ÿWPC`/ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  1m, 0c™ ü 0l 0Dp 0J´ 0Tþ 0^R 0h° 0r 0|Š 0† 0Œ 1u 0d‘ BõU *B)<DCe AM¨ D3õ(¢, 0@Î÷›ò ’v~„!vÓ# 0wÕ( 0ŠL) 0 Ö) 0´v* 0Ç*+ 0Ûñ+ 0ïÌ, AO»-Æ . 0DÐ. D// BC/˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ F G H DI J EK L M N DO Ó€Úƒç"3|xZ  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctober€2,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ýà àÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€some€documents€in€the€record€refer€to€thisÏdefendant€as€ð ðBuddy€Brewerðð€it€is€the€policy€of€this€court€to€use€the€name€as€itÏappears€on€the€indictment.€€On€the€indictment,€this€defendant€is€identified€asÏð ðBuddy€Hugh€Brewer.ððÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€appellantsðð€procedure€in€certifying€the€question€of€lawÏsatisfies€the€requirements€established€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,Ï759€S.W.2d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1988),€and€the€state€has€not€asserted€anyÏnoncompliance.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIt€is€not€clear€if€the€officer€also€took€the€òòaffidavitóó€with€her€withoutÏleaving€a€copy€with€the€magistrate.€€Under€Tennessee€law,€the€affidavit€is€aÏdocument€separate€from€the€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Oliver€Loweóó,€No.€01C01„9601„CC„00010€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€19,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1997).Ìà àÌ è Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóà àIn€arriving€at€this€conclusion,€we€are€mindful€of€the€predecessorÏprovision€of€Rule€41(c).€€This€provision€was€set€forth€in€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„518€(Supp.€1974)€(repealed€1979).€€The€final€sentence€inÏthe€statute€was€different€from€the€final€sentence€appearing€in€Rule€41(c).€€In€theÏstatute,€the€sentence€read:€ð ðFailure€to€comply€òòwith€this€sectionóó€shall€make€anyÏsearch€conducted€under€said€warrant€an€illegal€search€and€seizureðð€(emphasisÏadded).€€This€section€included€the€requirement€that€the€magistrate€keep€a€copyÏof€the€warrant€ð ðas€a€part€of€his€official€records.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„518Ï(Supp.€1974)€(repealed€1979).€€(The€rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€wereÏapproved€by€the€General€Assembly€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€16„3„404.€€They€became€effective€on€July€13,€1978,€after€beingÏapproved€by€the€Governor€on€April€14,€1978.)€€ÌÌà àà àWe€are€also€mindful€that€the€deletion€of€the€requirement€that€theÏmagistrate€retain€a€copy€of€the€warrant€from€the€mandatory€language€when€theÏlegislature€adopted€the€Rules€in€1978€and€then€repealed€Code€Section€40„518Ïin€1979€could€be€construed€as€a€deliberate€act€of€redaction.€€One€applicableÏrule€of€statutory€construction€is€that€ð ðthe€mention€of€one€subject€in€a€statuteÏmeans€the€exclusion€of€other€subjects€that€are€not€mentioned.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harkinsóó,Ï811€S.W.€2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€1986).€€Furthermore,€courts€could€construe€statutes€ð ðsoÏthat€no€part€will€be€inoperative,€superfluous,€void,€or€insignificant€...€and€furtherÏto€give€effect€to€every€word,€phrase,€clause€and€sentence€of€the€act€in€order€toÏcarry€out€the€legislative€intent.ðð€€òòTidwell€v.€Collinsóó,€522€S.W.2d€674,€767„77Ï(Tenn.€1975).€€We€do€not€presume€that€the€legislature€ð ðintended€to€placeÏsuperfluous€terms€in€the€statute;€and€all€language€in€a€statute€is€presumed€toÏhave€some€meaning.