ÿWPCa) ¿T<<<—Tÿ³GBýÿr¼: º4?*wtGË›µè’ãP9ävî}KH§Òê” xø`‘}ÙÎP,F×IûñØš±O%yùÄDk’E­% ÷ œÃ´rû½m«0™fWÕ‹Û~¬Æ è> ÿS`âëãÚ@¸Ì‰'Ëm¾}…„ŲáQ¯û>ÎôçX$ƉÍÂ’or!¸ž ¢P´í‘@ø ]„±ké'=[⽪u¡k>Ü(nùÛý@ˆ(FLÎ6Q7“¦i~Ì?^ÔvaÓ§¾ùi®Ü€qª“¤ùa±^©Gù§&¬¡M¸‡çBå¾rÿ€'Gnq‡ÙþÄd2ÒõšI=êitËZ¨Iv9ˆNÀ/­òÎÀÖf¹tF÷1Rɱ#´¡EÍÈõMèn}¶”Hé€þ •‘\ðϺ*Žú.Žã·X*Q0Œ6¯Ä’ˆœ$ß Z~[)í„òùx}*„‡öˆ:æ{K„Õ¿ø«WÈØ-CoÉuÇžky¨'ÂIï*ã&æ¸j¿¶Sô/d/o¼Ÿ[ùÏV¥€hŸiœRߥ©!!œÌeRﯡ@fßGág-P‡÷WØÑ3Œû26!£oi+€¸k×Aÿ›†F# ÔUNß %- 0(3L[û§ 0l¢w@ 4N b U:q 0 D« U:ï î) U: “Q (ä z U:†ÀÀU:€Oº AQ  0 Z 1múU:g¡U:° 0Dê B. BKÆh 0D.U:r 0D¬)ð D/PHî˜Ô†" D3Z$U:$U:Ç$%U:&U:K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&K&N…&U:Ó(Ó(Ó(Ó(L ) ) ) )Y)˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT ñÒ°ÒÔ€ XPXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ‡ XPXX XPÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ô#† XPXX XP|#Ô39„17„417€(a)(4)(g)(1)€(1997).((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó D D  +e D DÓ€n~<$ 3|x, øð AZ"Arial Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular äÒ°ÒÔ€XPXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ‡ XPXXXPÔTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€Ô#†XPXX XP|#Ô39„17„425€(1997)., øð AZ"Arial Regular ‰Ò°ÒÔ€ XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àWe€agree.€€€òòSeeóó€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€485,€83Ð ° ÐS.€Ct.€407,€417€(1963);€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€854€S.W.2d€102€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€Ð  ð ÐTherefore,€we€need€not€discuss€the€second€warrant€in€any€detail. Ò°ÒÔ€"XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòSeeóó€òòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€84€S.€Ct.€1509€(1964)€andÐ ° ÐòòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€89€S.€Ct.€584€(1969). pÒ°ÒÔ€XPXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àAccording€to€the€warrant,€the€magistrate€granted€the€officerððsÐ ° Ðrequest€at€4:15€p.m.€on€April€9,€1996.€€Several€officers€who€testified€at€theÏsuppression€hearing,€however,€stated€that€the€search€began€as€early€as€3:00Ïp.m., øð AZ"Arial Regular ¶Ò°ÒÔ€XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ à€The€second€warrant€was€issued€April€9,€1996€at€6:05€p.m.€, øð AZ"Arial Regular EÒ°ÒÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ€XbXXXÔSimilarly,€in€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€378,€181€S.W.2d›€351€(1944),Ð ° Ðour€supreme€court€held€that€ð ðintoxicating€liquors€in€violation€of€the€law€ð ðwasÏsufficient€even€though€it€did€not€specifically€negate€those€liquors€that€could€beÏlawfully€possessed€such€as€beer,€ale,€and€wine.€€The€phrase€ð ðforged€t„shirtsðð€wasÏfound€sufficient€in€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€703€S.W.2d€179,€180€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1985). !#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(x¼r$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2 ÅÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à# Å37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a), øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ€XbXXXÔIf€a€search€warrant€is€valid€on€its€face,€it€may€be€impeached€only€ifÐ ° Ðthe€defense€establishes€that€the€affidavit€contains€(1)€a€false€statement,€eitherÏmaterial€or€immaterial€to€probable€cause,€made€with€the€intent€to€deceive€theÏcourt,€or€(2)€a€false€statement€essential€to€probable€cause€that€was€recklesslyÏmade.€€òòState€v.€Littleóó,€560€S.W.2d€403,€407€(Tenn.€1978)., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝüÿP Pd dƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý, øð AZ"Arial Regular($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€.X¶“XXXÔÔ€.†DX.X¶“ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€.X¶“X.†DÔÐ  ÐÌò òDecember€10,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôI‚ôX.X¶“ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó'÷ÿ dxd FÒ°ÒÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ€*XbXXXÔÔ‡ XbXX*XbÔAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Christian€Yoke€testified€that€she€did€notÐ ° Ðknow€where€the€defendant€had€obtained€the€dynamite.€€She€said€that€she€justÏassumed€that€he€had€stolen€it€from€the€National€Guard€about€two€years€ago.€ÏShe€also€denied€telling€the€officer€that€the€defendant€said€he€had€stolen€otherÏproperty€from€the€National€Guard.€€Kelly€Yoke,€Christianððs€mother,€testified€thatÏshe€was€the€one€who€had€placed€the€dynamite€on€Dumas€Road€and€that€BucyÏhad€never€indicated€that€he€wanted€the€explosives€back.€€Gary€Vandiver,€on€theÏother€hand,€testified€that€the€Yokes€gave€him€the€information€contained€in€theÏaffidavit.Ô#†*XbXX Xb}#Ô äÒ°ÒÔ€ XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€818€S.W.2d€350€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð1991)€(informant€saw€a€large€quantity€of€cocaine€on€the€premises€during€the€pastÏten€days);€òòState€v.€Baronóó,€659€S.W.2d€811,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(informationÐ à Ðabout€household€or€personal€items€not€stale€after€six€months);€òòState€v.€Bushóó,€626Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€470€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981)€(informantððs€observation€that€defendantÏwas€in€possession€of€illegal€liquor€six€days€earlier€not€stale);€€òòState€v.€Ricky€C.Ð ` ° ÐConatseróó,€No.€01C01„9602„CC„00050€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Mar.€27,Ð P   Ð1997)€(ten„day€old€information€indicating€the€defendant€was€keeping€cocaine€onÏthe€premises€not€stale);€òòState€v.€Florence€Smith€and€Oscar€E.€Smithóó,€No.€01C01„Ð 0 € Ð9103„CC„00076€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Oct.€10,€1991)(warrant€issuedÏtwelve€days€after€murder€not€stale€as€items€to€be€searched€were€weapons,Ïclothing,€and€papers€likely€to€be€retained€by€the€offender),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóóÐ P  Ð(Tenn.€1992).€€€ ÊÒ°ÒÔ€+XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àThe€trial€judge€summarily€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€in€limineÐ ° Ðbecause€it€was€filed€on€the€day€of€trial,€and€when€the€defense€objected€to€theÏadmission€of€the€bag€with€the€white€powder€on€the€grounds€of€relevancy,€theÏcourt€overruled€the€objection€stating,€ð ðLetððs€hear€what€the€man€has€got€to€say.ðð'ÿÿdxd, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular Ò°ÒÔ€-XbXXXÔÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àScott€Wyrick,€the€officer€who€seized€the€bags,€testified€that€theÐ ° Ðresidue€of€white€powder€was€too€small€to€be€tested., øð AZ‹"Arial Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular DÒ°ÒÝ ƒüÝÿÝà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ¸ àÔ€=XbXXXÔSimilarly,€in€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€378,€181€S.W.2d€351€(1944),Ð ° Ðour€supreme€court€held€that€ð ðintoxicating€liquors€in€violation€of€the€law€ð ðwasÏsufficient€even€though€it€did€not€specifically€negate€those€liquors€that€could€beÏlawfully€possessed€such€as€beer,€ale,€and€wine.€€The€phrase€ð ðforged€t„shirtsðð€wasÏfound€sufficient€in€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€703€S.W.2d€179,€180€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð pÀ Ð1985)., øð AZ‹"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPTÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ññ ñ›ñ ñÒ°Òò òÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÔ€ XBoXXXÔÑ7€œÍXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñœññññœññßr€$)<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` ttx$°ð Õrßññ›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° ÐÌññœßt€$)>.*jxŸš` `€€@EL*` ttx$„( n tß›ññ€à@ŽŽ(àAT€JACKSONˆÐ à Ðó óÌò òà@BB%àJULY€1998€SESSIONó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À àó ó)à  àNo.€02C01„9709„CC„00363Ð 0 € Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ  p  Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ `  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHenry€CountyÐ P  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ ð@  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€€JudgeÐ à0  Ðò òWILLIAM€DORRIS€BUCY,€II,à À àó ó)Ð Ð  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Possession€of€marijuana€with€theÐ À Ðà ` àAppellant.à  àà h àà À à)à  àintent€to€deliver€or€sell;€possession€ofÐ ° Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àdrug€paraphernalia)Ð  ð Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à h àà À àà  àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:Ð `° ÐÌMATTHEW€M.€MADDOXà h àà À àà  àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÐ @ ÐMADDOX,€MADDOX,€&€MADDOXà  àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ 0€ ÐP.€O.€Box€430ÌHuntingdon,€TN€38344à h àà À àà  àMARVIN€E.€CLEMENTSà x àÐ ` Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Ave.€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€Bldg.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àÐ À! ÐÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€ð ðGUSðð€RADFORDÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.€O.€Box€686Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àHuntingdon,€TN€38344Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTODD€ROSEÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€94Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àParis,€TN€38242ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDó óÐ  2ð-1 ÐÌÌJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.€ÌJUDGEÌÌÌÐ  09€48¼ ÐÓ  Óà@qq*àò òOPINIONÓÓÓlX°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXlÓó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ¸ àA€jury€in€the€Henry€County€Circuit€Court€convicted€the€defendant,ÏWilliam€Dorris€Bucy,€II,€of€possession€of€more€than€one„half€ounce€of€marijuana€withÏthe€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver,€or€sell,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.׃€×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р0 € ÐThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€one€year€for€possession€of€marijuana,€aÏclass€E€felony,€and€to€a€concurrent€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nineÏdays€for€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€a€class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€courtÏordered€the€defendant€to€serve€six€months€of€his€sentence€in€the€county€jail€and€theÏbalance€on€intensive€probation.€€In€addition,€the€trial€judge€imposed€fines€of€$5,000Ïand€$750.€€In€this€appeal,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏdenying€his€motion€to€suppress€the€materials€obtained€through€the€use€of€invalidÏsearch€warrants€and€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€admitting€variousÏirrelevant€but€prejudicial€items€into€evidence.€We€affirm€the€defendantððs€convictions.€ÌÌà@¢¢)àò òI.€€Factsó óˆÐ Ð  Ðà ¸ àThe€defendant€does€not€challenge€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence;Ïhowever,€in€order€to€place€the€legal€issues€in€context,€we€begin€with€a€review€of€theÏfacts.€€On€April€4,€1996€at€4:15€p.m.,€Gary€Vandiver,€an€investigator€for€the€HenryÏCountyððs€Sheriff€Department,€requested€and€received€a€warrant€to€search€aÏresidence€at€€85€Puryear€Crossland€Road€for€explosives.€€He€requested€the€warrantÏbased€on€information€that€the€defendant€had€stolen€explosives€from€the€NationalÏGuard.׃8×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€number€of€other€officers€met€Vandiver€at€the€Bucy€residence€where€theÐ ð-@), Ðdefendant€lived€with€his€parents.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€defendant€drove€past€andÐ Ð/ +. Ðthe€officers€stopped€his€car€and€placed€him€under€arrest.€€During€the€search€of€theÏdefendantððs€bedroom,€the€officers€discovered€three€plastic€baggies€containing€aÏcombined€total€of€sixteen€grams€of€a€leafy€green€substance€and€numerous€otherÏitems€that€could€be€related€to€the€illegal€use€of€drugs€or€to€the€drug€trade.€€TheÏofficers€then€€secured€the€house€and€obtained€a€warrant€that€would€allow€them€toÏsearch€for€and€seize€the€controlled€substances€and€related€drug€paraphernalia.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€AsÐ `  Ða€result€of€the€second€search,€the€officers€seized€numerous€items€including€a€set€ofÏelectronic€scales,€several€hemostats,€three€film€canisters€containing€seeds,€a€plasticÏbag€with€a€white€powder€residue,€a€roach€clip,€rolling€papers,€a€smoking€pipe,€aÏð ðdugout,ðð€a€pocket€hitter,€a€Crown€Royal€bag,€small€plastic€bags,€severalÏphotographs,€a€1992€edition€of€the€òòParis€Post€Intelligenceróó,€and€the€sixteen€gramsÐ pÀ Ðof€a€leafy€substance€which€would€prove€to€be€marijuana.€€Virtually€all€of€these€itemsÏwere€found€in€the€defendantððs€bedroom.€€The€police€also€confiscated€$166€in€cashÏthat€the€defendant€had€on€his€person.€€Except€for€a€single€detonator€cap€on€an€endÏtable€in€the€living€room,€no€explosives€or€other€items€related€to€explosives€wereÏfound.€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€grand€jury€indicted€the€defendant€for€possession€of€more€than€aÏhalf€ounce€of€marijuana€with€the€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver,€or€sell€and€forÏpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€Defense€counsel€moved€to€suppress€the€itemsÏseized€from€the€defendantððs€bedroom€contending€that€the€first€search€warrant€wasÏfacially€invalid€because€the€affidavit€does€not€identify€the€informant€as€either€aÏcitizen€or€a€confidential€informant,€the€information€in€the€affidavit€is€stale,€theÏaffidavit€on€its€face€does€not€provide€sufficient€probable€cause€to€believe€that€theÏBucy€residence€contained€ð ðexplosives,ðð€and€the€description€of€the€property€to€beÏseized€is€too€general.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defense€and€the€stateÏâ âstipulated€that€if€the€original€warrant€were€invalid,€the€second€warrant€obtained€asÐ p5À04 Ða€result€of€the€search€under€the€authority€of€the€first€warrant€would€also€be€invalid.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р° Ðâ âThe€defendant€also€argued€that€the€affidavit€contained€false€statements.€€At€theÏconclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€stateððs€witnesses€wereÏcredible€and€logical€and€that€the€defense€witnesses€were€lying.€€He€concluded€thatÏthe€officer€did€precisely€what€he€should€have€done€with€the€information€he€had€atÏhis€fingertips€and€overruled€the€defendantððs€motion.€€The€trial€court€made€no€specificÏfactual€findings€and€drew€no€legal€conclusions€concerning€the€defendantððsÏallegations€of€insufficiency€of€the€affidavit.ÌÌà ¸ àAt€trial,€several€police€officers€testified€for€the€state.€€The€marijuana€asÏwell€as€the€other€property€seized€in€the€raid€was€admitted€into€evidence.€TheÏdefense€called€two€witnesses.€€A€neighbor€testified€that€the€police€had€arrived€at€theÏBucy€house€before€2:00€p.m.€on€the€day€of€the€search,€and€Investigator€GaryÏVandiver€testified€that€according€to€the€warrant,€it€was€issued€at€4:15€p.m.€€The€juryÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€on€both€counts.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€courtÏsentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€an€effective€one„year€sentence€in€splitÏconfinement€with€six€months€in€the€county€jail€and€the€remainder€on€intensiveÏprobation.ÌÌà@« « àò òII.€The€Validity€of€the€First€Search€Warrantó ó€€€€€€ˆÐ P( #& Ðà ¸ àIn€this€appeal€the€defendant€contends€that€the€property€seized€fromÏhis€home€should€have€been€suppressed.€He€argues€that€the€original€search€warrantÏwas€based€upon€an€affidavit€that€was€insufficient€on€its€face€to€establish€probableÏcause,€that€the€language€in€the€warrant€and€the€affidavit€does€not€describe€theÏproperty€to€be€seized€with€particularity,€and€that€the€affidavit€contains€falseÏinformation.ÌÓÓà ¸ àÐ p5À04 ÐÓÓà ¸ àIn€determining€this€€issue€we€are€bound€by€certain€well„establishedÏrules€governing€appellate€review€in€such€cases.€€A€magistrateððs€decision€to€issue€aÏsearch€warrant€requires€the€exercise€of€judicial€discretion€and€constitutes€a€judicialÏact.€€òòHampton€v.€Stateóó,€148€Tenn.€155,€252€S.W.€1107€(1923).€€Although€theÐ P   Ðmagistrateððs€judgment€is€entitled€to€great€deference,€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2dÐ 0 € Ð342,€357€(Tenn.€1982),€an€appellate€court€may€invalidate€a€search€warrant€when€theÏcontent€of€the€affidavit€considered€by€the€magistrate€is€insufficient,€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw,€to€satisfy€the€constitutional€requirements€of€probable€cause.€€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐLongstreetóó,€619€S.W.2d€97,€98„99€(Tenn.€1981).€€Affidavits€given€in€support€ofÐ ° Ðsearch€warrants€should€be€ð ðlooked€at€and€read€[by€an€appellate€court]€in€a€commonÏsense€and€practical€manner.ðð€€òòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€at€357.€€The€affiantððs€wordsÐ pÀ Ðshould€be€given€their€natural€meaning€and€interpretation.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€477Ð P  ÐS.W.2d€6,€8€(Tenn.€1972).€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€affidavit€must€set€forth€on€its€face€facts€which€establish€probableÏcause€before€a€search€warrant€may€issue.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„104€(1997);ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c).€€Judicial€review€of€the€existence€of€probable€cause€does€notÏinclude€looking€to€other€evidence€known€or€possessed€by€the€issuing€magistrate€orÏthe€affiant.€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€€841€S.W.2d€336,€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992);€òòState€v.Ð p&À!$ ÐJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€432€(Tenn.€1989).€€Ð P( #& ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€affidavit€given€in€supportÏof€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€was€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€satisfyÏthe€probable€cause€requirement€of€article€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÏThe€affidavit€in€question€states:€€ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àAffiant€recieved€information€from€Christina€Yoke€that€onÏor€about€first€week€of€March,€96€William€Dorris€Bucy,€II,Ïalso€known€as€Billy€Bucy,€gave€her€three€ziplock€plasticÏbags€containing€Dynamite.€€Bucy€asked€her€to€keep€itÏfor€him.€€Bucy€told€her€that€he€stole€this€from€theÏNational€Guard€and€that€he€had€stolen€other€things€fromÏNational€Guard€when€he€was€[a]€member€about€twoÏyears€ago.€€Christina€Yoke€kept€Dynamite€in€her€homeÐ  :p59 Ðat€1885€Puryear€Crossland€Rd.€€On€or€about€last€weekÏof€March€Christina€Yoke€and€Adam€Kennedy€tookÏDynamite€and€left€it€off€of€Dumas€Rd.€€Adam€KennedyÏtold€Christina€Yokeððs€mother,€Kelly€Yoke,€about€this.€ÏKelly€Yoke€called€Bucy,€who€demanded€to€know€wareÏ[sic]€Dynamite€was,€wanting€it€back.€€€Out€of€fear€KellyÏYoke€moved€Dynamite€to€Murray€Ky.€€On€Apr.€9,€96,ÏDep.€Stan€Pinson,€Explosive€Expert,€located€DynamiteÏin€Murray,€Ky,€making€identification.€€Due€to€BucyÏmaking€statements€to€Christina€Yoke€and€AdamÏKennedy€that€he€had€more€property€belonging€to€Nat.ÏGuard€it€is€believed€that€Bucy€has€more€Explosives€atÏhis€residence.€€It€is€great€interest€in€public€safety€thatÏthe€Explosives€be€located€due€to€great€danger€to€theÏpublic.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÌà@àò òA.ó ó€€ò òReliability€of€the€Informantó óˆÐ  ð ÐÌÓÓà ¸ àFirst,€we€address€the€question€of€whether€the€affidavit€identifies€theÏaffiantððs€source€as€a€citizen„informant.€€When€probable€cause€is€supplied€by€anÏaffidavit€and€the€informant€is€a€professional€informant€drawn€from€the€ð ðcriminalÏmilieu,ðð€Tennessee€requires€the€application€of€the€two„pronged€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р p ÐòòState€v.€Cauleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€411,€417€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2dÐ P Ð430,€431€(Tenn.€1989).€€However,€when€the€source€of€the€information€is€a€citizenÏinformant,€the€affidavit€is€not€subject€to€the€same€standard€of€scrutiny.€€òòMelsonóó,€638Ð À! ÐS.W.2d€at€354.€€In€the€case€of€citizen„informants,€the€reviewing€court€mustÏdetermine€whether€the€issuing€magistrate€had€a€substantial€basis€for€crediting€theÏhearsay.€€òòIdóó€at€355.€(Citations€to€other€cases€omitted).€€€That€is,€within€the€fourÐ `'°"% Ðcorners€of€the€affidavit,€the€internal€content€must€intrinsically€prove€the€truth€of€theÏcitizenððs€word.€€òòIdóó.€€(citations€omitted).€€€€à p àÐ  +p&) ÐÌà ¸ àGenerally€a€citizen„informant€is€one€who€volunteers€information€to€theÏauthorities€spontaneously€and€from€a€sense€of€civic€responsibility€or€for€reasons€ofÏpersonal€safety€rather€than€for€remuneration,€revenge,€or€some€other€advantage.€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€867€S.W.2d€343,€347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð €4Ð/3 ÐPaszekóó,€184€N.W.2d€836,€842„843€(Wis.€1971)).€€The€affiant€must€include€in€theÐ `6°15 Ðaffidavit€statements€from€which€the€magistrate€may€determine€whether€the€sourceÏof€the€information€qualifies€as€a€citizen„informant.€€òòSmithóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€348.€Ð à ÐWhether€the€affidavit€provides€this€information€directly,€by€implication,€or€byÏinference,€is€immaterial.€€òòIdóó.€€However,€the€status€of€the€source€must€be€apparentÐ P   Ðbefore€the€less€stringent€òòMelsonóó€standard€may€be€used€to€test€the€validity€of€theÐ 0 € Ðwarrant.€€òòIdóó.Ð `  ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€instance,€the€affidavit€does€not€directly€state€that€the€sourcesÏof€the€officerððs€information€were€citizen„informants.€€However,€the€affidavit€€disclosesÏother€relevant€facts.€€Christian€(Christina)€Yoke€is€the€daughter€of€Kelly€Yoke.€€AtÏthat€time,€Ms.€Yoke€and€her€daughter€lived€together€at€an€address€located€not€farÏfrom€the€Bucy€residence.€€The€words€on€the€affidavit€referring€to€a€confidentialÏinformant€are€crossed€out.€€Moreover,€from€the€facts€that€Christian€Yoke€reports,Ïone€can€infer€that€she€was€similar€to€an€€ð ðinnocent€bystanderðð€who€observed€someÏsuspicious€actions€and€reported€those€actions€to€the€police.€€€Although€the€wordsÏð ðcitizen„informantðð€do€not€appear,€a€ð ðcommon€sense€and€practical€readingðð€of€theÏaffidavit€demonstrates€that€Christian€Yoke€was,€in€fact,€a€citizen„informant€and€thatÏthe€affidavit€is€subject€to€the€less€rigorous€Melson€standard.€€òòSeeóó€òòSmithóó,€867€S.W.2dÐ $à" Ðat€347.€€In€addition,€the€affidavit€reflects€that€the€police€corroborated€some€of€YokeððsÏinformation€by€locating€the€dynamite€in€Murray,€Kentucky.€€Therefore,€we€find€thatÏthe€magistrate€had€a€substantial€basis€upon€which€to€conclude€that€the€informationÏChristian€Yoke€provided€was€reliable.€€òòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€at€355.Ð ,`'* ÐÌà@§§'àò òB.€€Stalenessó óˆÐ Ð/ +. Ðà ¸ àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€information€provided€by€the€informantsÏwas€too€stale€to€constitute€probable€cause€for€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€ÏThe€defendant€contends€that€the€information€is€five€or€six€weeks€old€and€too€staleÏto€support€probable€cause.€€After€carefully€reviewing€the€facts€and€circumstance€ofÏthis€case€and€considering€the€applicable€law,€we€conclude€that€the€age€of€theÐ 09€48 Ðinformation€is€of€no€importance€in€determining€whether€this€particular€affidavitÏestablishes€probable€cause€to€search€the€Bucy€residence.€€€€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€circumstances€in€this€instance€are€rather€unusual.€€TheÏinformation€in€this€affidavit€discloses€that€the€defendant€gave€Christian€Yoke€theÏthree€bags€containing€dynamite€sometime€during€the€first€week€of€March,€1996.€€AtÏthe€same€time,€the€defendant€disclosed€that€he€had€stolen€the€explosives€and€Ïð ðother€thingsðð€from€the€National€Guard€two€years€earlier.€€According€to€the€affidavit,Ïthe€defendant€told€Yoke€that€he€still€had€some€of€those€ð ðother€thingsðð€at€hisÏresidence.€€After€retrieving€the€dynamite€from€the€place€where€Yokeððs€mother€hadÏtaken€the€dynamite,€€the€officer€applied€for€and€received€the€warrant€to€search€forÏð ðexplosivesðð€at€approximately€4:00€p.m.€on€April€9,€1996.€€Ì€€Ìà ¸ à€Information€that€is€five€or€six€weeks€old€may€or€may€not€be€too€staleÏto€support€probable€cause€depending€upon€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€òòStateÐ ð@ Ðv.€Starksóó,€658€S.W.2d€544€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€€Staleness€must€be€determinedÐ Ð  Ðon€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€Ð °"  ÐWhen€the€illegal€activity€described€is€ongoing,€courts€have€generally€held€that€theÏaffidavit€does€not€become€stale€with€the€passage€of€time.€€€òòState€v.€Thomasóó,€818Ð p&À!$ ÐS.W.2d€350€357€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€issuing€magistrate€must€considerÏð ðwhether€the€criminal€activity€under€investigation€was€an€isolated€event€or€of€aÏprotracted€and€continuous€nature,€the€nature€of€the€property€sought,€and€theÏopportunity€those€involved€would€have€had€to€dispose€of€incriminating€evidence.ðð€ÏòòMeeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€124.€€Household€or€personal€items€are€generally€not€quicklyÐ Ð/ +. Ðdisposed€of€and€the€time€period€may€be€longer€in€those€instances.€€òòState€v.€Baronóó,Ð °1-0 Ð659€S.W.2d€811,€814€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Weapons€and€clothing€are€alsoÏlikely€to€be€retained€for€some€time€after€a€crime.€€òòState€v.€Florence€Smith€and€OscarÐ p5À04 ÐE.€Smithóó,€No.€01C01„9103„CC„00076,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,Ð P7 26 ÐOct.€10,€1991).€€Highly€incriminating€or€consumable€items€of€personal€property€areÐ 09€48 Ðless€likely€to€remain€in€one€place€as€that€which€is€innocuous€or€not€consumable.€ÏòòSmithóó,€slip€op.€at€3„4€(citing€2,€W.€LaFave,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó,€Sec.€3.7(a)€(2nd€Ed.Ð à Ð1987)).€€Search€warrants€based€on€information€that€is€out€of€date€may€be€invalid.€Ð pÀ ÐòòState€v.€Starksóó,€658€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(information€that€wasÐ P   Ðmore€than€two€months€old€when€warrant€was€issued€was€too€remote€to€establishÏprobable€cause);€òòState€v.€Norman€Curtis,€Keith€Chambers,€Gina€Chambers,€andÐ `  ÐShelly€Braggóó,€No.€01C01„9607„CC„00313€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€1,Ð ð@  Ð1997)(information€received€one€and€one„half€years€and€six€months€prior€to€date€ofÏaffidavit€is€stale).€€ÌÌà ¸ àUnlike€most€other€cases,€the€informant€in€this€instance€does€not€allegeÏthat€she€saw€the€objects€of€the€proposed€search€in€the€defendantððs€residence€moreÏthan€a€month€before€the€issuance€of€the€warrant.׃'×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€She€claims€that€the€defendantÐ 0€ Ðgave€her€for€safekeeping€the€property€that€ultimately€became€the€basis€of€theÏsearch.€€The€defendant€also€told€her€that€he€had€ð ðother€thingsðð€stolen€from€theÏGuard€at€home.€€Nothing€in€the€affidavit€specifies€the€nature€of€these€items;Ïmoreover,€the€search€warrant€does€not€permit€the€officers€to€search€for€these€ð ðotherÏthings.ðð€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€claim€of€untimeliness€does€not€negate€theÏpresence€of€probable€cause.ÌÌñ ñœñ ñÌñ ñ›ñ ññ ññ ñÐ ,`'* Ðà@††$àò òC.€€Probable€Causeó óˆÐ ° Ðà ¸ àProbable€cause€for€search€and€seizure€purposes€means€a€reasonableÏground€of€suspicion,€supported€by€circumstances€sufficiently€strong€in€themselves,Ïto€warrant€a€cautious€person€to€believe€that€the€evidence€is€in€the€place€to€beÏsearched.€€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€378,€382,€181€S.W.2d€351,€352€(1944).€€Ð 0 € ÐTennessee€law€requires€that€ð ðin€determining€whether€or€not€probable€causeÏsupported€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€òòonly€the€information€contained€withinÐ ð@  Ðthe€four€corners€of€the€affidavit€may€be€consideredóó.ðð€€òòState€v.€Dennis€Keith€andÐ Ð  ÐTimothy€Collinsóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€„„„,€€No.€02SO1„9604„CC„00035,€slip€op.€at€21€(Tenn.,Ð ° ÐJackson,€Sept.€28,€1998)€(emphasis€added).€€Recently€our€supreme€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àà  àIn€Tennessee,€a€finding€of€probable€causeÏsupporting€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€must€be€basedÏupon€evidence€included€in€a€written€and€sworn€affidavit.€ÏIndeed,€an€affidavit€containing€allegations€from€whichÏthe€magistrate€can€determine€whether€probable€causeÏexists€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€the€issuanceÏof€a€search€warrant€in€this€State.€€The€affidavit€must€setÏforth€facts€upon€which€a€neutral€and€detachedÏmagistrate,€reading€the€affidavit€in€a€common€senseÏand€practical€manner,€can€find€probable€cause€for€theÏissuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€To€ensure€that€theÏmagistrate€exercises€independent€judgment,€theÏaffidavit€must€contain€more€than€mere€conclusoryÏallegations€by€the€affiant.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓòòState€v.€Johnny€M.€Henningóó,€„„„€S.W.2d€„„„,€No.€02S01„9701„CC00065,€slip€op.€atÐ €%Ð # Ð7€(Tenn.,€Jackson,€June€22,€1998)€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€affidavit€states€that€the€defendant€asked€the€informant€to€keepÏthree€plastic€bags€containing€dynamite€for€him.€€He€told€her€that€he€had€stolen€theÏdynamite€from€the€National€Guard€two€years€earlier.€€The€defendant€also€told€herÏthat€he€had€stolen€ð ðother€thingsðð€from€the€Guard€and€according€to€the€affidavit,Ïmade€statements€to€Yoke€and€another€person€that€he€had€more€property€belongingÏto€the€Guard€at€his€residence.€€The€natural€meaning€of€the€language€and€a€commonÏsense,€practical€reading€of€the€affidavit€as€a€whole€confirms€that€the€defendant€had€Ïpossession€of€dynamite€and€indicates,€not€only€that€he€had€stolen€items€from€theÏNational€Guard,€but€also€that€he€still€had€at€least€some€of€these€at€his€residence.Ð  :p59 ÐThe€confirmed€possession€of€dynamite,€a€specific€form€of€explosive€material,€Ïsuggests€that€the€ð ðother€thingsðð€may€have€included€other€forms€of€explosiveÏmaterials.€€Although€at€the€suppression€hearing€Vandiver€conceded€that€ChristianÏYoke€never€told€him€that€Bucy€had€more€òòexplosivesóó€at€his€residence,€the€actualÐ P   Ðpossession€of€stolen€dynamite€and€the€admissions€about€having€other€stolenÏproperty,€while€not€overwhelming,€are€sufficient€to€establish€probable€cause.€ÌÌÓ  Óà @¸ àà@@  #àò òD.€€A€General€Warrantó óÐ Ð  Мñ ñÌñ ñ›Ó  Óà ¸ àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€articleÏI,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€require€that€€items€to€be€seized€pursuantÏto€a€search€warrant€must€be€ð ðparticularly€described.ðð€òòHenningóó,€slip€op.€at€7.€€BothÐ pÀ Ðstate€and€federal€constitutions€proscribe€general€warrants€in€order€to€controlÏgovernmental€intrusion€upon€a€citizenððs€privacy€and€property€rights€and€to€limit€theÏdiscretion€of€the€officers€conducting€the€search.€€òòHenningóó,€slip€op.€at€10€(citingÐ ` ÐòòMarron€v.€United€Statesóó,€275€U.S.€192,€48€S.€Ct.€74€(1927)).€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà ¸ àA€description€is€considered€sufficient€if€the€executing€officers€canÏidentify€with€reasonable€certainty€the€things€which€they€are€authorized€to€seize.ÏòòMeeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€126€(quoting€from€W.€LaFave€and€J.€Israel,€òòCriminalÐ p&À!$ ÐProcedureóó,€ðð€3.4(f)€(2d€ed.€1992)).€€To€satisfy€the€particularity€requirement,€aÐ P( #& Ðreviewing€court€should€take€into€account€the€nature€of€the€items€involved.€€òòMeeksóó,Ð 0*€%( Ð876€S.W.2d€at€126.€€If€the€purpose€is€to€seize€ÌÓÓà8 ¸ àany€property€of€a€specified€character€which,€by€reasonÏof€its€character,€and€of€the€place€where€and€theÏcircumstances€under€which€it€may€be€found,€if€found€atÏall,€would€be€illicit,€a€description,€save€as€to€suchÏcharacter,€place€and€circumstances,€would€beÏunnecessary€and€ordinarily€impossible.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓÓòòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.€378,€382,€181€S.W.2d€351,€352€(1944).€€€If,€however,€€theÐ €4Ð/3 Ðitem€to€be€seized€can€ordinarily€be€found€among€other€lawfully€possessed€objectsÏof€the€same€general€classification€or€description,€then€the€description€requiresÏgreater€care.€€òòMeeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€126.€€€€€Ð  :p59 Їà ¸ àIn€this€instance,€the€search€warrant€and€the€affidavit€use€the€wordÏð ðexplosivesðð€to€describe€the€property€to€be€seized.€€Although€the€criminal€code€doesÏnot€define€ð ðexplosives,ðð€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€68„105„102(a)€definesÏexplosives€as€ð ðany€chemical€compound€or€other€substance€or€mechanical€systemÏintended€for€the€purpose€of€producing€an€explosion,€or€that€contains€oxidizing€andÏcombustible€units€or€other€ingredients€in€such€proportions€or€quantities€that€ignitionÏby€detonation€may€produce€an€explosion€capable€of€causing€injury€to€persons€orÏdamage€to€ñ ñœñ ñproperty.ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€68„105„102(a)€(1996).ñ ñ›ñ ñ€€Possession€ofÏexplosives€or€explosive€components€is€generally€€an€unlawful€act,€although€there€areÏstatutory€defenses€to€some€such€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„702,€39„Ð à Ð17„1302€(1997).€€€The€warrant€commanded€a€search€for€explosives€that€wereÏpossessed€ð ðcontrary€to€the€laws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ððÌÌà ¸ àIn€òòMeeksóó,€the€court€concluded€that€€ð ðcash€money,€pocket€books,€fireÐ ` Ðarms,€jewelry,€checkbook€and€clothing€items€stolen€from€Gillian€robberyðð€did€notÏdescribe€the€items€to€be€seized€with€sufficient€particularity€except€for€the€checkbookÏwhich€was€clearly€identifiable.€€876€S.W.2d€at€127.€€€This€court€has€held€that€theÏphrase€ð ðstolen€property€and€drugsðð€was€insufficient€to€meet€constitutionalÏrequirements.€€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€854€S.W.2d€897,€900€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð p&À!$ ÐThe€words€ð ðcontrolled€drugs,ðð€however,€may€be€sufficient€to€convey€the€meaningÏthat€the€drugs€are€of€a€dangerous€and€unlawful€nature€and€to€exclude€those€of€anÏinnocent€nature€such€as€aspirin.€€€òòState€v.€Lewisóó,€641€S.W.2d€517,€519€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ,`'* ÐApp.€1982).€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€warrant€in€this€case€describes€the€property€to€be€seized€asÏð ðexplosives€contrary€to€the€laws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€In€òòJohnsonóó,€this€courtÐ 3à.2 Ðfound€that€the€phrase€ð ðstolen€property€and€drugsðð€constituted€a€general€warrant,€ÏòòJohnsonóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€900,€but€the€court€acknowledged€that€warrant€referencesÐ P7 26 Ðto€ñ ñœñ ñð ðdrugsðð€haveñ ñ›ñ ñ€been€ñ ñœñ ñupheldñ ñ›ñ ñ€ñ ñœñ ñð ðbecauseñ ñ›ñ ñ€other€portions€of€the€warrant€refer€to€theÐ 09€48 Ðdrugs€as€illegal.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€the€warrant€references€ð ðexplosivesðð€thatÐ ° Ðare€held€ð ðcontrary€to€the€laws€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€We€find€that€theÏdescription€of€the€property€as€ð ðexplosivesðð€in€essence€referred€to€contraband€andÏmeets€the€constitutional€requirement€that€the€property€to€be€seized€be€ð ðparticularlyÏdescribed.ððñ ñœñ ññ ñœ×ƒ×ñ ññ ñ׃<×ñ ñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›ñ ñ›ñ ñÐ 0 € ÐÌÓ  Óà @¸ àò òE.€€False€Statementsó óà@@-àÐ ð@  ÐÓ  Óà ¸ àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€search€warrant€affidavit€containedÏfalse€or€misleading€statements;€however,€we€conclude€that€the€defense€has€failedÏto€establish€that€the€affidavit€contains€any€false€statements€at€all.׃0×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€judge,Ð à Ðas€the€trier€of€fact,€weighed€the€testimony,€determined€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses€and€resolved€the€inconsistencies€in€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€state.€ÏThe€trial€court€found€that€the€ñ ñœñ ñYokesððñ ñ›ñ ñ€testimony€was€not€credible€and€that€the€YokesÏwere€willing€to€perjure€themselves€to€help€the€defendant.׃&¨ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€a€trial€courtððsÐ ` Ðdetermination€at€a€suppression€hearing€is€presumptively€correct€on€appeal,€òòStateÐ ð@ Ðv.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€ñ ñœñ ñ530,ñ ñ›ñ ñ€544€(Tenn.€1994),€the€findings€are€binding€uponÐ Ð  Ðthis€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€Ð °"  ÐòòStephensonóó,€878€S.W.2d€at€544;€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€710€(Tenn.Ð ° ÐCrim.€App.€1988).€€The€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€affidavit€contained€noÏfalse€or€misleading€information€will€not€be€disturbed€on€appeal.€€ÌÌà@jj àò òII.€€The€Second€Warrantó ó€€€ˆÐ 0 € Ðà ¸ à€When€the€invalid€warrant€was€executed,€the€officers€discoveredÏcontraband€consisting€of€marijuana€and€other€drug„related€materials.€€A€secondÏwarrant€permitting€the€officers€to€seize€the€unlawful€materials€was€then€issued.€€ñ ñœñ ñ€ÏThe€parties€agreed€that€had€the€first€warrant€been€invalid,€the€second€warrant€wouldÏalso€be€invalid€as€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisoned€tree.ðð€€The€defendant€has€made€no€attackÏon€the€second€warrant€except€the€attack€on€the€first€warrant€as€a€predicate€for€theÏsecond€warrant.ñ ñ›ñ ñ€Having€determined€that€the€first€warrant€was€ñ ñœñ ñvalid,€we€find€thatñ ñ›ñ ñ€theÏdiscoveries€made€ñ ñœñ ñpursuant€toñ ñ›ñ ñ€its€execution€supplied€ñ ñœñ ñprobable€causeñ ñ›ñ ñ€for€theÏissuance€of€ñ ñœñ ñthe€second€warrantñ ñ›ñ ñ€ñ ñœñ ñwhich€authorized€theñ ñ›ñ ñ€seizure€of€the€marijuana€andÏother€drug€ñ ñœñ ñparaphernalia.ñ ñ›ñ ñ€ÌÌà@00 àò òIII.€€Relevancy€of€EvidenceˆÐ °"  Ðó óà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€the€relevancy€of€various€items€that€the€trialÐ $à" Ðcourt€admitted€into€evidence€over€his€objections.€€The€items€include€a€plastic€bagÏwith€a€white€powder€residue,€a€1992€edition€of€the€òòParis€Post€Intelligenceróó,€businessÐ P( #& Ðcards,€a€hunting€and€fishing€license,€and€a€plastic€bag€with€some€leafy€material€inÏit.€€The€police€seized€all€of€this€evidence€during€the€ñ ñœñ ñññillegal›€ññsearchñ ñ›ñ ñ€at€the€Bucy€residence.€ÏÌñ ñœñ ñññÌñññ ñ›ñ ñà ¸ àRule€401€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence€defines€relevantÏevidence€as€ð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€thatÏis€of€consequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probableÏthan€it€would€be€without€the€evidence.ðð€€Relevant€evidence€is€admissible€unless€itÏis€prohibited€by€constitution,€rule,€or€court€decision,€and€irrelevant€evidence€isÏinadmissible.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€However,€relevant€evidence€may€be€excludedÐ 09€48 Ðif€its€probative€value€is€substantially€outweighed€by€the€danger€of€unfair€prejudice,Ïconfusion€of€the€issues,€or€misleading€the€jury.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€the€state€was€required€to€prove€that€the€defendantÏpossessed€the€marijuana€with€the€intent€to€manufacture,€sell,€or€deliver,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€ñ ñœñ ñ39„17„417(a)(4)ññññ€ññññññ,ññññ€ññ(g)(1)ñ ñ›ñ ñ€(1997),€and€that€he€possessed€drug€paraphernaliaÏwith€the€intent€to€introduce€a€controlled€substance€into€the€human€body.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„17„425(a)(1)€(1997).€€We€find€that€the€plastic€bags,€the€hunting€andÏfishing€license,€and€the€business€cards€were€properly€admitted.€€The€newspaperÏarticle€and€the€bags€with€the€unidentified€white€residue€and€leafy€material€shouldÏhave€been€excluded.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€numerous€small€plastic€bags,€which€the€stateððs€witnesses€testifiedÏare€often€used€to€package€a€controlled€substance,€were€relevant€to€the€question€ofÏthe€defendantððs€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€marijuana.€€The€fact€that€these€baggies€wereÏfound€in€proximity€to€electronic€scales,€seeds€for€the€propagation€of€marijuana,€andÏa€larger€bag€containing€ñ ñœñ ññ ñ16ñ ññ ñsixteenñ ññ ñ›ñ ñ€grams€of€marijuana€make€the€plastic€bagsÏparticularly€relevant.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€admitting€them€into€evidence.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€hunting€and€fishing€license€and€the€business€cards€were€of€someÏprobative€value€to€demonstrate€that€the€bedroom€in€which€the€incriminatingÏmaterials€were€found€belonged€to€the€defendant.€€However,€even€if€the€license€andÏthe€cards€were€of€no€probative€value,€we€cannot€see€how€the€admission€of€suchÏinnocuous€evidence€could€have€been€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€R.Ð Ð/ +. ÐApp.€P.€36(a).ÌÌà ¸ àThe€1992€edition€of€the€òòParis€Post€Intelligenceróó€reported€at€length€onÐ p5À04 Ðthe€destruction€of€a€large€crop€of€marijuana€in€Henry€County.€€The€article€concernedÏevents€unconnected€with€the€defendant€that€occurred€approximately€four€years€priorÐ 09€48 Ðto€his€arrest€for€these€offenses€and€addressed€no€issue€relevant€to€the€case.€€TheÏstate€argues€that€article€demonstrated€the€defendantððs€long„standing€interest€in€theÏdrug€trade.€€We€find€that,€in€this€instance,€the€unfair€prejudicial€effect€of€the€ratherÏsensational€article€substantially€outweighs€its€minimal€probative€value.€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€403.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€admission€of€the€small€plastic€bags€containing€the€unidentifiedÏmaterials€is€not€as€easily€resolved.€€The€bag€containing€the€white€powder€residueÏis€of€particular€concern€because€it€is€evidence€of€another€crime€and€subject€to€theÏrequirements€of€Rule€404(b).€€The€rule€requires€a€jury„out€hearing€and€specificÏdeterminations€by€the€trial€judge.€€The€record€indicates€that€the€trial€court€did€notÏfulfill€these€requirements.׃(×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Without€a€hearing€and€appropriate€findings,€the€bag€withÐ P  Ðthe€white€powder€residue€was€inadmissible.€€Moreover,€the€fact€that€the€material€inÏneither€bag€was€identified€as€containing€a€controlled€substance€greatly€reduces€theÏprobative€value€of€the€evidence.׃,P×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Pursuant€to€Rule€403,€both€bags€should€haveÐ ð@ Ðbeen€excluded€because€their€probative€value€was€substantially€outweighed€by€theÏdanger€of€unfair€prejudice.ÌÌà ¸ àAlthough€the€trial€judge€should€not€have€admitted€the€1992€newspaperÏarticle€and€the€two€bags€containing€unidentified€material,€the€defendant€is€notÏnecessarily€entitled€to€relief.€€The€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provideÏthat€a€final€judgment€shall€not€be€set€aside€ð ðunless,€considering€the€whole€record,Ïerror€involving€a€substantial€right€more€probably€than€not€affected€the€judgment€orÏâ âwould€result€in€prejudice€to€the€judicial€process.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Given€theÐ Ð/ +. Ðstrength€of€the€stateððs€case€against€the€defendant,€the€admission€of€the€newspaperÏarticle€and€the€two€plastic€bags€could€not€have€affected€the€juryððs€verdict.à Ð àÐ à Ðâ âà ¸ àÌœñ ñÌñ ñ›à ¸ àà@÷÷(àò òConclusionó óˆÐ P   ÐÓÓÌÓÓà ¸ àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓÓÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à________________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOE€G.€RILEY,€€JudgeÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€Special€Judge