WPC% UBV %U.nX 044 4h | 1m 0c w@T 0x 0D nXP  0L 0J 0T> 0^ 0h 0rX 0| BF 0c 0 1uy 0d D3RU6 0@B)DC$ AMg#v~vS 0L& 0wr 0 0s 0! 0! 0" 0i# AOX$$ 0Dm% D/% B%<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X-<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP( T$  R" tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s$2,  0  .3  0  UPEE[ Ӏ,U-(((3 $ T!       0  (#$  0  <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP> $Large Circle0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23   d2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  !" ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X 'dxd<  9p`(Courier New("$    % Line 7 d....7Border 1dd-/C << G  !  #d#,     YYY FILEDX June12,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#,  D        EllenYork,oneoftheoriginalfivedefendants,diedpriortothefilingoftheStatesappeal.Accordingtothedefendantsbrief,anordergrantingtheStatesmotiontodismissthechargesagainstherwasenteredonNovember8,1996.,  !#d#,  D        Thisisthemannerinwhichtheinformantwasidentifiedintheaffidavit.,  !  #d#,     YYY FILEDX June12,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva >b$Large Circle0 (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . ,   X   ,   ,  7BXXdd7  \RA'\  ԛ   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜R01/A1-j|`  `@Rߛ@ ATKNOXVILLE  @ APRIL1997SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )       )  C.C.A.NO. 03C019609CC00345   Appellant, 򀀀  )      ) ANDERSONCOUNTY VS.      )      ) HON.JAMESB.SCOTT,JR.,JOEEDYORK,SHEILAYORK,  ) JUDGEELLENYORK,GEORGEYORK, )andLISAPATTERSON,   ) (Stateappeal)̜      ) ̛  Appellees.   )         FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEELISAPATTERSON: JOHNKNOXWALKUP    ANDYCOREA AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   136S.IllinoisAve.,Suite104       OakRidge,TN37830 MICHAELJ.FAHEY,II Asst.AttorneyGeneral    FORTHEAPPELLEESHEILAYORK:450JamesRobertsonPkwy.Nashville,TN372430493    MARTS.CIZEK        245N.MainSt.,Suite100 JAMESN.RAMSEY     Clinton,TN37716DistrictAttorneyGeneral       FORTHEAPPELLEEJOEEDYORK: JANHICKS Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   KATHYKROEGER 127AndersonCountyCourthouse  101S.MainSt.,Suite450Clinton,TN37716     Clinton,TN37716       FORTHEAPPELLEEGEORGEYORK:       LAURAWEBB        101S.MainSt.,Suite322B       Clinton,TN37716OPINIONFILED:_______________________ AFFIRMED JOHNH.PEAY,̜Judge  ` D  , D     @ OPINION ̛̜  Thedefendants 2   כwereindictedinJanuary1996forpossessionofmarijuanawithintenttosell.Theyfiledamotiontosuppressalloftheevidencediscoveredthroughasearchwarrant.Afterahearing,thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotion.TheStatenowappeals.Afterareviewoftherecord,wefindnomerittotheStatesappealandaffirmthejudgmentofthecourtbelow.  OnNovember10,1995,JeffDavis,ChiefofOperationsofthe7thJudicialDistrictDrugTaskForce,submittedanaffidavitseekingtoobtainasearchwarrantforahomelocatedat7423NewRiverHighwayinAndersonCounty.ThehomebelongedtodefendantJoeEdYork.Intheaffidavit,Davissaidhehadreceivedinformationfromtwopeople.TheaffidavitstatedthatonthemorningofNovember10,1995,a concernedcitizen(hereinafterreferredtoasCC1)telephonedandsaidthatwithinthepastthirtysixhourshehadbeenatthehomeofJoeEdYorkandhadobservedmarijuanainthehomesbasement.DavisstatedthatCC1wasactingasa concernedcitizen,whofearedforhis/hersafetytotheextentthathe/sherefusedtoidentifyhimself/herself....  Priortoreceivingthiscall,Davishadspokentoanothersource.Inhisaffidavit,DavisstatedthatonNovember1,1995,hehadspokentoa confidentialinformant(hereinafterreferredtoasCC2) 3   כwhosaidhehadpurchasedmarijuanafromJoeEdYorkinthepastandhadobservedandpurchasedsomemarijuanaatthehomeonOctober29,1995.DavisandCC2thendrovetotheNewRiverareaandCC2identifiedthehousebelongingtoJoeEdYork.Intheaffidavit,thehousewasdescribedasawhitewoodframeresidencewithasmallcinderblockwallinfrontofthehome.  Basedupontheaboveinformation,asearchwarrantwasissuedforthehomeofJoeEdYork.WhenofficersexecutedthewarrantonNovember11,1995,thefollowingwasseized:    Plasticgarbagebagcontainingmarijuana,FiveboxesofGladlockstorage/sandwichbags,Plasticbaggiecontainingmarijuanabuds,Plasticbaggiescontainingmarijuanaleaves,andPlasticbaggiecontainingsmallmarijuanabudandseeds. D   Ӏ  Afterahearing,thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotiontosuppressalltheaboveevidence.Ingrantingthemotion,thetrialcourtincludedfindingsoffactaswellasconclusionsoflaw.Thefindingsofatrialjudgeonfactualissuesinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).Inthiscase,wefindnoreasontodisturbthetrialcourtsfindings.Further,weagreewiththetrialcourtsapplicationoflawtothosefindings.  Initsconclusionsoflaw,thetrialcourtfoundthattheaffidavitinsupportofthesearchwarrantwasdeficient.Initially,wenotethatanaffidavitisanindispensableprerequisitetotheissuanceofanysearchwarrant.T.C.A.406103;Statev.Moon,841S.W.2d336,338(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).Theaffidavitmustestablishprobablecause.T.C.A.406104;Tenn.R.Crim.P.41(c).Thus, probablecausetosupporttheissuanceofthewarrantmustappearintheaffidavit.Moon,841S.W.2dat338.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtfoundalackofprobablecausebecausetheinformationintheaffidavitgivenbyCC1failedtosatisfytheveracityprongofthetwoprongtestadoptedinStatev.Jacumin,778S.W.2d430(Tenn.1989)(relyinguponSpinelliv.UnitedStates,393U.S.410(1969),andAguilarv.Texas,378U.S.108(1964)).Thecourtspecificallyfoundthatthe concernedcitizenlanguagewasconclusoryandlegallydeficient.Weagreewiththisdetermination.  TheStatefirstarguesthattheAguilarSpinellitestofJacuminshouldnothavebeenappliedtobothinformantslistedintheaffidavit.WhileCC2wasclearlyaconfidentialinformanttowhomthetestapplied,theStatearguesthatthetestshouldnothavebeenappliedtoCC1whowassimplyacitizeninformant.TheStatearguesthatthereliabilityofCC1shouldhavebeenevaluatedinaccordancewiththeprinciplesinStatev.Melson,638S.W.2d342(Tenn.1982)anditsprogeny.  Acleardistinctionhasbeendrawnbetweenthecitizeninformantandthetypicalcriminalinformantor tipster.Melson,638S.W.2dat354.Informationgatheredfromacitizeninformantknowntotheaffiantispresumedtobereliable,thustheprosecutionisnotrequiredtoestablisheitherthecredibilityorreliabilityoftheinformant.Statev.Cauley,863S.W.2d411,417(Tenn.1993),citingMelson,638S.W.2dat35456.However,wherethecitizeninformantisunknowntotheaffiant, thereliabilityofthesourceandtheinformationmustbejudgedfromallthecircumstancesandfromtheentiretyoftheaffidavit.Cauley,863S.W.2dat417(citationomitted).  Ontheotherhand,informationprovidedbyaconfidentialinformantissubjecttothemorestringenttestofAguilarSpinelli.Specifically,theaffidavitrequestingthesearchwarrantmustshow(1)thebasisfortheinformantsknowledge(the basisofknowledgeprong)and(2)eitherabasisestablishingtheinformantscredibilityorabasisestablishingthattheinformantsinformationisreliable(the veracityprong).Statev.Ballard,836S.W.2d560,562(Tenn.1992).    Inthiscase,thetrialcourtviewedCC1asaconfidentialinformantandappliedtheAguilarSpinellitest.CC1hadbeendescribedintheaffidavitasa concernedcitizenwho,outoffearforhisorhersafety,didnotrevealhisorheridentitytotheinvestigator.Nootherfactsareincludedastotheidentityofthisinformant.ThisCourthasstatedbefore: D  \   \ Itisincumbent,wethink,uponwhoeverseeksasearchwarranttoincludeintheaffidavitwhethertheinformationalsource,namedorconfidential,qualifiesasacitizeninformant.Otherwise,theissuingmagistratewouldnotknowwhichstandard,JacuminorMelson,toapply.Whethertheaffidavitdescribesthestatusofthesourcedirectly,byimplication,orbyinference,isimmaterial;itmust,however,beapparentbeforethelessstringentMelsonstandardcanbeusedtotestthevalidityofthewarrant. D  \ D   ӀStatev.Smith,867S.W.2d343,348(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).  Thisaffidavit,liketheoneinSmith,containsnothingtoindicatethatCC1wasmerelyawitness.TheSmithaffidavitidentifiedtheinformantbyname,butonlydescribedhimas areliableperson.867S.W.2dat345.Incomparison,theaffidavitinMelsonidentifiedthesourcesofinformation,theirrelationshiptothevictim,andtheirstatusaswitnessesofpertinentevents.Smith,867S.W.2dat348.TheSmithaffidavitandtheoneinthecasesubjudicelackthisinformation.BecausetheinformantsstatusinSmithwasnotmoreadequatelyidentified,hiscredibilitywasjudgedundertheJacuminstandard.Thus,weconcludethatCC1'scredibilitymustbejudgedlikewise.   Asnotedabove,thetrialcourtfoundthatCC1didnotmeetthesecond,orveracity,prongofthetestinJacumin.Weagreewiththisconclusion. Theveracityprongmaybesatisfiedbyestablishingtheinformantsinherentcredibilityorbyestablishingthereliabilityoftheinformation.Statev.StephenUdzinski,Jr.,No.01C019212CC00380,DicksonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedNov.18,1993,atNashville).Aconclusoryallegationthattheinformantisreliableisinsufficienttosatisfythisprong.Spinelli,393U.S.at41618.Inthepresentcase,theaffiantonlystatesthattheinformantisa concernedcitizen.Nothingintheaffidavitshowstheinformantscredibilityorthereliabilityofhisinformation.TheaffiantdidnotknowCC1andthus,hehadnomeansofascertainingwhetherCC1wascredibleorwhetherCC1'sinformationwasreliable.Forthesereasons,weconcludethatCC1failstosatisfytherequirementsoftheJacuminandAguilarSpinellitest.  Reachingthisconclusion,however,doesnotendourinquiry.Unlikethetrialcourt,wefinditnecessarytoalsoevaluatetheotherinformant,CC2,todeterminewhetherhisinformationwassufficienttosupporttheissuanceofthesearchwarrant.Again,wefindthattheveracityprongofJacuminwasnotsatisfied.CC2wasclearlyidentifiedasa confidentialinformant,therefore,thereisnoquestionthatJacuminapplies.  Inordertosatisfytheveracityprong,theaffiantmustrelatetheunderlyingcircumstanceswhichleadtotheconclusionthattheinformantiscredibleorhisinformationisreliable.Withaconfidentialinformant,thisisgenerallyshownbytheinformantshavingpreviouslyprovidedrelevantinformationtopoliceofficersthatwasproventobereliable.Moon,841S.W.2dat339.Aninformants trackrecordiscertainlyhelpfulininferringthattheinformantisreliable.However,inthiscase,asinMoon,theaffidavitmadenoclaimthattheinformanthadanyhistoryofprovidingaccurateandreliableinformationtopoliceofficers. Thus,thereisnocircumstanceprovidedfromwhichthemagistratecouldinferthattheinformantsinformationwasreliablebecausehewasacredibleperson.Moon,841S.W.2dat339.WealsorejecttheStatesargumentthattheinformationintheaffidavitisreliablebecauseCC2gaveinformationagainsthispenalinterest.Theaffidavitdoesnotdemonstratehowsuchastatementrelatestotheinformantscredibilityortothereliabilityofhisinformation.Thus,weconcludethatthefactthatCC2madeastatementagainsthispenalinterestscarriesnoweighttowardenhancingthereliabilityofhisinformation.SeeMoon,841S.W.2dat33940.WefurthernotethatCC2'saccompanyingOfficerDavistothehomeofJoeEdYorkisnotsufficientcorroborationofCC2'sinformation.Corroborationofaminorelementofthestory,suchasthelocationofahome,isinsufficienttoestablishaninformantsreliability.SeeMoon,841S.W.2dat341.  WealsorejecttheStatesargumentthatwhenviewingtheaffidavitasawholeandconsideringtheinformationgivenbyCC1andCC2together,thereissufficientprobablecauseforthesearchwarrant.HavingconcludedthatbothinformantsfailtosatisfytheJacuminrequirements,wefindnomerittothisargument.Thesetwounreliablesourcescannotbeputtogethertocreatesufficientreliability.  Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdeterminationthatthesearchwarrantwasnotbaseduponprobablecause.            JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:̛̜PAULG.SUMMERS,Judge򀀀󀀀CORNELIAA.CLARK,Judge̛̛̛̛̛̛  7BXXdXXd7  &@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS@ EASTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE J04;+'b|TG`  `@J STATEOFTENNESSEE,    C.C.A.NO.03C019609CC00345   Appellant,    AndersonCOUNTY VS.       NO.96CR018A,B,C,DFBelowJOEEDYORK,SHEILAYORK,   Offense:ELLENYORK,GEORGEYORK,   Possessionofmarijuanawith andLISAPATTERSON,     intenttosell   Appellees.                         AffirmedandRemanded @ JUDGMENT    Cametheappellant,theStateofTennessee,bytheAttorneyGeneral,andtheappelleesbycounsel,andthiscasewasheardontherecordonappealfromtheCircuitCourtofAndersonCounty;anduponconsiderationthereof,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatthereisnoreversibleerrorinthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  Itis,therefore,orderedandadjudgedbythisCourtthatthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtofAndersonCountyforexecutionofthejudgmentofthatcourtandforcollectionofcostsaccruedbelow.  Costsofappealwillbepaidbytheappellant,theStateofTennessee,forwhichletexecutionissue. Xԛ