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vestalóó,€611€S.W.2d€819,€821€(Tenn.€1981).€€Also,Ïa€statute€should€be€construed€ð ðso€that€its€component€parts€are€consistent€andÏreasonable.ðð€€òòMarsh€v.€Hendersonóó,€221€Tenn.€42,€48,€424€S.W.2d€193,€196Ï(Tenn.€1968).ÌÌà àà àApplying€these€aids€to€the€construction€of€Rule€41(c),€theÏmandatory€language€must€include€implicitly€the€requirement€of€leaving€aÏwarrant€copy€with€the€magistrate.€€Otherwise,€the€requirement€of€making€theÏmagistrateððs€copy€is€superfluous.€€We€construe€the€terms€of€Rule€41(c)€together,Ïand€in€order€to€give€reasonable€effect€and€meaning€to€every€word,€we€mustÏconclude€that€the€requirement€of€making€a€copy€for€the€magistrate€entailsÏleaving€that€copy€with€the€magistrate.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñò òÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÏüXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€à àà àOF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›AT€KNOXVILLEÌJune€1997€SessionÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àò òNo.€03C01„9701„CC„00018ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àò òBradley€Countyó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ò òÌBUDDY€HUGH€BREWER€andó óà àà à)à àò òHon.€Mayo€L.ÏMashburn,€Judgeó óÌò òTAMMY€BREWERó ó,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Certified€Question„„Search€andÌà àà àAppellants.à àà àà à)à à€€Seizure)ÌÌÌÌò òFOR€THE€APPELLANTS:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌó óKENNETH€L.€MILLERà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌAttorney€for€Appellantsà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ30€Second€StreetÌP.O.€Box€191à àà àà àà àà àSANDY€R.€COPOUSÌCleveland,€Tennessee€37364à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€N.€ESTESÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCARL€PETTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€1351Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCleveland,€TN€37364„1351ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________ÌÌò òÌÌREVERSED,€VACATED€and€REMANDEDÌÌÌCURWOOD€WITTÌJUDGEÌÌÌÌÇÓÓÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendants,€Buddy€Hugh€Brewer× ƒ, ××  ×€and€his€wife,€TammyÏBrewer,€appeal€certified€questions€of€law€€from€the€Bradley€County€CriminalÏCourt€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)€(2)€(I)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€In€cases€which€have€been€consolidated€for€hearing€on€appeal,€theÏdefendants€challenge€the€issuance€and€execution€of€a€warrant€to€search€theirÏhome,€and€Tammy€Brewer€also€challenges€the€legality€of€an€arrest€and€a€searchÏof€her€person€incidental€to€that€arrest.€€Subject€to€the€reservation€of€theseÏdispositive€certified€questions,€Buddy€Brewer€pleaded€guilty€to€and€receivedÏconvictions€for€the€following€offenses:€(1)€simple€possession€of€Schedule€IIÏcontrolled€substances,€$750.00€fine,€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€in€theÏcounty€jail,€to€be€served€on€probation;€(2)€possession€of€marijuana€for€sale,ÏClass€E€felony,€Range€I,€$2,000.00€fine,€one€year€sentence€to€be€served€in€splitÏconfinement€of€90€days€incarceration€and€the€remainder€of€the€sentence€to€beÏserved€on€probation.€€Subject€to€the€same€reservation,€Tammy€Brewer€pleadedÏguilty€to€simple€possession€of€marijuana€and€received€a€fine€of€$250.00€and€aÍsentence€of€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€to€be€served€on€probation.ÌÌà àà àAs€identified€in€the€trial€courtððs€ð ðOrder€Certifying€ReservedÏQuestion€on€Appeal,ðð€the€dispositive€questions€of€law€brought€to€this€court€areÏsummarized€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° Òà à(1)€Whether€probable€cause€existed€for€the€issuance€of€€the€searchÏœà àwarrant›€for€the€defendantsðð€home;Ìà àœ(2)›€Whether€the€search€warrant€was€overly€broad€and€illegal;Ìà à(3)€Whether€the€search€warrant€was€illegally€executed;€andÌà à(4)€Whether€the€search€of€the€person€of€Tammy€Brewer€wasÏunlawful.ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒAfter€a€thorough€review€of€this€case,€we€hold€that,€even€though€the€defendantsÏhave€failed€to€show€that€the€search€warrant€was€improperly€issued,€the€searchÏmust€be€invalidated€because€of€the€faulty€execution€of€the€warrant.€€Because€theÏbasis€of€the€arrest€of€Tammy€Brewer€and€the€resulting€search€of€her€person€wasÏthe€discovery€of€contraband€made€by€the€officers€executing€the€warrant,€theÏsearch€of€Tammy€Brewer€is€likewise€invalid.€€As€a€result,€the€order€of€the€trialÏcourt€overruling€the€motion€to€suppress€is€reversed,€and€the€judgments€ofÏconviction€based€upon€the€guilty€pleas€are€vacated€and€set€aside.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€9,€1995,€an€affiant€identified€as€ð ðDet.€RoxanneÏBlackwellðð€executed€an€affidavit€for€a€search€warrant€before€a€Bradley€CountyÏGeneral€Sessions€Court€Judge.€€In€the€affidavit,€she€alleged€that€Buddy€BrewerÍpossessed€controlled€substances€described€as€methamphetamine,€whichÏcontrolled€substances€were€located€in€ð ð_________€County,€Tennesseeðð€at€aÏhouse€to€which€travel€directions€were€provided.€€The€affidavit€further€states€thatÏa€confidential€informant€went€to€the€described€location€and€ð ðsaw€the€drugsÏstored€at€that€location,ðð€€that€this€informant€ð ðhas€given€officers€of€this€departmentÏinformation€in€the€past€that€has€led€to€arrest€and€convictions,ðð€and€that€theÏinformant€saw€ð ðthe€drugs€at€this€location€within€the€last€three€(3)€days.ðð€€On€theÏsame€date,€the€General€Sessions€Court€Judge,€the€magistrate€to€whom€theÏaffiant€applied€for€a€search€warrant,€issued€a€warrant€commanding€the€officersÏto€proceed€to€the€described€location€ð ðin€Bradley€County,€Tennesseeðð€to€searchÏfor€ð ðan€off„white€powder€believed€to€be€methamphetamine/cocaine.ððÌÌà àà àTestimony€at€the€suppression€hearing€revealed€that€ð ðDet.€RoxanneÏBlackwellðð€was€an€officer€with€the€Bradley€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€SheÏtestified€that€she€procured€the€warrant€and€that€she€and€a€second€officer€carriedÏout€the€search€of€the€defendantsðð€home€where€some€contraband€was€found.€ÏThe€defendants€were€not€at€home€when€the€search€was€carried€out,€but€theyÏarrived€before€the€officers€departed.€€Det.€Blackwell€testified€that€when€theÏdefendants€drove€up€to€the€house,€she€arrested€Tammy€Brewer€for€theÏpossession€of€the€contraband€found€in€the€house€and€discovered€marijuana€onÏher€person€in€a€search€incidental€to€the€arrest.€€Det.€Blackwell€further€testifiedÏthat,€upon€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€to€her,€she€kept€all€three€copies,€ð ð[t]heÏjudgeððs,€ours,€and€the€defendantsðð.ðð€€She€testified€that€the€usual€procedure€wasÍfor€the€executing€officer€to€take€all€three€copies€of€the€warrants€and,€afterÏexecution,€to€take€them€to€the€office€in€order€to€add€the€listing€of€evidenceÏseized.€€She€testified€this€was€done€in€this€case,€that€no€copy€of€the€warrant€wasÏgiven€to€either€of€the€Brewers€prior€to€the€post„search€paperwork,€and€that€sheÏdid€not€know€when€or€from€whom€the€Brewers€received€a€copy€of€the€warrant.€ÏTammy€Brewer€testified€that€she€received€the€copy€when€her€personal€effectsÏwere€returned€to€her€upon€her€release€from€jail,€and€that,€prior€to€her€showingÏthis€copy€to€Buddy€Brewer,€he€had€not€been€presented€with€a€copy€of€theÏwarrant.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantsðð€motions€to€suppress€theÏevidence€seized€from€the€defendantsðð€house€and€from€the€person€of€TammyÏBrewer.ÌÌà àà àOn€appellate€review,€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppressÏwill€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€lower€courtððsÏfindings.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àà àA€search€warrant€is€ð ðan€order€in€writing€in€the€name€of€the€state,Ïsigned€by€a€magistrate,€directed€to€the€sheriff,€any€constable,€or€any€peaceÏofficer€of€the€county,€commanding€him€to€search€for€personal€property,€and€bringÏit€before€the€magistrate.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„101€(1990).ÌÌà àà àRule€41(c)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€providesÏin€€pertinent€part:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€magistrate€shall€prepare€an€original€and€two€exact€copies€ofÏthe€€search€warrant,€one€of€which€shall€be€kept€by€the€magistrateÏas€a€part€of€his€or€her€official€records,€and€one€of€which€shall€be€leftÏwith€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€served.€ÏThe€magistrate€shall€endorse€upon€the€search€warrant€the€hour,Ïdate,€and€name€of€the€officer€to€whom€the€warrant€was€deliveredÏfor€execution;€and€the€exact€copy€of€the€search€warrant€and€theÏendorsement€thereon€shall€be€admissible€evidence.€€Failure€of€theÏmagistrate€to€make€said€original€and€two€copies€of€the€searchÏwarrant€or€failure€to€endorse€thereon€the€date€and€time€of€issuanceÏand€the€name€of€the€officer€to€whom€issued,€or€the€failure€of€theÏserving€officer€where€possible€to€leave€a€copy€with€the€person€orÏpersons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served,€shall€makeÏany€search€conducted€under€said€warrant€an€illegal€search€andÏany€seizure€thereunder€an€illegal€seizure.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).ÌÌà àà àOn€a€constitutional€level,€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€forbids€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€and€theÏissuance€of€warrants€except€upon€probable€cause,€ð ðsupported€by€oath€orÏaffirmation,€and€particularly€describing€the€place€to€be€searched,€and€theÏpersons€or€things€to€be€seized.ðð€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€IV.€€The€TennesseeÏConstitution€also€forbids€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€and€departingÏfrom€the€language€of€the€federal€provision,€it€proscribes€ð ðgeneral€warrants,Ïwhereby€an€officer€may€be€commanded€to€search€suspected€places,€withoutÏevidence€of€the€fact€committed,€or€to€seize€any€person€or€persons€not€named,Ïwhose€offences€are€not€particularly€described€and€supported€by€evidence€....ðð€ÏTenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€7.€€Of€course,€the€federal€provision€is€applicable€to€stateÍaction.€€òòMapp€v.€Ohioóó,€364€U.S.€643,€81€S.Ct.€1684,€6€L.Ed.2d€1081€(1961).Ì€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÓ  ÓI.€€Probable€Cause€and€the€Issuance€and€Content€of€the€Search€Warrant.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendants€have€attacked€the€sufficiency€of€the€affidavitÏsupporting€the€search€warrant€on€the€grounds€that€it€does€not€affirm€the€veracityÏof€the€confidential€informant€as€required€by€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€Furthermore,€they€allege€the€affidavit€failed€to€establish€probableÏcause€when€some€portions€of€the€affidavit€referred€simply€to€ð ðdrugs,ðð€asÏopposed€to€illicit€drugs,€and€when€the€affiant€failed€to€identify€the€county€inÏTennessee€in€which€the€suspected€property€is€located.€€They€also€allege€theÏlanguage€of€the€warrant€is€overly€broad€in€describing€the€physical€area€to€beÏsearched€and€the€items€to€be€seized.€€Specifically,€they€contend€there€was€noÏbasis€for€the€warrant€authorizing€the€search€of€ð ðall€outbuildings€and€vehicles,ððÏnor€was€the€magistrate€authorized€to€command€a€search€for€ð ðan€off„whiteÏpowder€believed€to€be€cocaine.ðð€These€issues€require€a€reference€to€and€anÏexamination€of€the€affidavit€and€search€warrant.ÌÌà àà àA€facsimile€of€an€affidavit€and€a€search€warrant€appears€in€theÏtechnical€record€that€was€prepared€and€certified€by€the€trial€court€clerk.€€Also,€aÏfacsimile€of€these€items€was€appended€to€the€defendantððs€brief,€and€the€briefÍidentified€the€facsimile€as€a€copy€of€the€affidavit€and€warrant€now€under€attack.€ÏWhile€appending€a€copy€of€the€affidavit€and€warrant€to€the€brief€is€helpful€to€thisÏcourt€if€they€were€otherwise€properly€set€forth€in€the€record,€we€find€that€theÏaffidavit€and€search€warrant€at€issue€were€not€properly€before€the€court.€€TheyÏwere€not€offered€into€evidence€at€the€suppression€hearing,€and€no€copies€of€theÏaffidavit€and€warrant€that€appear€in€the€technical€record€œhave›€been€certified€orÏauthenticated€by€the€trial€judge.ÌÌà àà àThe€same€situation€was€presented€to€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Cooperóó,Ï736€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€òòCooperóó,€the€search€warrant€thatÏhad€been€attacked€in€a€motion€to€suppress€appeared€in€the€technical€record€butÏnot€as€an€exhibit€in€the€transcript€of€the€evidence.€€We€held€in€òòCooperóó€that€weÏwere€precluded€from€considering€the€issue€and€made€the€following€observation:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓBefore€an€exhibit€may€be€considered€by€the€court,€it€must€haveÏbeen€(a)€received€into€evidence,€(b)€marked€by€the€trial€judge,Ïclerk€or€court€reporter€as€having€been€received€into€evidence€asÏan€exhibit,€(c)€authenticated€by€the€trial€judge,€and€(d)€included€inÏthe€transcript€of€the€evidence€transmitted€to€this€court.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒòòÓÓCooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€at€131.€€In€the€case€now€before€us,€the€trial€court€has€notÏauthenticated€any€copy€of€œan€affidavit€and€warrant›€as€a€copy€of€òòtheóó€œaffidavit€andÏwarrant›€under€attack.€€The€ð ðtechnical€recordðð€is€certified€by€the€trial€court€clerk,Ïbut€it€is€not€authenticated€by€the€trial€judge.€€òòCompareóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a)(1)Ï(certification€by€trial€court€œclerk€of›€all€papers€filed€in€trial€court,€œwith›€exceptions)Ïòòwithóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(f)€(approval€of€transcripts€and€exhibits€by€trial€judge).€€InÏthis€situation,€the€œaffidavit€and€warrant›€œare›€not€in€evidence,€and€ð ð[w]e€mustÍconclusively€presume€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€was€correct,ðð€at€least€as€toÏthose€issues€which€cannot€be€resolved€without€reviewing€œthe€affidavit€and›Ïœwarrant.›€€òòCooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€at€131.€€òòSee€Chico€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€19,€25„26,Ï394€S.W.2d€648,€651€(1965);€òòFine€v.€Stateóó,€183€Tenn.€117,€119,€191€S.W.2dÏ173,€174€(1945).ÌÌÓ  ÓII.€€The€Execution€of€the€Warrant.ÌÌÓ  Óà àà àBecause€the€dispositive€issue€concerning€the€execution€of€theÏwarrant€does€not€require€a€review€of€the€contents€of€the€affidavit€or€the€warrant,Ïwe€examine€€the€issue€of€execution€even€though€there€is€no€copy€of€the€warrantÏin€evidence.€€The€fact€that€the€warrant€exists€is€in€evidence€via€testimonyÏadduced€at€the€suppression€hearing.Ìà àà àÌà àà àWe€hold€that€the€failure€of€the€magistrate€to€retain€a€copy€of€theÏsearch€warrant€deprives€the€warrant€of€any€efficacy.€€As€pointed€out€above,€RuleÏ41€requires€the€magistrate€to€ð ðprepare€an€original€and€two€exact€copies€of€theÏsearch€warrant,€one€of€which€shall€be€kept€by€the€magistrate€as€a€part€of€his€orÏher€official€records....ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€€It€is€undisputed€that€theÏexecuting€officer€took€the€original€and€both€copies€with€her€after€the€warrant€wasÏissued.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›ÌÌà àà àThis€court€previously€has€reviewed€anomalies€concerning€theÏissuing€magistrateððs€retention€of€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏGambrelóó,€783€S.W.2d€191€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989);€òòState€v.€Henryóó,€680€S.W.2dÏ476€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€òòGambrelóó,€the€magistrate€retained€a€physicalÏcopy€of€the€warrant,€but€due€to€the€weakness€of€the€carbon€impression,€theÏwording€that€was€written€into€the€blanks€in€the€formððs€printed€language€on€theÏmagistrateððs€copy€€was€ð ðbarely€legible.ðð€€This€court€observed€in€òòGambrelóó€that€theÏð ðpurpose€of€having€the€magistrate€retain€a€copy€...€is€to€insure€the€purity€of€theÏsearch€process.ðð€€783€S.W.2d€at€192.€€We€pointed€out€that€the€rule€protectsÏagainst€any€post„issuance€alteration€of€the€original€warrant€and€ð ðgives€the€judgeÏcontrol€to€insure€that€the€warrant€is€executed€and€returned€to€the€magistrate€in€aÏtimely€manner€....ðð€€òòIdóó.€€However,€we€noted€in€òòGambrelóó€that€the€written€portion€ofÏthe€warrant€was€merely€dim,€not€absent,€and€we€held€that€the€copy€left€with€theÏmagistrate€was€an€ð ðexact€copyðð€that€complied€with€Rule€41(c).€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòHenryóó,€the€search€warrant€copy€that€had€been€retained€by€theÏmagistrate€was€misplaced€and€could€not€be€produced€at€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€This€court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€determination€the€search€was€validÏdespite€the€absence€of€the€magistrateððs€copy.€€We€pointed€out€that€theÏmagistrate€initially€retained€a€copy€of€the€warrant.€€ð ðOnly€sometime€later€did€theÍmagistrateððs€copy€become€lost.ðð€€680€S.W.2d€at€478.€€In€òòHenryóó,€the€recordÏdisclosed€no€ð ðchanges€or€deletionsðð€or€ð ðimproprietiesðð€with€the€warrant,€andÏmoreover,€the€defendant€failed€to€show€that€he€was€prejudiced€in€any€mannerÏby€the€loss€of€the€once„existing€copy.€€òòIdóó.ÌÌà àà àThe€case€before€us,€however,€is€distinguishable€from€òòGambrelóó€andÏòòHenryóó€in€two€important€respects.€€The€first€distinction€in€the€defendantsðð€casesÏconcerns€a€separate€anomaly€in€the€warrantððs€execution.€€Rule€41(c),€in€additionÏto€requiring€that€the€magistrate€retain€a€copy,€requires€also€that€the€other€copyÏð ðshall€be€left€with€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€served.ðð€ÏFurthermore,€the€rule€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[F]ailure€of€the€serving€officer€where€possible€to€leave€a€copy€withÏthe€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€beingÏserved,€shall€make€any€search€conducted€under€said€searchÏwarrant€an€illegal€search€and€any€seizure€thereunder€an€illegalÏseizure.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€€The€officers€delivered€no€copies€to€either€of€theÏdefendants€when€they€arrived€at€their€residence€after€the€completion€of€theÏsearch.€The€testimony€reflects€that€the€officer€prepared€the€inventory€of€theÏseized€items€before€attempting€to€deliver€a€copy€of€the€warrant€to€theÏdefendants.€€Tammy€Brewer€received€a€copy€€on€the€following€day€upon€herÏrelease€from€custody,€and€she€testified€that€Buddy€Brewer€received€no€copy€ofÏthe€warrant.€We€need€not€determine,€and€we€decline€to€determine,€whether€theÏdelay€of€a€post„search€service€of€the€copy€on€the€defendants,€who€were€absentÏprior€to€and€during€the€search,€was€by€itself€a€departure€from€the€requirement€ofÍRule€41(c)€that€a€copy€be€left€òòwithóó€òòtheóó€òòdefendantsóó.€€However,€the€overnight€delayÏin€providing€a€copy€of€the€warrant€to€the€defendants€exacerbates€the€error€madeÏwhen€no€copy€was€retained€òòbyóó€òòtheóó€òòmagistrateóó.€€From€the€time€the€warrant€wasÏissued€until€after€the€search€was€completed,€law€enforcement€officers€retainedÏabsolute€control€over€the€original€and€all€existing€copies€of€the€warrant.€€In€thisÏcontext,€there€is€the€opportunity€to€repair€errors€or€deficiencies€which€may€haveÏœonly›€become€apparent€during€or€after€the€search.€€In€this€situation,€ð ðthe€purity€ofÏthe€search€processðð€is€substantially€compromised.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€second€distinction€between€this€case€and€the€òòGambrelóó€andÏòòHenryóó€situations€€is€perhaps€more€important.€€In€both€òòGambrelóó€and€òòHenryóó€theÏissuing€magistrates€initially€retained€copies€of€the€warrants€in€compliance€withÏRule€41(c).€€On€the€other€hand,€œthe€magistrate€never€retained€a€copy€afterÏissuance,€and›€the€executing€officer€œwent€into›€the€field€in€possession€and€controlÏof€the€original€and€all€existing€copies€of€the€warrant.€€œThis›€practice,€standingÏœalone,›€impermissibly€militates€against€the€purity€of€the€search€process.ÌÌà àà àWe€make€this€observation€about€the€method€of€execution€used€inÏthis€case€because€of€the€damage€to€the€integrity€of€the€search€warrant€processÏcaused€by€the€possibility,€if€not€the€appearance,€of€official€misconduct.€€WeÏstress€that€no€one€has€accused€the€executing€officer€of€€tampering€with€theÏwarrant,€and€we€do€not€imply€that€any€such€conduct€occurred€in€this€case.€ÏMoreover,€Rule€41(c)€places€the€duty€upon€the€òòmagistrateóó€to€prepare€and€keepÍan€exact€copy€of€the€warrant€ð ðas€a€part€of€his€or€her€official€records,ðð€and€it€is€notÏthe€officerððs€duty€to€see€that€this€magisterial€act€is€performed.€€Nevertheless,Ïwhen€this€basic,€common€sense€requirement€of€the€rule€is€not€followed,€there€isÏdamage€to€the€process,€òòipso€factoóó€and€òòab€initioóó.ÌÌà àà àIt€remains€for€us€to€determine€the€result€of€this€departure€from€RuleÏ41(c).€€The€defendants€request€that€the€fruits€of€the€searches€be€suppressed,€butÏin€òòHenryóó€this€court€noted€that,€with€respect€to€the€magistrate€not€retaining€a€copyÏof€the€issued€warrant,€Rule€41(c)€contains€ð ðno€internal€exclusionary€clauseÏrequiring€the€search€to€be€invalidated€where€the€magistrate€fails€to€maintain€hisÏretained€copy€in€his€possession€throughout€the€case.ðð€€òòHenryóó,€680€S.W.2d€atÏ478.€€This€dictum€refers€to€the€final€sentence€of€Rule€41(c)€which€sets€forth€theÏð ðmandatoryðð€language€that€makes€a€search€and/or€seizure€ð ðillegalðð€when€theÏmagistrate€fails€ð ðto€make€[an]€original€and€two€copies€of€the€search€warrant,ððÏfails€to€endorse€thereon€the€ð ðdate€and€time€of€issuance€and€the€name€of€theÏofficer€to€whom€issued,ðð€or€when€the€officer€fails€ð ðwhere€possible€to€leave€a€copyÏwith€the€person€or€persons€on€whom€the€search€warrant€is€being€served€....ðð€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€App.€41(c).€€Failure€of€the€magistrate€to€retain€a€copy€is€notÏone€of€the€situations€in€which€the€rule€dictates€invalidation€of€the€search.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€other€hand,€one€of€the€express€mandatory€directives€of€theÏrule€is€that€the€magistrate€òòmakeóó€an€original€and€two€copies€of€the€warrant.€€TheÏrule€is€clear€that€the€purpose€of€one€of€these€copies€is€that€it€remain€in€theÍpossession€of€the€magistrate€ð ðas€a€part€of€his€or€her€official€records.ðð€€Thus,€theÏobject€of€the€making€of€a€magistrateððs€copy€is€that€the€magistrate€have€and€keepÏthe€copy€after€issuance€of€the€warrant.€€For€this€reason,€we€conclude€that€theÏmagistrateððs€retention€of€a€copy€of€the€search€warrant€is€implicit€in€theÏmandatory€provisions€of€Rule€41(c),€the€provisions€under€which€a€failure€toÏcomply€ð ðshall€make€any€search€conducted€...€an€illegal€search€and€any€seizureÏthereunder€an€illegal€seizure.ðð× ƒ0 ××  ×€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€€The€appellate€courts€ofÍthis€state€have€previously€held€that€a€violation€of€these€provisions€leads€toÏsuppression€of€the€illegally€seized€evidence.€€òòJohnson€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€620,Ï348€S.W.2d€295€(Tenn.€1961);€òòTalley€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€275,€345€S.W.2d€867Ï(Tenn.€1961);€òòState€v.€Steeleóó,€894€S.W.2d€318€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.ÏGrapel€Simpson,€et€alóó,€No.€02C01„9508„CC„00240€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏSept.€30,€1996);€òòState€v.€Jerry€Neal€Lindseyóó,€No.€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,ÏNov.€20,€1985).ÌÌà àà àConsequently,€we€hold€that€the€œsearch›€of€the€Brewer€residenceÏwas€invalid,€and€the€fruits€of€that€search€should€have€been€suppressed.€ÏBecause€the€probable€cause€that€was€used€to€justify€the€arrest€of€TammyÏBrewer€is€based€upon€the€discoveries€made€pursuant€to€the€search€warrant,€theÏarrest€is€unjustified,€and€therefore,€the€warrantless€search€of€her€personÏincidental€to€that€arrest€is€itself€invalid.€€The€fruits€of€that€search€also€shouldÏhave€been€suppressed.€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€whether€Buddy€BrewerððsÏmarijuana€conviction€is€based€upon€contraband€that€was€discovered€in€theÏresidence€or€whether€it€is€based€upon€a€search€of€his€person,€but€it€is€apparentÏin€the€record€that€his€arrest€and€any€subsequent€search€of€his€person€resultedÏfrom€the€discoveries€made€in€the€residence.€€Therefore,€the€same€rationale€asÍapplies€to€Tammy€Brewer€proscribes€the€use€of€evidence€obtained€through€anyÏsearch€of€Buddy€Brewerððs€person.ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€overruling€the€defendantsððÏmotion€to€suppress€is€reversed,€and€the€pleas€of€guilt€are€vacated€and€set€aside.€ÏThe€cases€are€remanded,€and€in€view€of€our€treatment€of€the€dispositive€issues,Ïthe€cases€shall€be€dismissed.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌ________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE