€is€made€to€the€affidavit.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€141;ÏòòHackerman€v.€Stateóó,€223€S.W.2d€194,€196€(Tenn.€1949),€òòrehððg€deniedóó,€òòidóó.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€attempting€to€impeach€theÏvalidity€of€the€search€warrant€because€when€he€was€served€a€copy€of€both€theÏwarrant€and€the€affidavit,€he€did€not€receive€an€exact€copy€of€the€originalÏaffidavit,€as€Officer€Luttrellððs€signature€was€missing.€€The€Defendant€argues€twoÏpoints.€€First,€the€Defendant€claims€the€warrant€is€void€because€it€was€notÏissued€upon€a€sworn€affidavit,€and€second,€he€argues€that€it€is€faulty€because›Íthe€Defendant€did€not€receive€an€exact€copy€of€the€original,€which€possessedÏthe€affiantððs€signature.ÌÌà àIt€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€original€affidavit€was€signed€and€swornÏto€by€the€affiant,€so€the€first€prong€of€the€Defendantððs€argument€has€no€merit.€ÏThe€only€way€the€second€prong€can€have€any€merit€is€if€the€law€œrequire›œs›€anÏexact€copy€of€the€original€affidavit€to€be€served€upon€the€Defendant,€or€œif€the›Ïaffidavit€was€somehow€made€part€œof€the›€warrant€itself€œand€must€satisfy€theÏrequirements€set€forth€in€Rule€41(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.ÌÌà àUpon€examination€of€both€the€warrant€and€the€affidavit,€there€is€noÏreference€to€the€other€in€either€document.€€The€warrant€could€have€beenÏsingularly€served€upon€the€Defendant,€and€a€legal€search€conducted,€withoutÏthe€Defendant€having€seen€the€contents€of€the€affidavit.€€In€sum,€theÏpresumption€is€that€an€affidavit€is€not€part€of€a€search€warrant,€even€if€the€twoÏdocuments€are€served€together,€or€are€both€found€on€the€same€sheet€of€paper.€ÏIf,€however,€there€is€explicit€reference€to€the€affidavit€in€the€search€warrant,€theÏaffidavit€may€be€considered€part€of€the€warrant.ÌÌà àBecause€the€presumption€precludes€merging€the€affidavit€and€theÏwarrant,€and€because€there€is€no€reference€to€the€affidavit€in€the€warrant,€thereÏis€no€reason€to€hold€the€affidavit€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€to€the€requirementsÏoutlined€in€Rule€41(c).€€Therefore,€the€warrant€was€properly€served€upon€theÏDefendant.ÌÌÓ  ÓÇII.ÌÌÓ  Óà àThe€second€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€the€affidavit€in€support€of€theÏsearch€warrant€contains€sufficient€evidence€of€the€reliability€of€the€confidentialÏinformant€to€establish€probable€cause.ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€there€is€a€distinction€between€so„called€ð ðcitizen€informants,ððÏor€bystanders€who€provide€information€or€tips€to€the€police,€and€ð ðcriminalÏinformants,ðð€or€those€drawn€from€the€ð ðcriminal€milieu,ðð€who€provide€suchÏinformation.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€354„55€(Tenn.€1982).€€TheÏreliability€and€source€of€information€provided€by€a€citizen€informant€used€toÏsecure€an€affidavit€is€assessed€from€ð ðall€of€the€circumstances€and€from€theÏentirety€of€the€affidavit.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Information€provided€by€an€unnamed€criminalÏinformant,€on€the€other€hand,€must€be€scrutinized€in›€a€two„prong€examination,Ïreferred€to€as€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€reliability/basis€of€knowledge€test.€€œòòAguilar€v.ÏTexasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€113„14€(1974);€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,Ï415„416,€418„419€(1969);€òòState›€v.€Cauleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€411,€417€(Tenn.€œ1993);ÏòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€436€(Tenn.€1989);€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841ÏS.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€ÌÌà àUnder€òòAguilar/Spinellióó,€to›€establish€the€requisite€probable€cause€to€issue€aÏsearch€warrant€when€an€unnamed€criminal€informant€provides€information€to€theÏpolice,€certain€facts€about€the€information€and€the€informer€must€be€established.€ÏUnder€the€first,€or€ð ðbasis€of€knowledgeðð€prong,€facts€must€be€revealed€whichÏpermit€the€magistrate€to€determine€whether€the€informant€had€a€basis€for€hisÏinformation€or€claim€regarding€criminal€conduct.€€Under€the€second,€or€ð ðveracityððÏprong,€facts€must€be€revealed€which€permit€the€magistrate€to€determine€theÏinherent€credibility€or€reliability€of€the€informant.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€theÏDefendant€concedes€that€the€ð ðbasis€of€knowledgeðð€prong€was€met€in€theÏaffidavit,€but€claims€that€the€ð ðveracityðð€requirement€was€not€satisfied.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€challenges€the€following€passage€from€Officer€LuttrellððsÏaffidavit€as€insufficient€to€satisfy€the€veracity€requirement:ÌÓÓà8 àSaid€informant€I€have€known€for€10€years.€€Said€informant€has€giveÏ[sic]€me€information€on€more€than€20€different€œoccassions€[sic].›€€OnÏeach€œoccassion€[sic]›€said€informants€[sic]€information€has€proven€toÏbe€true€and€accurate,€and€has€also€resulted€in€numerous€felonyÏarrest€[sic]€and€conviction€[sic].ÌÌÌÓÓœà àIn›€his€brief,€the€Defendant€relies€extensively€on€the€decision€in€òòState€v.ÏœStephen€Udzinskióó,›€No.€œ01C01„9212„CC„00380,€Dickson€County›€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏœApp.,€Nashville,€filed€Nov.›€18,€1993).€€In€òòUdzinskióó,€this€court€held€that€an€affidavitÏwhich€stated€that€the€informant€ð ðhas€provided€information€to€this€officer€in€theÍpast€which€has€all€proven€to€be€correct,€and€has€been€corroborated€by€anotherÏreliable€informantðð€failed€to€satisfy€the€veracity€prong€because€it€set€forth€mereÏconclusory€information€which€did€not€provide€a€œbasis›€for€the€magistrate€to€makeÏan€independent€determination€regarding€the€informantððs€reliability.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€3,€8„9.€ÏThe€Defendant€claims€that€the€affidavit€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€similarlyÏconclusory€in€nature,€and€should€be€voided€consistent€with€the€holding€inÏòòUdzinskióó.ÌÌà àThe€òòUdzinskióó€case€œaddresses›€œthe›€important€requirements€œfor€the›€veracityÏprong.€€œThe›€òòaffiantóó€œmust›€supply€facts€which€establish€the€informantððs€inherentÏcredibility.€€Credibility€is€not€established€by€stating€merely€that€the€informant€isÏð ðcredibleðð€or€ð ðreliable,ðð€but€rather€by€providing€specific€factual€references€to€theÏinformantððs€past€performances€as€relates€to€credibility.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€6.€€œData›€orÏinformation€regarding€the€number€of€occasions€that€the€informantððs€previousÏinformation€has€led€to€convictions€supports€the€conclusion€that€the€informantÏwas€correct€and€therefore€reliable.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€7.€€On€the€other€hand,€informationÏconcerning€the€number€of€arrests€an€informant€has€precipitated€is€not€œnecessarilyÏindicative›€of€reliability.€€òòIdóó.€€Further,€an€affidavit€which€sets€forth€the€types€ofÏevidence€or€contraband€to€which€the€informantððs€tips€have€led€the€authorities€isÏalso€looked€upon€favorably.€€òòIdóó.€œat›€8.€€In€short,€the€affiant€must€provide€someÏconcrete€reason€why€the€magistrate€should€œbelieve€the›€informant.ÌÌà àPerhaps€more€significantly,€the€òòUdzinskióó€decision€departed€in€part€fromÏòòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€782€(Tenn.€Crim.€œApp.),›€òòcertóó.€œòòdeniedóó,€òòidóó.›œ›€œ(Tenn.Ï1977),›€a€case€which€permitted€conclusory€information€regarding€an€informantððsÏcredibility€to€serve€as€the€basis€for€probable€cause€in€the€issuance€of€a€searchÏwarrant.€€The€òòWoodsóó€decision€stated€that€ð ðit€is€not€necessary€that€the€affidavitÏdetail€the€reliable€information€given€by€the€informant€in€the€past.ðð€€òòWoodsóó,€552ÏS.W.2d€at€785.€€In€response€to€the€holding€in€òòWoodsóó,€the€òòUdzinskióó€court€œheld:›Ïð ðWhere,€as€here,€the€affidavit€is€conclusory€as€to€the€informantððs€prior€informationÏand€does€not€include€the€nature€of€that€information,€we€believe€some€detail€is€notÏonly€necessary€but€required.ðð€€œòòUdzinskióó,€slip.€op.›€at€œ11.›ÌÌà àœThe›€requisite€volume€or€detail€of€information€needed€to€establish€theÏinformantððs€credibility€is€not€particularly€great.€€For€example,€in€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,Ï854€S.W.2d€897€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€œthe€court€held›€that€an€affiant€mayÏestablish€the€reliability€of€an€informant€by€making€reference€in€the€affidavit€toÏthree€prior,€successful€investigations€in€which€the€informant€was€involved.€€òòIdóó.€œat›Ï899.€€This€relatively€low€threshold,€combined€with€the€holding€in€òòUdzinskióó€that€Ïð ðsome€detail€.€.€.€is€requiredðð€œindicate›€that€as€long€as€the€magistrate€has€œspecific›Ïœcorroborating€information›€œsuch€as€that€the€information€has€resulted€in€convictions,Íwith›€which€to€œassess€the€credibility€of€the€informant,›€the€veracity€prong€can€beÏœmet.€€òòUdzinskióó,€slip.€op.€at€11„12.›ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€argues€that€the€statement€that€theÏinformant€in€question€has€provided€Officer€Luttrell€with€information€on€more€thanÏtwenty€different€occasions€which€has€on€each€occasion€proven€true€andÏaccurate,€and€has€resulted€in€numerous€felony€arrests€and€convictions€isÏconclusory€in€nature.€€In€light€of€the€holdings€in€òòUdzinskióó€and€òòJohnsonóó,€it€is€difficultÏto€find€the€merit€in€that€contention.€€If€Luttrell€had€merely€stated€that€theÏinformantððs€past€information€has€proven€true€and€accurate,€then€the€affidavitÏwould€have€been€conclusory€as€outlined€in€òòUdzinskióó.€€There€would€have€beenÏno€basis€for€the€magistrate€to€judge€the€informantððs€track€record.€€Additionally,ÏòòJohnsonóó€held€that€an€affidavit€which€stated€that€an€informant€has€providedÏinformation€which€has€led€to€òòthreeóó€successful€investigations€was€deemedÏsufficient.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€Officer€Luttrell€stated€that€the€informant€hasÏparticipated€in€more€than€òòtwentyóó€investigations,€most€of€which€may€beÏconsidered€ð ðsuccessful.ððÌÌà àIt€is€the€issuing€magistrate€who€has€the€responsibility€to€synthesize€thisÏtype€of€raw€information€and€determine€whether€the€informant€has€been€shownÏto€be€sufficiently€œreliable›€or€œto€demand›€more€œinformation.€€It›€is€clear,€however,€thatÍin€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€the€magistrate€had€œfactually€based›€information€uponÏwhich€to€base€the€decision.€€This€is€what€the€law€requires.€€Therefore,€theÏDefendantððs€argument€that€this€affidavit€was€simply€conclusory€in€nature€is€notÏwell„taken.€€The€veracity€prong€was€met,€and€thus€there€was€sufficient€probableÏcause€for€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant.ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€because€the€Defendant€was€not€entitled€by€law€to€aÏsigned€and€exact€duplicate€copy€of€the€affidavit,€and€because€there€wasÏsufficient€probable€cause€for€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant,€the€trial€judge€didÏnot€err€when€he€œdenied€the›€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence€seizedÏpursuant€to€the€search€warrant.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGE