ÿWPC#C òÖ¨GÛcž ÃLÜ ¿ÑÄÐEWPŠÁöµ‘*ßdãK¼³ì¿ ’¸ciÞ dg@péÍ·þ)ª…ÔÛ"Ó•ÅfzÖŸxKc¸R9æßÒÞPnqÉûõ%—a™¯_‘€¹ÿ4©`†.÷D–œºˆ5'dOïG\Ä~ò?Ç„äé#Ç6¿‰ÈzLÒ{ƒŽ¬ïB ×þôª‹©ú$(û)0<úfSXR€@ôT0 @,¤’ $·WÅOØaÆmÙì §fMÅÂGu[ß…Ë+xTQ±u:ûêD)—ªsÔÚèÞž†C°È©BUߎutuí'jÎàNž®O V6Ú;çÇEjHŽáã/î[¼ß1Ó/ÍQȰ>2JÄâH¡þJ¬Ðœ¡pÆã%ʾ5î?"H¬¹Ô)  ªQ# Ãg‡v…ê_£—øÌÓYðÌ6ðÁZWX£69Ë8ªv;œN±KàíãÄ´ÕCº9•¼ä­CdRGï¹x_Ô çH‡eŠ„V«i½¬Ûë,°z÷W®y_§¾ÂÎô7”…# F UNQ %Ÿ 0(¥ U:Í b w@ 4O c 0Ær 0 D8 w| Ñó >Ä ¿ÁðÒÂÂs„¢÷«™åD!U:)'äc'QG(˜+–©,Â?.U:1°;1 Bë4U:5sB5U:µ6eï6ŒT:à?åè?U:Í@Í@Í@ D3AAA 0D:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A:A AO~AÆÍAÍA 0D“B D/×B BC˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù- DEFUGDKeLEMENUOUPÓ€uM%3|xY(v(2e1$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÏ®XXXÔÔ€ôð¥ôXXÏ®Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó mÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€motion€does€not€appear€in€the€record. ÇÝ ƒ e1$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÏ®XXXÔÔ€ôð¥ôXXÏ®Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€motion€does€not€appear€in€the€record. 4Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€have€not€challenged€the€constitutionality€of€the€helicopter€surveillance€of€their€propertyÐ `  Ðfrom€an€altitude€of€900€feet. µÝ ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€Justice€OððConnor€stated€that€the€key€inquiry€is€not€the€altitude€ofÐ `  Ðthe€aircraft,€it€is€the€reasonableness€of€the€expectation€of€privacy.€€òòRileyóó,€488€U.S.€at€454,€109€S.Ct.€at€699Ð  ¾ Ð(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring).×Ã×× C ×€€Justice€OððConnor€then€stated€that€because€there€is€reason€to€believe€thatÏthere€is€considerable€public€use€of€airspace€at€altitudes€of€400€feet€and€above€and€because€the€defendantÏhad€failed€to€introduce€any€evidence€to€the€contrary,€the€defendantððs€expectation€that€his€property€wasÏprotected€from€aerial€observation€from€an€altitude€of€400€feet€was€not€reasonable.€€òòId.óó,€488€U.S.€at€455,Ð  ¶ Ð109€S.Ct.€at€699€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring). Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€Justice€OððConnor€stated€that€the€key€inquiry€is€not€theÐ ° Ðaltitude€of€the€aircraft,€it€is€the€reasonableness€of€the€expectation€of€privacy.€€ æÝ ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€Federal€Aviation€Administration€regulations€generally€prohibit€the€flying€of€fixed„wing„Ð `  Ðaircraft€below€certain€altitudes,€helicopters€may€be€operated€lower€than€the€minimum€altitudes€ð ðif€theÏoperation€is€conducted€without€hazard€to€persons€or€property€on€the€surface.ðð€€14€CFR€ðð€91.119€(1994). ¸Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€only€authority€Appellants€cite€for€the€proposition€that€the€helicopter€surveillanceÐ `  Ðat€300€feet€was€unconstitutional€is€the€unpublished€Sixth€Circuit€opinion€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Saltzmanóó,€992Ð  ¾ ÐF.2d€1218,€1993€WL€100082€(6th€Cir.€1993).€€However,€that€case€is€distinguishable€because€the€courtÏfound€that€the€helicopter€had€flown€at€an€altitude€of€125€to€150€feet€and€had€disturbed€both€the€defendantððsÏfamily€and€the€surrounding€neighbors.€€òòId.óó,€1993€WL€100082,€at€*3. iÝ ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€in€an€order€dated€October€9,€1997,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€previously€found€thatÐ `  Ðthe€warrant€was€not€based€on€information€obtained€from€the€warrantless€entry.€ò òó ó ˜Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€is€no€dispute€that€the€part€of€Appellantsðð€property€that€contained€the€growing€marijuanaÐ `  Ðplants€was€ð ðcurtilageðð€rather€than€ð ðopen€field.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Jennetteóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€heldÐ  ¾ Ðthat€police€officers€do€not€need€a€warrant€to€enter€an€open€field€and€seize€marijuana€that€they€haveÏobserved€by€lawful€helicopter€surveillance€(emphasis€supplied).€€706€S.W.2d€614,€618ð!ð21€(Tenn.€1986).€ÏHowever,€the€supreme€court€held€in€òòState€v.€Prieróó,€that€absent€exigent€circumstances,€police€officers€mustÐ X ø Ðhave€a€warrant€in€order€to€enter€curtilage€and€seize€marijuana€that€they€have€observed€by€lawful€helicopterÏsurveillance.€€725€S.W.2d€667,€671ð!ð72€(Tenn.€1987). ¡Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XïÜXXXÔÔ€ôÐÕôXXïÜÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€in€the€appeal€of€the€decision€in€Appellantsðð€civil€forfeiture€case,€the€TennesseeÐ `  ÐCourt€of€Appeals€similarly€held€that€the€search€warrant€in€this€case€was€not€tainted€by€the€initialÏwarrantless€entry€onto€Appellantsðð€property.€€òòSeeóó€òòWare€v.€Greeneóó,€984€S.W.2d€610,€613ð!ð14€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð Ü | ÐApp.€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€Contrary€to€the€Stateððs€contention,€the€Court€ofÐ š : ÐAppealsðð€decision€is€not€binding€on€Appellants€in€this€case€because€the€doctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€onlyÏapplies€in€a€criminal€case€ð ðwhen€the€area€of€contention€has€been€resolved€in€favor€of€the€defendant.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Allenóó,€752€S.W.2d€515,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988). ÛÝ ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XŸãXXXÔÔ€ô ¹ôXXŸãÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€this€Court€held€that€evidence€discovered€under€similar€circumstances€wasÐ `  Ðadmissible€in€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€640€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€òòBreweróó,€the€officers€who€wereÐ  ¾ Ðexecuting€a€search€warrant€for€the€defendantsðð€property€wandered€over€an€indistinct€property€line€andÏdiscovered€a€marijuana€patch€and€a€partially€constructed€house€that€contained€marijuana.€€This€Court€heldÏthat€the€search€was€reasonable€under€the€circumstances€because€the€officers€had€not€strayed€far€from€theÏdefendantsðð€property€and€further,€the€defendants€had€failed€to€establish€a€privacy€interest€in€theirÏneighborððs€property.€€òòId.óó€at€34ð!ð35.€€Similarly,€Agent€Lawson€testified€that€even€though€a€local€officer€hadÐ Ô t Ðexpressed€the€opinion€that€the€building€was€not€owned€by€Appellants,€Lawson€believed€that€it€was€part€ofÏtheir€property€or€at€least€was€connected€with€it€because€it€was€connected€to€one€of€Appellantsðð€marijuanaÏpatches€by€a€ð ðwell„worn€pathðð€that€had€marijuana€cultivating€equipment€and€cut€marijuana€stalks€scatteredÏalong€its€entire€length.€€ò ò(II€123„24)ó ó€Thus,€we€conclude€that,€as€was€the€search€in€òòBreweróó,€Lawsonððs€searchÐ Ìl  Ðof€Morganððs€building€was€likewise€reasonable€under€the€circumstances.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ÚÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAppellants€have€not€challenged€the€constitutionality€of€the€helicopter€surveillance€ofÐ `  Ðtheir€property€from€an€altitude€of€900€feet. GÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€Justice€OððConnor€stated€that€the€key€inquiry€is€not€theÐ `  Ðaltitude€of€the€aircraft,€it€is€the€reasonableness€of€the€expectation€of€privacy.€€òòRileyóó,€488€U.S.€atÐ L ì Ð454,€109€S.Ct.€at€699€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring).×Ã×× C ×€€Justice€OððConnor€then€stated€that€becauseÏthere€is€reason€to€believe€that€there€is€considerable€public€use€of€airspace€at€altitudes€of€400€feetÏand€above€and€because€the€defendant€had€failed€to€introduce€any€evidence€to€the€contrary,€theÏdefendantððs€expectation€that€his€property€was€protected€from€aerial€observation€from€an€altitudeÏof€400€feet€was€not€reasonable.€€òòId.óó,€488€U.S.€at€455,€109€S.Ct.€at€699€(OððConnor,€J.,€concurring). Ý ƒ þÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€a€separate€concurring€opinion,€Justice€OððConnor€stated€that€the€key€inquiry€is€not€theÐ ° Ðaltitude€of€the€aircraft,€it€is€the€reasonableness€of€the€expectation€of€privacy.€€ ŒÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhile€Federal€Aviation€Administration€regulations€generally€prohibit€the€flying€of€fixed„Ð `  Ðwing„aircraft€below€certain€altitudes,€helicopters€may€be€operated€lower€than€the€minimumÏaltitudes€ð ðif€the€operation€is€conducted€without€hazard€to€persons€or€property€on€the€surface.ðð€€14ÏCFR€ðð€91.119€(1994). ¸Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X£s XXXÔÔ€ôàñô XX£sÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€the€only€authority€Appellants€cite€for€the€proposition€that€the€helicopter€surveillanceÐ `  Ðat€300€feet€was€unconstitutional€is€the€unpublished€Sixth€Circuit€opinion€of€òòUnited€States€v.€Saltzmanóó,€992Ð  ¾ ÐF.2d€1218,€1993€WL€100082€(6th€Cir.€1993).€€However,€that€case€is€distinguishable€because€the€courtÏfound€that€the€helicopter€had€flown€at€an€altitude€of€125€to€150€feet€and€had€disturbed€both€the€defendantððsÏfamily€and€the€surrounding€neighbors.€€òòId.óó,€1993€WL€100082,€at€*3.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ¦Ý ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€ X£s XXXÔÔ€ ôàñô XX£sÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý›There€is€no€dispute€œthat›€the€part€of€Appellantsðð€property€that€contained€the€growing€marijuanaÐ `  Ðplants€was€œð ðcurtilageðð›€rather€than€œð ðopen›€œfield.ð𛀀In€òòState€v.€Jennetteóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€heldÐ  ¾ Ðthat€police€officers€do€not€need€a€warrant€to€enter€an€open€field€and€seize€marijuana€that€they€haveÏobserved€by€lawful€helicopter€œsurveillance›œ€(emphasis€supplied).›€€706€S.W.2d€614,€618ð!ð21€(Tenn.€1986).€ÏHowever,€the€supreme€court€held€in€òòState€v.€Prieróó,€that€absent€exigent€circumstances,€police€officers€mustÐ X ø Ðhave€a€warrant€in€order€to€enter€curtilage€and€seize€marijuana€that€they€have€observed€by€lawful€helicopterÏsurveillance.€€725€S.W.2d€667,€671ð!ð72€(Tenn.€1987).œ d,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular iÝ ƒ ù$ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€"X£s XXXÔÔ€"ôàñô XX£sÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝIndeed,€in€an€order€dated€October€9,€1997,€the€trial€court€stated€that€it€had€previously€found€thatÐ `  Ðthe€warrant€was€not€based€on€information€obtained€from€the€warrantless€entry.€ò òó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular [Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€in€the€appeal€of€the€decision€in€Appellantsðð€civil€forfeiture€case,€theÐ `  ÐTennessee€Court€of€Appeals€similarly€held€that€the€search€warrant€in€this€case€was€not€tainted€byÏthe€initial€warrantless€entry€onto€Appellantsðð€property.€€òòSeeóó€òòWare€v.€Greeneóó,€984€S.W.2d€610,Ð 8 Ø Ð613ð!ð14€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1998).€€Contrary€to€the€StateððsÐ $ Ä Ðcontention,€the€Court€of€Appealsðð€decision€is€not€binding€on€Appellants€in€this€case€because€theÏdoctrine€of€collateral€estoppel€only€applies€in€a€criminal€case€ð ðwhen€the€area€of€contention€hasÏbeen€resolved€in€favor€of€the€defendant.ðð€€òòState€v.€Allenóó,€752€S.W.2d€515,€516€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð èˆ Ð1988). ‚Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€note€that€this€Court€held€that€evidence€discovered€under€similar€circumstances€wasÐ `  Ðadmissible€in€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€640€S.W.2d€33€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€òòBreweróó,€the€officersÐ L ì Ðwho€were€executing€a€search€warrant€for€the€defendantsðð€property€wandered€over€an€indistinctÏproperty€line€and€discovered€a€marijuana€patch€and€a€partially€constructed€house€that€containedÏmarijuana.€€This€Court€held€that€the€search€was€reasonable€under€the€circumstances€because€theÏofficers€had€not€strayed€far€from€the€defendantsðð€property€and€further,€the€defendants€had€failedÏto€establish€a€privacy€interest€in€their€neighborððs€property.€€òòId.óó€at€34ð!ð35.€€Similarly,€AgentÐ èˆ ÐLawson€testified€that€even€though€a€local€officer€had€expressed€the€opinion€that€the€building€wasÏnot€owned€by€Appellants,€Lawson€believed€that€it€was€part€of€their€property€or€at€least€wasÏconnected€with€it€because€it€was€connected€to€one€of€Appellantsðð€marijuana€patches€by€a€ð ðwell„¼worn€pathðð€that€had€marijuana€cultivating€equipment€and€cut€marijuana€stalks€scattered€along€itsÏentire€length.€€ò ò(II€123„24)ó ó€Thus,€we€conclude€that,€as€was€the€search€in€òòBreweróó,€Lawsonððs€searchÐ „$  Ðof€Morganððs€building€was€likewise€reasonable€under€the€circumstances. ÛÔ€'XÏ®XXXÔÔ€'o X'XÏ®ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€'XÏ®X 'oÔÐ  ÐÌJune€11,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝñPññKñ›ñKññPñÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ŠRŽŠXXÔÔ€Š3 ŠŠŠRŽÔÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€&VXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òñPñßr€&*<,(j 8` `€€@Eôf ` 8ttxP,` ð  rß›ñPñIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJANUARY€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9803„CC„00129Ð ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àó ó)Ð ` Ðà ` àAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àWAYNE€COUNTYÐ Xø  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ Xø  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€WILLIAM€B.€CAINó óÐ Xø  Ðò òWILLIAM€D.€WARE€andó óà À àò ò)à  àJUDGEó óÐ Xø  Ðà ` àò òVIRGINIA€WARE,ó óà h àà À àò ò)ó óÐ Xø Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(Direct€Appeal)Ð Xø Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à h àà À àà  àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:Ð 8Ø ÐÌJOHN€S.€COLLEY,€IIIà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ ( È ÐP.€O.€Box€1476à  àà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ  !À ÐColumbia,€TN€€38402„1476Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€M.€BOTTOMSÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJESSE€DURHAMÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à252€N.€Military€Ave.,€Ste.€202Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLawrenceburg,€TN€€38464ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÐ  x5,- ÐÓ  Óò òòòÔ‡„ðÅ„ŠŠ3 ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š3 Š„„ðÅy #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÑ7€&VXXdìXXdì7ÑÌà ` àIn€February€of€1995,€the€Wayne€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€AppellantsÏWilliam€D.€Ware€and€Virginia€Ware€for€manufacture€of€marijuana€and€alsoÏindicted€Mr.€Ware€for€manufacture€of€LSD.€€Appellants€subsequently€filed€aÏmotion€to€suppress€all€evidence€that€was€seized€from€their€property€and€from€anÏadjoining€neighborððs€property€by€the€police€on€September€29€and€30,€1994.ñKñ׃ ×ñKññKñ׃ ×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ l  Ðtrial€court€conducted€a€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€on€July€3,€1996.€ÏAppellants€then€filed€a€supplemental€motion€to€suppress€on€July€12,€1996.€€ByÏletter€dated€August€14,€1996,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€suppress.€€OnÏAugust€15,€1996,€Appellants€asked€the€trial€court€to€address€the€search€of€theÏadjoining€neighborððs€property€where€the€LSD€was€found.€€The€trial€courtÏsubsequently€entered€an€order€on€March€4,€1997,€that€denied€the€motion€toÏsuppress€in€its€entirety.€€Appellants€pled€guilty€to€the€above€charges€on€AugustÏ13,€1997.€€That€same€day,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Mr.€Ware€to€a€term€of€eightÏyears€for€the€LSD€conviction,€with€one€year€of€confinement€followed€by€sevenÏyears€of€probation.€€The€trial€court€also€sentenced€Ms.€Ware€to€two€years€ofÏprobation€for€the€marijuana€conviction.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing€on€October€9,Ï1997,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Mr.€Ware€to€a€term€of€two€years€for€the€marijuanaÏconviction,€with€seven€months€of€confinement€followed€by€one€year€and€fiveÏmonths€of€probation.€€Both€Appellants€challenge€their€convictions€and€Mr.€WareÏchallenges€his€sentence€for€the€marijuana€conviction,€raising€the€following€issues:ÌÓÓà0 ` à1)€whether€the€helicopter€surveillance€of€their€property€from€an€altitude€ofÏ300€feet€violated€Appellantsðð€constitutional€rights;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à2)€whether€the€search€warrant€was€tainted€by€an€earlier€warrantless€entryÏonto€Appellantsðð€property;ÐT7ô-/` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à3)€whether€the€search€of€an€adjoining€neighborððs€property€violatedÏAppellantsðð€rights;€andÐ ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` à4)€whether€the€trial€court€should€have€imposed€full€probation€for€theÏsentence€for€Mr.€Wareððs€marijuana€conviction.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓ\ÓAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ÑÑ*®àò òI.€€FACTSó óˆÐ ¸  ÐÌà ` àAround€noon€on€September€29,€1994,€Trooper€Dennis€Peevehouse€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol€and€Agent€Jim€Lawson€of€the€Tennessee€AlcoholicÏBeverage€Commission€were€flying€in€a€helicopter€over€rural€Wayne€County€in€aÏsearch€for€marijuana.€€While€they€were€flying€above€Appellantððs€property€at€anÏaltitude€of€approximately€900€feet,€Peevehouse€saw€rows€of€plants€that€wereÏcovered€by€a€white€cheesecloth„type€material.€€At€one€end€of€a€row,€PeevehouseÏsaw€that€part€of€the€cloth€had€blown€back€and€exposed€what€he€recognizedÏthrough€training€and€experience€as€a€marijuana€plant.€€Lawson€could€also€seeÏwhat€he€recognized€as€marijuana€plants€touching€the€cheesecloth.€ÌÌà ` àAfter€spotting€the€marijuana,€Peevehouse€followed€standard€procedure€andÏtook€the€helicopter€down€to€an€altitude€of€300€feet€so€that€he€could€confirm€hisÏobservation.€€Peevehouse€and€Lawson€then€radioed€some€officers€that€were€onÏthe€ground€several€miles€away€and€directed€them€to€Appellantsðð€property.€€TheÏofficers€on€the€ground€arrived€at€Appellantsðð€property€approximately€ten€minutesÏlater€and€parked€in€both€driveways€leading€to€the€residence.€ò òÐ 3¸)+ ÐÌà ` àó óWhen€the€officers€arrived€at€Appellantsðð€residence,€they€followed€standardÐ 7¨-/ Ðprocedure€and€some€officers€moved€to€surround€the€house€while€othersÐ ø8˜/1 Ðapproached€the€residence€to€request€consent€for€a€search.€When€Agent€BondÏTubbs€went€toward€the€back€of€the€residence€on€the€left,€he€observed€aÏmarijuana€patch€covered€with€cheesecloth.€€Tubbs€did€not€touch€the€cloth€orÏmove€it,€but€he€could€see€through€it€and€could€recognize€the€marijuana€plantsÏgrowing€underneath.€€Tubbs€then€reported€on€the€radio€that€he€had€seenÏmarijuana.€ÌÌà ` àWhen€some€other€officers€approached€the€residence,€they€encounteredÏAppellantsðð€daughter,€Summer€Ware,€who€was€leaving€the€residence€in€whatÏappeared€to€be€a€hurry.€The€officers€then€identified€themselves,€and€SummerÏstated€that€her€mother€was€at€home.€€The€officers€then€allowed€Summer€to€enterÏthe€residence€to€secure€a€dog,€and€they€then€asked€her€to€open€the€door.€€SheÏcomplied,€and€the€officers€entered€the€residence.ÌÌà ` àUpon€entering€the€residence,€the€officers€encountered€Ms.€Ware€and€theyÏasked€her€for€consent€to€search.€€Ms.€Ware€refused€and€told€the€officers€to€leaveÏthe€property.€€The€officers€then€secured€the€scene€by€blocking€all€exits€to€theÏresidence€and€checking€the€other€rooms€for€any€other€individuals€who€might€beÏin€the€home.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€officers€located€Mr.€Ware€walking€down€theÏroad.€€The€officers€then€arrested€both€Appellants€and€Summer€Ware.€ÌÌà ` àLawson€and€Agent€Barry€Callahan€then€prepared€an€affidavit€based€on€theÏobservations€of€Peevehouse€and€took€the€affidavit€to€a€magistrate€to€obtain€aÏsearch€warrant.€When€they€returned,€the€officers€began€a€search€of€AppellantsððÏresidence,€outbuildings,€and€the€surrounding€gardens€and€fields.€ÌÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àThe€search€of€Appellantsðð€property€also€included€a€search€of€a€buildingÏowned€by€Appellantsðð€neighbor,€Jeff€Morgan,€who€allowed€Appellants€to€use€theÏbuilding€in€return€for€watching€the€building€while€he€was€gone.€ÌÌà ` àDuring€the€search€of€Appellantsðð€property€and€Morganððs€building,€theÏofficers€found€numerous€items€associated€with€the€cultivation€of€marijuana,Ï$990.75€in€coins,€twenty-two€firearms,€a€video€camera,€two€videotapes€showingÏmarijuana€cultivation,€assorted€gold€and€silver€coins,€silver€bars,€153€marijuanaÏplants,€and€a€container€with€LSD€in€it.€ò òÐ à€ ÐÌà@ýý ®àII.€€HELICOPTER€SURVEILLANCEó óˆÐ Ðp ÐÌà ` àAppellants€contend€that€the€helicopter€surveillance€of€their€property€fromÏan€altitude€of€300€feet€violated€their€constitutional€right€to€be€protected€fromÏunreasonable€searches.ñKñ׃×ñKññKñ׃×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€disagree.Ð  $@ ÐÌà ` àThe€United€States€Constitution€guarantees€ð ð[t]he€right€of€the€people€to€beÏsecure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures€.€.€.€.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€€IV.€€The€TennesseeÏConstitution€similarly€provides€ð ð[t]hat€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,Ïhouses,€papers€and€possessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€.€.Ï.€.ðð€€Tenn.€€Const.€art€I,€ðð€7.€€The€touchstone€of€unreasonable€search€and€seizureÏanalysis€is€ð ðwhether€a€person€has€a€ððconstitutionally€protected€reasonableÏexpectation€of€privacy.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 6°,. ÐApp.€1993)€(quoting€òòCalifornia€v.€Ciraoloóó,€476€U.S.€207,€211,€106€S.Ct.€1809,Ð `  Ð1811,€90€L.Ed.2d€210€(1986)).€€This€determination€involves€a€two„part€inquiry.€ÏFirst,€has€the€individual€manifested€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€in€theÏobject€of€the€challenged€search?€€€Second,€is€society€willing€to€recognize€thatÏexpectation€as€reasonable?€€òòBowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€341€(citing€òòCiraoloóó,€476€U.S.Ð  À Ðat€211,€106€S.Ct.€at€1811).€€In€this€case,€there€is€no€real€dispute€that€AppellantsÏhad€manifested€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€property€viewed€fromÏthe€helicopter.€€Thus,€the€determinative€question€is€whether€that€expectation€ofÏprivacy€is€one€that€society€is€willing€to€recognize€as€reasonable.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòCiraoloóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€it€was€unreasonableÐ À` Ðfor€the€defendant€to€expect€that€marijuana€growing€in€his€fenced-in€back€yard€wasÏprotected€by€the€Fourth€Amendment€from€aerial€observation€at€an€altitude€ofÏ1,000€feet.€€476€U.S.€at€213ð!ð15,€106€S.Ct.€at€1813ð!ð14.€The€Court€emphasizedÏthat€the€observations€by€the€officers€took€place€within€public€navigable€air€spaceÏin€a€physically€non-intrusive€manner.€€òòId.óó,€476€U.S.€at€213,€106€S.Ct.€at€1813.€Ð p& ÐThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprovides€no€greater€protection€in€these€circumstances€than€was€stated€by€theÏCourt€in€òòCiraoloóó.€€òòState€v.€Prieróó,€725€S.W.2d€667,€671€(Tenn.€1987).Ð @,à"$ ÐÌà ` à€In€òòFlorida€v.€Rileyóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€relied€on€òòCiraoloóó€andÐ  0À&( Ðheld€that€it€was€unreasonable€for€the€defendant€to€expect€that€the€marijuanaÏgrowing€in€his€partially€open„roofed€greenhouse€was€constitutionally€protectedÏfrom€police€observation€by€helicopter€flying€at€an€altitude€of€400€feet.€€488€U.S.Ï445,€450ð!ð51,€109€S.Ct.€693,€697,€102€L.Ed.2d€835€(1989).€€The€four„JusticeÏplurality€stated€thatÐ Ð9p02 ÐÓÓà0 ` àit€is€of€obvious€importance€that€the€helicopter€in€this€case€was€not€violatingÏthe€law,€and€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€or€before€us€to€suggest€thatÏhelicopters€flying€at€400€feet€are€sufficiently€rare€in€this€country€to€lendÏsubstance€to€respondentððs€claim€that€he€reasonably€anticipated€that€hisÏgreenhouse€would€not€be€subject€to€observation€from€that€altitude.€€NeitherÏis€there€any€intimation€here€that€the€helicopter€interfered€with€respondentððsÏnormal€use€of€the€greenhouse€or€of€other€parts€of€the€curtilage.€€As€far€asÏthis€record€reveals,€no€intimate€details€connected€with€the€use€of€the€homeÏor€curtilage€were€observed,€and€there€was€no€undue€noise,€and€no€wind,Ïdust,€or€threat€of€injury.€€In€these€circumstances,€there€was€no€violation€ofÏthe€Fourth€Amendment.Ð ` T$` T$ ÐÌÓÍ0ÓòòId.óó,€488€U.S.€at€451ð!ð52,€109€S.Ct.€at€697.ñKñ׃×ñKññKñ׃×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð    ÐÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€under€òòCiraoloóó€and€òòRileyóó,€Appellants€had€no€reasonableÐ à€ Ðexpectation€that€the€marijuana€on€their€property€was€protected€from€observationÏby€the€police€from€a€helicopter€flying€at€an€altitude€of€300€feet.€€First,€the€policeÏwere€operating€the€helicopter€at€a€permissible€altitude.ñKñ׃Â×ñKññKñ׃×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Second,€there€is€nothingÐ °P Ðin€the€record€to€suggest€that€helicopter€overflights€at€300€feet€are€sufficiently€rareÏin€rural€Wayne€County€so€as€to€support€Appellantsðð€theory€that€they€reasonablyÏbelieved€that€their€property€would€not€be€observed€by€helicopter.€€In€fact,€Ms.ÏWare€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€before€the€helicopter€observationÏat€issue€here,€she€had€already€received€notice€from€Champion€Paper€CompanyÏthat€helicopters€would€be€in€the€area€to€spray€during€August€and€September.€ÏFurther,€Ms.€Ware€testified€that€part€of€the€reason€the€marijuana€was€coveredÏwith€cheesecloth€was€because€in€addition€to€the€Champion€helicopters,€thereÏmight€be€ð ðmarijuana€helicopter[s]ðð€in€the€area.€€Third,€there€is€no€evidence€in€theÐ  0À&( Ðrecord€that€the€police€helicopter€interfered€with€Appellantsðð€use€of€their€property.€ÏFinally,€there€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€that€the€helicopter€surveillance€at€anÏaltitude€of€300€feet€caused€any€undue€noise,€or€any€wind,€dust,€or€threat€of€injury.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€helicopter€surveillance€at€300Ïfeet€did€not€violate€Appellantsðð€rights€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€or€underÏArticle€I,€Section€7.ñKñ׃×ñKññKñ׃×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€issue€is€meritless.Ð °  ÐÌà@ïï$®àò òIII.€€SEARCH€WARRANTó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àAppellants€contend€that€the€search€warrant€that€was€obtained€for€theirÏproperty€was€tainted€by€the€prior€warrantless€entry€onto€their€property€by€theÏpolice.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà@pp$®àò òA.€€Warrantless€Entryó óˆÐ  "@ ÐÌà ` àInitially,€we€note€that€the€warrantless€entry€of€Appellantsðð€property€wasÏimproper.ñKñ׃F×ñKññKñ׃F×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Unless€it€falls€within€a€specifically€established€and€well-delineatedÐ €(   Ðexception,€a€search€conducted€without€a€warrant€is€per€se€unreasonable.€ÏòòSchneckloth€v.€Bustamonteóó,€412€U.S.€218,€219,€93€S.Ct.€2041,€2043,€36€L.Ed.2dÐ `,#$ Ð854€(1973)€(citations€omitted).€€One€of€these€exceptions€is€ð ð[a]€warrantless€searchÐ P.ð$& Ðconducted€pursuant€to€probable€cause€and€exigent€circumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.Ð `  ÐMooreóó,€949€S.W.2d€704,€706€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€However,€ð ð[t]he€burdenÐ P ð Ðis€on€the€State€to€show€that€exigent€circumstances€ma[d]e€the€search€imperative.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€641€(Tenn.€1997).Ð 0Ð ÐÌà ` àIt€is€clear€that€the€police€had€probable€cause€to€believe€that€there€wasÏmarijuana€on€Appellantsðð€property.€€Trooper€Peevehouse€testified€at€theÏsuppression€hearing€that€while€he€was€at€an€altitude€of€900€feet,€he€saw€anÏuncovered€plant€which€he€recognized€through€training€and€experience€as€aÏmarijuana€plant.€€Peevehouse€then€went€down€to€an€altitude€of€300€feet€andÏconfirmed€that€what€he€had€seen€was€marijuana.€€Because€Peevehouse€hadÏobserved€what€he€knew€through€training€an€experience€to€be€marijuana,€it€is€clearÏthat€the€initial€entry€was€supported€by€probable€cause.ÌÌà ` àHowever,€it€is€also€clear€that€the€State€failed€to€meet€its€burden€of€showingÏthat€the€initial€entry€was€due€to€exigent€circumstances.€€First,€there€is€no€evidenceÏin€the€record€that€there€was€a€danger€that€the€evidence€would€be€destroyedÏbefore€a€warrant€could€be€obtained.€€Peevehouse€testified€that€he€never€sawÏanyone€who€would€have€been€in€the€position€to€destroy€the€marijuana€plants€heÏhad€observed.€€Agent€Lawson€also€testified€that€he€had€not€seen€anyone€attemptÏto€destroy€evidence€and€he€had€no€reason€to€believe€that€anyone€was€about€toÏdestroy€the€evidence.€€As€this€Court€has€previously€stated,€generalized€fears€thatÏsomeone€may€destroy€evidence€is€insufficient€to€establish€the€existence€ofÏexigent€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Curtisóó,€964€S.W.2d€604,€610ð!ð11€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ð5,. ÐApp.€1997).€€Second,€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€the€initial€entry€wasÏnecessary€for€officer€safety.€€Agent€Callahan€testified€that,€as€the€leader€of€theÐ Ð9p02 Ðofficers€who€initially€entered€the€property,€he€had€not€received€any€informationÏthat€Appellants€were€armed€and€dangerous.€€In€addition,€Agent€Lawson€alsoÏtestified€that€he€had€received€no€information€that€Appellants€had€any€weapons.€ÏFurther,€it€is€obvious€that€there€could€have€been€no€threat€to€officer€safety€as€longÏas€the€officers€remained€off€of€Appellantsðð€property.€€Thus,€we€agree€withÏAppellants€that€the€initial€entry€of€their€property€was€an€unreasonable€searchÏunder€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€Article€I,€Section€7.ÌÌà@#®àò òB.€€Impermissible€Taintó óˆÐ à€ ÐÌà ` àAlthough€we€agree€with€Appellants€that€the€initial€entry€of€their€property€wasÏunlawful,€we€disagree€that€the€warrant€was€tainted€by€the€entry.ÌÌà ` àAlthough€the€exclusionary€rule€may€operate€to€bar€the€admissibility€ofÏevidence€directly€or€derivatively€obtained€from€an€unconstitutional€search€orÏseizure,€it€has€long€been€recognized€that€evidence€obtained€by€means€genuinelyÏindependent€of€the€constitutional€violation€is€not€subject€to€the€exclusionary€rule.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€485ð!ð87,€83€S.Ct.€407,€416ð!ð17,Ð `*!" Ð9€L.Ed.2d€441€(1963).€€ð ðThis€ððindependent€source€doctrineðð€rests€upon€the€policyÏthat€ððwhile€the€government€should€not€profit€from€its€illegal€activity,€neither€shouldÏit€be€placed€in€a€worse€position€than€it€would€otherwise€have€occupied.ðððð€€òòStateÐ 00Ð&( Ðv.€Clarkóó,€844€S.W.2d€597,€600€(Tenn.€1992)€(quoting€òòMurray€v.€United€Statesóó,Ð  2À(* Ð487€U.S.€533,€542,€108€S.Ct.€2529,€2535,€101€L.Ed.2d€472€(1988)).€€TheÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€has€stated€thatà p àÐ 6 ,. Ðñ@ñÓÓñ@ñà0 ` àà ¸ àPursuant€to€this€doctrine,€an€unconstitutional€entry€does€not€compelÏexclusion€of€evidence€found€within€a€home€if€that€evidence€is€subsequentlyÏdiscovered€after€execution€of€a€valid€warrant€obtained€on€the€basis€of€factsÐ à9€02 Ðknown€entirely€independent€and€separate€from€those€discovered€as€aÏresult€of€the€illegal€entry.€€Further,€even€ð ðplain€viewðð€evidence€observedÏduring€the€warrantless€entry€will€not€be€excluded€so€long€as€(1)€theÏevidence€is€later€discovered€during€a€search€pursuant€to€a€valid€warrant,Ï(2)€this€valid€warrant€was€obtained€without€reference€to€evidenceÏuncovered€during€the€illegal€search,€and€(3)€the€government€agents€wouldÏhave€obtained€the€warrant€even€had€they€not€made€the€illegal€entry.€Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà0 ` àà ¸ àIn€order€for€the€subsequent€warrant€and€search€to€be€foundÏgenuinely€independent€of€the€prior€unconstitutional€entry,€the€.€.€.Ïinformation€obtained€during€the€illegal€entry€may€not€have€been€presentedÏto€the€issuing€Magistrate.ñAñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñAñÌñ@ñÓ;NÓñ@ñòòClarkóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€600€(citations€omitted).Ð    ÐÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€found€during€the€search€was€admissibleÏbecause€it€was€discovered€after€the€execution€of€a€valid€warrant€obtained€on€theÏbasis€of€facts€known€entirely€independent€of€the€initial€unlawful€entry.€€The€searchÏwarrant€affidavit€in€this€case€set€forth€the€following€grounds€for€a€warrant:ÌñDñÓÓñDñà0 ` àaffiantñBñà  àñBññCñ€ñCñhas€received€information€from€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol€TrooperÏDennis€Peevyhouse€[sic]€that€on€September€29,€1994,€he€observedÏmarijuana€growing€on€the€premises€belonging€to€William€Dean€WareÏlocated€at€Route€#€4,€Box€928,€Waynesboro,€Tennessee.€€The€marijuanaÏwas€approximately€100€feet€from€the€house.€€Trooper€Peevyhouse€[sic]Ïobserved€the€marijuana€while€conducting€an€aerial€search€of€WayneÏCounty.€€Trooper€Peevyhouse€[sic]€has€been€trained€in€the€aerial€detectionÏof€marijuana€growing€and€has€observed€marijuana€growing€many€times€inÏthe€past€that€has€lead€[sic]€to€arrests€and€convictions.€€Furthermore,€it€hasÏbeen€the€experience€of€your€affiants€that€person€[sic]€who€grow€marijuanaÏtend€to€keep€marijuana,€marijuana€seeds,€pictures€and€records€in€theirÏresidences.€Ð ` T$` T$ ÐñDñÓ5TÓñDñÌà ` àIn€its€letter€of€August€14,€1996,€in€which€it€denied€the€motion€to€suppress,Ïthe€trial€court€found€that€the€warrant€in€this€case€was€supported€by€probableÏcause€that€resulted€from€the€observations€by€helicopter.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏâ âfound€that€the€affidavit€was€based€solely€on€the€aerial€observations.€€Although€notÐ 4 *, Ðexpressly€stated,€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€necessarily€required€a€finding€that€theÏwarrant€was€not€tainted€by€the€initial€entry€onto€Appellantsðð€property.ñKñ׃×ñKññKñ׃!×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀РP ð Ðâ âÌà ` àIt€is€clear€from€the€express€terms€of€the€affidavit€that€the€grounds€for€theÏwarrant€contained€therein€came€entirely€from€the€observations€of€TrooperÏPeevehouse€and€not€from€anything€observed€by€officers€on€the€ground.€€AlthoughÏAppellants€make€much€of€the€fact€that€Agent€Tubbs€reported€to€Peevehouse€thatÏhe€had€observed€marijuana€when€he€made€the€warrantless€entry€onto€AppellantsððÏproperty,€that€fact€is€simply€not€a€part€of€the€affidavit.€€Thus,€the€magistrate€whoÏissued€the€warrant€could€not€have€considered€anything€observed€by€Tubbs€or€anyÏof€the€other€officers€on€the€ground€in€deciding€to€issue€the€warrant.€€The€affidavitÏstated€that€Peevehouse€had€special€training€and€experience€in€spotting€marijuanaÏduring€aerial€observations€and€that€he€had€successfully€detected€marijuana€fromÏthe€air€on€many€occasions.€€Furthermore,€the€affidavit€stated€that€PeevehouseððsÏinformation€about€the€presence€of€marijuana€on€Appellantsðð€property€was€basedÏon€his€own€direct,€personal€observations.€€Therefore,€the€affidavit,€on€its€face,Ïprovides€ample€grounds€for€a€neutral€and€detached€magistrate€to€issue€a€warrantÏfor€Appellantsðð€property.Ìà ` àÌà ` àAppellantsðð€claim€that€Peevehouseððs€observations€as€recounted€in€theÏaffidavit€were€not€independent€of€the€unlawful€entry€because€PeevehouseÏdirected€Tubbs€to€enter€the€property€and€confirm€his€belief€that€he€had€seenÏmarijuana.€€Essentially,€Appellants€contend€that€Peevehouse€could€not€possiblyÏhave€determined€that€marijuana€was€growing€under€the€cheesecloth€from€anÐ ð5,. Ðaltitude€of€300€feet€without€the€confirmation€he€received€from€Tubbs.€€However,ÏAppellantsðð€argument€ignores€the€fact€that€Peevehouse€expressly€testified€that€heÏsaw€a€marijuana€plant€that€was€not€covered€with€cheesecloth€and€he€was€able€toÏidentify€it€as€a€marijuana€plant€by€observing€its€color€and€texture€and€relying€onÏhis€training€and€experience.€€It€is€true€that€Agent€Callahan€testified€that€heÏrecalled€that€Peevehouse€had€directed€Tubbs€to€the€left€of€Appellantsðð€residenceÏto€confirm€the€presence€of€marijuana.€€However,€although€Peevehouse€testifiedÏthat€he€told€Tubbs€that€the€marijuana€was€on€the€left,€he€specifically€denied€everÏdirecting€Tubbs€to€go€to€the€spot€to€confirm€the€presence€of€marijuana.€€Further,Ïalthough€Tubbs€testified€that€he€had€reported€seeing€marijuana,€he€specificallyÏdenied€that€he€had€been€told€to€go€to€where€the€marijuana€was€or€to€confirm€itsÏpresence.€€In€addition,€Agent€Lawson€also€specifically€denied€that€Tubbs€hadÏbeen€directed€by€anyone€to€go€to€where€Peevehouse€had€seen€the€marijuana.€ÏThe€trial€court€obviously€resolved€any€conflicts€in€the€evidence€in€favor€of€findingÏthat€Peevehouse€was€sure€that€he€had€seen€marijuana€and€he€did€not€need€anyÏconfirmation.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€this€finding.ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€we€conclude€that€the€warrant€was€issued€based€solely€on€theÏobservations€of€Peevehouse€that€were€completely€independent€of€anythingÏobserved€by€the€officers€on€the€ground.€€In€addition,€because€the€warrant€wasÏobtained€without€any€reference€to€evidence€uncovered€during€the€initial€entry,Ïbecause€the€evidence€was€subsequently€discovered€during€the€execution€of€aÏlawful€warrant,€and€because€the€police€would€have€obtained€the€warrant€even€ifÏthey€had€not€made€the€initial€entry,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€all€œñNñÌâ âÐ à7€.0 ÐñNñevidence›€discovered€during€the€search€of€Appellantsðð€property€was€admissible.€Ïâ âòòSeeóó€òòClarkóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€600.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.ñMññKñ׃×ñKññMññKñ׃#×ñKññMñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñMñÐ P ð ÐÌò òà@— — ®àIV.€€SEARCH€OF€MORGANððS€PROPERTYó óˆÐ 0Ð ÐÌà ` àAppellants€contend€that€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressed€theÏevidence€found€in€the€building€owned€by€Morgan€because€the€building€was€notÏcovered€by€the€warrant.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àWhen€challenging€the€reasonableness€of€a€search€or€seizure,€theÏdefendant€has€the€burden€of€first€establishing€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacyÏin€the€place€or€property€which€is€searched.€€òòRawlings€v.€Kentuckyóó,€448€U.S.€98,Ð À` Ð104ð!ð05,€100€S.Ct.€2556,€2561,€65€L.Ed.2d€633€(1980).€€Although€relevant€to€theÏstanding€inquiry,€an€ownership€interest€in€the€property€searched€is€not€aÏprerequisite€to€establishing€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€because€anÏindividual€may€possess€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€another€personððsÏresidence.€€òòState€v.€Turnbillóó,€640€S.W.2d€40,€45€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€ThisÐ p(  ÐCourt€has€held€that€the€following€seven€factors€are€applicable€to€the€standingÏinquiry:ÌñEñÓÓñEñà0 ` à(1)€property€ownership;Ð ` T$` T$ Ðà ` à(2)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€thing€seized;Ìà ` à(3)€whether€the€defendant€has€a€possessory€interest€in€the€place€searched;Ìà ` à(4)€whether€he€has€a€right€to€exclude€others€from€that€place;Ìà0 ` à(5)€whether€he€has€exhibited€a€subjective€expectation€that€the€place€wouldÏremain€free€from€governmental€œinvasion;ñOñÐ ` T$` T$ ÐñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›œñOñÌñOñ›Ð à9€02 Ðà ` à(6)€whether€he€took€normal€precautions€to€maintain€his€privacy;€€andÌà ` à(7)€whether€he€was€legitimately€on€the€premises.€€ñFñÌñFñÌñEñÓBmÓñEñòòState€v.€Oodyóó,€823€S.W.2d€554,€560€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)€(quoting€òòUnitedÐ H è ÐStates€v.€Haydelóó,€649€F.2d€1152,€1154ð!ð55€(5th€Cir.1981)).Ð 8Ø ÐÌà ` àIn€reviewing€the€applicable€factors,€we€conclude€that€Appellants€failed€toÏestablish€that€they€had€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€Morganððs€building.€ÏIt€is€true€that€Appellants€had€a€possessory€interest€in€Morganððs€building€and€theyÏwere€legitimately€entitled€to€use€the€building.€€Indeed,€Ms.€Ware€testified€thatÏMorgan€had€given€Appellants€permission€to€use€the€building€for€storage€in€returnÏfor€keeping€the€building€in€repair.€€It€is€also€true€that€Appellants€had€manifestedÏa€subjective€expectation€that€the€building€would€remain€free€from€governmentalÏinvasion€and€had€taken€normal€precautions€to€maintain€their€privacy€by€keepingÏthe€building€locked.€€However,€we€conclude€that€these€factors€are€outweighed€byÏthe€other€factors€which€indicate€that€Appellants€had€no€legitimate€expectation€ofÏprivacy€in€Morganððs€building.€€First,€it€is€undisputed€that€Morgan,€and€notÏAppellants,€owned€the€building.€€In€fact,€Appellants€did€not€have€a€lease€or€anyÏother€kind€of€written€agreement€that€entitled€them€to€use€the€property;€their€useÏwas€merely€pursuant€to€a€verbal€agreement.€€Second,€there€is€no€indication€in€theÏrecord€that€Appellants€ever€claimed€ownership€of€the€property€that€was€seizedÏfrom€Morganððs€building.€€In€fact,€Ms.€Ware€specifically€testified€that€she€did€notÏknow€who€owned€the€marijuana€growing€equipment€or€the€LSD€that€was€foundÏin€the€building.€Third,€and€most€importantly,€there€is€no€indication€in€the€recordÏthat€Appellants€had€the€right€to€exclude€others€from€Morganððs€building.€€There€isÏno€indication€that€Appellantsðð€agreement€with€Morgan€gave€them€the€exclusiveÏright€to€use€the€building.€€Certainly,€the€record€indicates€that€Morgan€had€a€keyÐ Ø8x/1 Ðto€the€building€and€nothing€indicates€that€he€could€not€have€used€the€buildingÏanytime€he€was€in€the€area.€€Further,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€thatÏMorgan€could€not€have€given€his€key€to€any€number€of€people€and€also€permittedÏthem€to€use€the€building€for€storage.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€concludeÏthat€Appellants€did€not€have€a€legitimate€expectation€of€privacy€in€MorganððsÏbuilding.€€This€œissueñLñ€ñLñ›œñLñhasñLñ›€is€meritless.ñKñ׃×ñKññKñ׃$×ñKñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð °  ÐÌà@ôô ®àò òV.€€DENIAL€OF€FULL€PROBATIONó óˆÐ ð  ÐÌà ` àMr.€Ware€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€impose€fullÏprobation€for€the€sentence€for€his€marijuana€conviction.€€We€disagree.ÌÌà ` àUnder€Tennessee€law,€a€defendant€is€eligible€for€probation€if€the€sentenceÏimposed€is€eight€years€or€less€and€further,€the€trial€court€is€required€to€considerÏprobation€as€a€sentencing€alternative€for€eligible€defendants.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40-35-303(a)ð!ð(b)€(1997).€€However,€even€though€probation€must€beÏautomatically€considered,€ð ðthe€defendant€is€not€automatically€entitled€to€probationÏas€a€matter€of€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-35-303(b)€(1997),€SentencingÏCommission€Comments;€òòState€v.€Hartleyóó,€818€S.W.2d€370,€373€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð P,ð"$ ÐApp.€1991).€€Indeed,€a€defendant€seeking€full€probation€bears€the€burden€onÐ @.à$& Ðappeal€of€showing€that€the€sentence€actually€imposed€is€improper€and€that€fullÏprobation€will€be€in€both€the€best€interest€of€the€defendant€and€the€public.€€òòStateÐ P ð Ðv.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€When€determiningÐ @ à Ðsuitability€for€probation,€the€sentencing€court€considers€the€following€factors:€€(1)Ïthe€nature€and€circumstances€of€the€criminal€conduct€involved;€€(2)€theÏdefendantððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation,€including€the€risk€that,Ïduring€the€period€of€probation,€the€defendant€will€commit€another€crime;€€(3)Ïwhether€a€sentence€of€full€probation€would€unduly€depreciate€the€seriousness€ofÏthe€offense;€€and€(4)€whether€a€sentence€other€than€full€probation€would€provideÏan€effective€deterrent€to€others€likely€to€commit€similar€crimes.€€Tenn.€Code€€Ann.Ïðððð€40-35-210(b)(4),€40„35-103(5),€40„35-103(1)(B)€(1997€&€Supp.€1998);€òòStateÐ À` Ðv.€Bakeróó,€966€S.W.2d€429,€434€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2dÐ °P Ðat€456.ÌÌà ` àAs€a€Range€I€standard€offender€convicted€of€a€Class€E€felony€andÏsentenced€to€two€years,€Mr.€Ware€was€presumed€to€be€a€favorable€candidate€toÏreceive€an€alternative€sentence€for€his€marijuana€conviction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„35„102(5)ð!ð(6)€(1997).€€Indeed,€Mr.€Ware€received€an€alternative€sentenceÏof€seven€months€of€confinement€followed€by€one€year€and€five€months€ofÏprobation.€€However,€Mr.€Ware€contends€that€the€trial€court€should€have€imposedÏprobation€for€the€entire€two€year€period€of€his€sentence.ÌÌà ` àThe€record€indicates€that€in€imposing€the€sentence€for€Mr.€WareððsÏmarijuana€conviction,€the€trial€court€considered€the€fact€that€Mr.€Ware€had€noÏprevious€record€of€criminal€convictions€and€that€manufacture€of€marijuana€is€notÏa€violent€crime.€€However,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€these€factors€wereÐ Ð9p02 Ðoutweighed€by€other€considerations.€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€evidenceÏpresented€during€the€sentencing€hearing€indicated€that€Mr.€Ware€had€beenÏinvolved€in€the€manufacture€and€sale€of€marijuana€for€at€least€five€years€beforeÏhe€was€caught.€€The€trial€court€also€noted€that€Mr.€Wareððs€operation€was€well„¼planned€and€sophisticated€and€that€Mr.€Ware€had€supported€himself,€his€wife,Ïand€their€two€children€with€the€proceeds€of€his€marijuana€growing€operation.€ÏThus,€the€trial€court€concluded€that€full€probation€was€not€appropriate€becauseÏthe€seriousness€of€the€offense€would€be€depreciated€if€the€sentence€did€notÏinclude€some€period€of€confinement.€ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€denied€full€probation€based€on€theÏseriousness€of€the€offense.€€The€general€rule€is€that€ð ð[i]n€order€to€deny€anÏalternative€sentence€based€on€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€ððthe€circumstancesÏof€the€offense€as€committed€must€be€especially€violent,€horrifying,€shocking,Ïreprehensible,€offensive,€or€otherwise€of€an€excessive€or€exaggerated€degree,ððÏand€the€nature€of€the€offense€must€outweigh€all€factors€favoring€a€sentence€otherÏthan€confinement.ðð€€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€455.€€We€conclude€that€theÐ `(  Ðcircumstances€of€Mr.€Wareððs€offense€do€not€meet€this€standard.€€However,€thisÏCourt€has€recognized€that€although€the€circumstances€of€the€offense€may€not€beÏsufficient€in€themselves€to€completely€deny€alternative€sentencing,€they€may€stillÏbe€sufficient€to€deny€full€probation.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€456.€€This€is€the€case€here.€€TheÐ  0À&( Ðphotographs,€videotapes,€and€documents€seized€from€Appellantsðð€home€indicateÏthat€Mr.€Ware€was€engaged€in€a€well„organized€marijuana€growing€and€sellingÏoperation€from€at€least€1989€until€his€arrest€in€1994.€ò ò€ó óIndeed,€the€record€indicatesÐ ð5,. Ðthat€Mr.€Ware€had€developed€a€fairly€refined€system€for€ð ðcloningðð€and€raisingÏmarijuana€plants€that€were€a€cross€between€ð ðM„39ðð€and€ð ðSkunk€#1ðð€types€ofÐ à9€02 Ðmarijuana.€€In€fact,€Agent€Callahan€testified€that€Mr.€Ware€had€the€mostÏsophisticated€operation€that€he€had€ever€seen€and€Callahan€estimated€that€Mr.ÏWare€had€made€up€to€$100,000€in€one€year€through€the€marijuana€operation.€ÏFurther,€the€record€indicates€that€Appellants€had€153€marijuana€plants€on€theirÏproperty€when€it€was€searched€on€September€29€and€30,€1994.€€Under€theseÏcircumstances,€we€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€some€period€of€confinement€wasÏnecessary€in€order€to€avoid€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense.ÌÌà ` àIn€short,€Mr.€Ware€has€simply€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€showing€that€theÏsentence€actually€imposed€is€improper€and€that€full€probation€will€be€in€both€hisÏown€best€interest€and€in€the€best€interest€of€the€public.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€€Therefore,€weÐ À` Ðconclude€that€a€sentence€of€seven€months€of€confinement€followed€by€one€yearÏand€five€months€of€probation€is€entirely€appropriate€in€this€case.€€This€issue€hasÏno€merit.ÌÌà ` àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.ÌÌñGñà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àà ` àÌÌÌÌñGñÓ  ÓñGñà ` àÌÌÌñGñÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE