ÿWPCs …JVUN  %î 0ôU:û w@5 4u ‰ ˜ U.  0JÎ 0T 0^l 0hÊ 0r2 0|¤ 0† 0¦ 1u6 0d«U>U*MB)wDC  AMã½0 Bív~ vÓˆ D3[ 0@Ž AOÎÆ 0Dã D/' BVc:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular  D€ D ‚ Dƒ „ D… † ‡ eˆ Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x‘ %ä2¼A`ArialTT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ³Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌDecemberÏ1,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€  Xd#ÑÑ#€  Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€ÙÓ  Ó›œßR€#$"A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌJUNE€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLANT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„C„01„9607„CC„00313Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHumphreys€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLeonard€W.€Martin,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(State€Appeal)ÌNORMAN€CURTIS,€KEITH€CHAMBERS,à à)ÌGINA€CHAMBERS,€AND€SHELLY€BRAGG,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLEES.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEES:ÌÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àà àDale€M.€€QuillenÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àà àAttorney€at€LawÌ500€Charlotte€Avenueà àà àà àà à95€White€Bridge€Road,€Suite€208ÌNashville,€TN€37243„0497à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37205Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à(Counsel€for€Curtis€and€Bragg)ÌEugene€J.€HoneaÌAssistant€Attorney€Generalà àà àà àMichael€J.€FlanaganÌ450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àà àAttorney€at€LawÌNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà à95€White€Bridge€Road,€Suite€208Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37205ÌDan€M.€Alsobrooksà àà àà àà àà à(Counsel€for€Keith€and€Gina€Chambers)ÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌP.O.€Box€580ÌCharlotte,€TN€37036„0580ÌÌGeorge€C.€SextonÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌHumphreys€County€CourthouseÌWaverly,€TN€37185ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:________________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€ „Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€(state)€appeals€as€of€right€from€a€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€suppressing€evidence€seized€by€law€enforcement€officers€from€the€person€ofÏNorman€Curtis€without€a€search€warrant,€and€the€residences€of€the€Chamberses€andÏCurtis€under€color€of€a€search€warrant.€€Two€issues€are€presented€for€review.€€The€stateÏcontends€there€were€exigent€circumstances€which€permitted€officers€executing€theÏsearch€warrant€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence€to€enter€the€dwelling€without€complyingÏwith€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€requirement.€€The€state€further€contends€the€search€ofÏNorman€Curtisððs€person€when€he€arrived€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence€while€theÏofficers€were€executing€the€search€warrant€was€reasonable.€€After€a€thorough€review€ofÏthe€record,€the€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€the€issuesÏpresented€for€review,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏshould€be€affirmed.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€has€failed€to€illustrate€why€the€evidenceÍcontained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€made€by€the€trial€court.Ìà àPhoenix,€Arizona,€police€officers€received€information€that€a€pound€of€crystalÏmethamphetamine€was€being€shipped€to€Keith€Chambers€at€his€residence€in€McEwen,ÏTennessee.€€The€Arizona€officers€contacted€Humphreys€County€officers€and€the€DrugÏTask€Force€for€the€23rd€Judicial€District.€€It€was€agreed€the€package€would€be€shippedÏto€a€Clarksville,€Tennessee,€address€designated€by€the€Task€Force€officers€via€UnitedÏParcel€Service€(UPS).Ìà àWhen€the€package€was€received,€the€officers€took€it€to€their€office€andÏconducted€a€field€test€on€the€content€of€the€package€to€determine€the€nature€of€theÏsubstance.€€It€tested€positive€for€crystal€methamphetamine.€€The€officers€borrowed€aÏUPS€truck€and€a€UPS€uniform€to€deliver€the€package€to€the€Chambersesðð€residence.€ÏLater,€an€officer€posing€as€a€UPS€driver€delivered€the€package€to€the€residence.Ìà àA€Task€Force€officer€was€at€the€residence€of€a€circuit€court€judge€while€theÏdelivery€was€taking€place.€€After€the€package€containing€the€crystal€methamphetamineÏwas€delivered,€an€officer€called€the€judgeððs€residence€and€advised€the€officer€there€thatÏthe€package€had€been€delivered.€€The€judge€then€signed€a€search€warrant€which€hadÏbeen€prepared€in€advance.€€The€warrant€authorized€the€officers€to€search€theÏChambersesðð€residence.€€Several€officers€convened€at€a€nearby€location€prior€to€theÏexecution€of€the€search€warrant.€€€When€the€officer€arrived€with€the€search€warrant,€theÏofficers€went€to€the€residence€to€execute€the€search€warrant.Ìà àAs€the€officers€approached€the€Chambersesðð€residence,€Officer€Davis€stated€heÏsaw€ð ða€silhouette€.€.€.€of€a€human€beingðð€through€a€window.€€He€could€not€determine€ifÏthe€person€was€a€male€or€female.€€Nor€could€Officer€Davis€state€the€area€of€theÍresidence€where€he€saw€the€silhouette.€€The€person€allegedly€closed€the€window€andÏleft€the€area€of€the€residence€ð ðfairly€quickly.ðð€€€According€to€Officer€Davis:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌWe€expedited€the€execution€of€the€search€warrant€for€ourÏown€safety€as€well€as€anything€else€that€could€haveÏhappened€as€for€the€evidence€being€destroyed.€€WeÏexpedited€that€as€to€the€fact€of€going€on€into€the€house€andÏsearching€it.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àAll€of€the€officers€admitted€they€did€not€observe€the€ð ðknock€and€announceððÏrequirement€when€executing€the€search€warrant€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence.€€TheÏofficers€entered€the€residence€as€soon€as€they€reached€the€door.€€The€package,€whichÏhad€been€delivered€to€the€residence,€was€found€inside€a€garbage€bag€in€theÏChambersesðð€bedroom.Ìà à€€€While€the€officers€were€searching€the€Chambersesðð€residence,€Norman€CurtisÏarrived€in€his€truck€and€approached€the€back€door€of€the€residence.€€Before€Curtis€wasÏable€to€enter€the€residence,€two€officers€detained€and€searched€his€person€forÏevidence.€€The€search€revealed€Curtis€was€not€armed.€€An€officer€removed€CurtisððsÏwallet€and€searched€it.€€The€officer€found€an€exact€duplicate€of€the€shipping€label€onÏthe€package€containing€the€crystal€methamphetamine€which€was€delivered€to€theÏChambersesðð€residence€earlier€that€day.€€The€officers€searched€Curtisððs€pickup€truckÏand€found€a€small€digital€scale.Ìà àThe€officers€candidly€admitted€they€searched€Curtisððs€person€for€evidence.€€TheÏstate€attempted€to€justify€the€search€based€upon€information€an€officer€had€received€Ïimplicating€Curtis€in€the€sale€and€distribution€of€crystal€methamphetamine.ÌÌÓ  Óò òÇI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€the€parties€in€a€criminal€prosecution€have€been€afforded€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€on€the€merits€of€a€motion€to€suppress€to€ventilate€the€grounds€raised€in€theÏmotion,€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€are€binding€upon€the€appellate€courtÏunless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€these€findings.€ÏòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€619,€622Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Tuttleóó,€914€S.W.2d€926,€931€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);ÏòòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1995).€ÏThis€standard€of€review€was€created€due€to€the€fact€the€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact,Ïhears€the€evidence€and€views€the€witnesses.€€As€a€result,€the€trial€court€assesses€theÏcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€determines€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€theÏevidence€adduced€during€the€hearing,€and€resolves€any€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€ÏHowever,€an€appellate€court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€State€of€Tennessee€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€to€this€courtÏthat€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€factÏmade€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).Ìà àThis€court€must€now€review€the€issues€presented€for€review€with€these€rules€inÏmind.ÌÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€contends€exigent€circumstances€existed€whichÏpermitted€the€officers€to€enter€the€Chambersesðð€residence€without€complying€with€theÏð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule.€€The€state€argues€the€image€one€of€the€officers€saw€whenÏapproaching€the€residence€created€the€exigent€circumstances€justifyingÏnoncompliance€with€the€rule.€€The€Chamberses€contend€the€trial€court€found€thereÏwere€no€exigent€circumstances.€€They€argue€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€judge.€€Moreover,€the€trial€court€did€notÏbelieve€the€officerððs€testimony.€€In€ruling,€the€trial€court€indicated€it€did€not€believeÏOfficer€Davis€was€a€credible€witness,€stating:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒAnd€the€way€they€word€things€[in€the€Curtis€search€warrant]€Ïlike€they€didnððt€say€he€[Curtis]€arrived€during€the€search,Ïthey€say€present€during€the€search.€€They€know€theyððve€gotÏan€iffy€case€and€they€try€to€sweeten€it€up€the€best€they€can,Ïand€categorize€the€testimony€by€Officer€Davis€and€alsoÏDirector€Shires€in€that€regard€as€being€sort€of€borderline.€ÏWeððre€trying€to€cast€it€in€the€best€light€we€can.€€We€sawÏsomebody€at€the€window€and€it€looked€like€he€was€doingÏsomething€hurriedly.€€Well,€you€saw€him€at€the€window,Ïòòmaybe€you€didnððt€see€him€at€the€window.óó€€How€do€you€knowÏwhat€heððs€doing€if€he€leaves€the€window?ÌÌSo,€I€rule€in€this€case€that€the€warrant€is€good.€€ExecutionÏwas€bad€because€of€Rule€41(e)€and€thereððs€been€noÏshowing€of€sufficient€circumstances€to€warrant€deviation€ofÏthe€requirement€of€the€rule€that€you€announce€your€purposeÏand€therefore€the€evidence€in€that€case€[Chambers]€will€beÏsuppressed.€€(Emphasis€added).Ì€ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThis€court€must€now€explore€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule€and€determineÏwhether€the€State€of€Tennessee€established€exigent€circumstances€permitting€theÏofficers€to€enter€the€Chambersesðð€residence€without€complying€with€the€rule.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€jurisdiction€has€adopted€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule.€€Rule€41(e),ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€states:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒIf€after€notice€of€his€authority€and€purpose€a€peace€officer€isÏnot€granted€admittance,€or€in€the€absence€of€anyone€withÏauthority€to€grant€admittance,€a€peace€officer€with€a€searchÏwarrant€may€break€open€any€door€or€window€of€a€buildingÏor€vehicle,€or€any€part€thereof,€described€to€be€searched€inÏthe€warrant€to€the€extent€that€it€is€reasonably€necessary€toÏexecute€the€warrant€and€does€not€unnecessarily€damageÏthe€property.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThus,€a€law€enforcement€officer€who€is€charged€with€the€execution€of€a€search€warrantÏmust€give€(a)€notice€of€his€authority€(i.e.,€he€is€a€police€officer,€a€deputy€sheriff,€or€anÏagent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation)€and€(b)€the€purpose€of€his€presenceÏat€the€structure€to€be€searched€(i.e.,€the€execution€of€a€search€warrant,€before€making€aÏforced€entry€into€the€structure).€€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€836€S.W.2d€126€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991);ÏòòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€789€S.W.2d€565€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1990).€ÏòòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Batesóó,€84€F.3d€790,€794€(6th€Cir.€1996);€€òòUnited€States€v.€Beckeróó,Ï23€F.3d€1537,€1541„42€(9th€Cir.€1994).€€The€failure€to€comply€with€this€rule,€absentÏexigent€circumstances,€results€in€the€exclusion€of€any€evidence€seized€under€color€ofÏthe€warrant.€€òòLeeóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€128„29;€òòFletcheróó,€789€S.W.2d€at€566;€òòBatesóó,€84€F.3dÏat€795.Ìà àThis€rule€is€not€new.€€Its€antecedence€can€be€traced€to€òòSemayneððs€Caseóó,€5€CokeÍRep.€91(a),€77€Eng.€Rep.€194€(K.B.€1603).€€In€òòSemayneóó,€the€court€held€that:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[i]n€all€cases€where€the€King€is€party,€the€sheriff€may€breakÏ[the€partyððs]€house,€either€to€arrest€him,€or€do€otherÏexecution€of€the€Kingððs€process,€if€otherwise€he€cannotÏenter.€€But€before€he€breaks€it€he€ought€first€to€signify€theÏcause€of€his€coming,€and€make€request€to€open€the€doors.ÌÌ5€Coke€Rep.€at€91(b),€77€Eng.€Rep.€at€195„96.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€òòWilson€v.€Arkansasóó,€514€U.S.€927,€115€S.Ct.€1914,€131€L.Ed.2d€976€(1995),Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€reviewed€the€common€law€decisions€pertaining€toÏthe€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule.€€The€Court€concluded€the€framers€of€the€ConstitutionÏintended€to€make€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule€a€part€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution.€€The€Court€said€in€ruling:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àOur€own€cases€have€acknowledged€that€the€commonlawÏ[sic]€principle€of€announcement€is€ð ðembedded€in€Anglo„American€law,ðð€.€.€.€but€we€have€never€squarely€held€that€thisÏprinciple€is€an€element€of€the€reasonableness€inquiry€underÏthe€Fourth€Amendment.€€We€now€so€hold.€€Given€theÏlongstanding€common„law€endorsement€of€the€practice€ofÏannouncement,€we€have€little€doubt€that€the€Framers€of€theÏFourth€Amendment€thought€that€the€method€of€an€officerððsÏentry€into€a€dwelling€was€among€the€factors€to€beÏconsidered€in€assessing€the€reasonableness€of€a€search€orÏseizure.€€Contrary€to€the€decision€below,€we€hold€that€inÏsome€circumstances€an€officerððs€unannounced€entry€into€aÏhome€might€be€unreasonable€under€the€FourthÏAmendment.ÌÌ514€U.S.€at€934,€115€S.Ct.€at€1918,€131€L.Ed.2d€at€982€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule€serves€three€purposes.€€First,€the€rule€providesÏa€form€of€protection€from€violence€and€assures€the€safety€and€security€of€both€theÏoccupants€of€the€dwelling€and€the€officers€executing€the€search€warrant.€òòLeeóó,€836ÍS.W.2d€at€128.€€Second,€the€rule€protects€the€privacy€of€the€occupant€living€in€theÏdwelling.€€òòIdóó.€€Third,€the€rule€prevents€needless€destruction€of€property.€€òòIdóó.€Ìà àThe€rule€requires€officers€to€ð ðwait€a€reasonable€period€of€time€before€[they]Ïbreak€and€enterðð€and€provides€that€the€occupant€of€the€dwelling€ð ðbe€given€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€surrender€his€privacy€voluntarily.ðð€€2€LaFave,€òòSearch€andÏSeizureóó,€ðð€4.8(c)€at€278€(2nd€ed.€1987).€€òòSeeóó€òòPeople€v.€Marinezóó,€160€Ill.€App.€3d€349,Ï352,€112€Ill.€Dec.€193,€196,€513€N.E.2d€607,€610€(1987),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€488€U.S.€868,Ï109€S.Ct.€175,€102€L.Ed.2d€144€(1988);€òòState€v.€Carufelóó,€112€R.I.€664,€314€A.2d€144,Ï146€(1974).€€The€act€of€knocking€as€the€officer€opens€the€door€and€enters€the€premisesÏdoes€not€comply€with€the€rule.€€òòLeeóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€128.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€LaPonsieóó,€136ÏAriz.€73,€74„75,€664€P.2d€223,€224„25€(1982);€òòPeople€v.€Benjaminóó,€71€Cal.€2d€296,€78ÏCal.€Reptr.€510,€455€P.2d€438€(1969);€òòMarinezóó,€160€Ill.€App.€3d€at€352,€112€Ill.€Dec.€atÏ196,€513€N.E.2d€at€610;€òòState€v.€Defioreóó,€64€Ohio€App.€115,€119,€411€N.E.2d€837,€839Ï(1979);€òòCommonwealth€v.€DeMichelóó,€442€Pa.€553,€277€A.2d€159€(1971);€òòState€v.ÏLowrieóó,€12€Wash.€App.€155,€157,€528€P.2d€1010,€1011€(1974).ÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThere€are€exceptions€to€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule.€€Officers€may€forego€theÏrequirement€to€advise€the€occupants€of€their€authority€and€provide€a€statement€of€theirÏpurpose€for€seeking€admittance€into€the€structure€if€exigent€circumstances€exist.€€òòKeithÏv.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€839€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1976).€€òòSeeóó€òòRichardsÏv.€Wilsonóó,€____€U.S.€____,€117€S.Ct.€1416,€137€L.Ed.2d€615€(1997).€€The€state€has€theÏburden€of€establishing€facts€and€circumstances€which€constitute€exigentÍcircumstances.€€The€state€must€establish€ð ðmore€than€a€mere€hunch€or€suspicion€beforeÏan€exigency€can€excuse€the€necessity€for€knocking€and€announcing€their€presence.ðð€ÏòòBatesóó,€84€F.3d€at€795.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Radkaóó,€904€F.2d€357,€362€(6th€Cir.€1990);€ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Stewartóó,€867€F.2d€581,€585€(10th€Cir.€1989).€€Nor€may€exigentÏcircumstances€be€found€by€a€court€if€the€circumstances€are€predicated€upon€generalÏfears€of€the€officers€executing€the€search€warrant.€€òòBeckeróó,€23€F.3d€at€1541.ÏFurthermore,€officers€may€not€create€exigent€circumstances€as€a€subterfuge€forÏentering€a€residence€without€complying€with€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule.€€òòLeeóó,€836ÏS.W.2d€at€129.€€Ìà àAs€a€general€rule,€it€is€sufficient€for€the€state€to€show€that€(a)€a€person€within€theÏdwelling€knows€of€the€officerððs€authority€and€purpose;€(b)€the€officers€have€a€justifiedÏbelief€someone€within€the€dwelling€is€in€immediate€peril€of€bodily€harm;€(c)€the€officersÏhave€a€justified€belief€those€inside€the€dwelling€are€aware€of€their€presence€and€areÏengaged€in€escape€or€the€destruction€of€evidence;€(d)€a€person€inside€the€dwelling€isÏarmed€and€is€either€likely€to€use€the€weapon€or€become€violent;€or€(e)€a€person€insideÏthe€dwelling€has€threatened€an€officerððs€safety,€possesses€a€criminal€record€reflectingÏviolent€tendencies,€or€has€a€verified€reputation€of€a€violent€nature.€€òòRichardsóó,€òòsupraóó;ÏòòBatesóó,€84€F.3d€at€795;€òòUnited€States€v.€Finchóó,€998€F.2d€349,€353€(6th€Cir.€1993);€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Naborsóó,€901€F.2d€€1351,€1354€(6th€Cir.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€498€U.S.€871,€111€S.Ct.Ï192,€112€L.Ed.2d€154€(1990);€òòUnited€States€v.€Francisóó,€646€F.2d€251,€256€(6th€Cir.),Ïòòcert.€deniedóó,€454€U.S.€1082,€102€S.Ct.€637,€70€L.Ed.2d€616€(1981).Ìà àIn€this€case,€Officer€Davis€claimed€he€saw€a€silhouette€in€a€window€of€the€houseÏwhen€he€arrived€to€execute€a€search€warrant.€€He€did€not€know€whether€the€silhouetteÍrepresented€a€male€or€a€female.€€He€did€not€know€in€which€portion€of€the€residence€theÏsilhouette€was€located,€and€he€did€not€know€what€portion€of€the€dwelling€the€silhouetteÏwas€going€to€when€it€left€the€area€rather€rapidly.€€The€trial€court€questioned€whetherÏDavis€actually€saw€a€person.€€The€court,€noting€how€the€officers€had€misrepresentedÏcertain€facts€contained€in€the€Curtis€affidavit,€said:€€ð ðWell,€you€saw€him€at€the€window,Ïòòmaybe€you€didnððt€see€him€at€the€windowóó.€€How€do€you€know€what€heððs€doing€if€heÏleaves€the€window?ðð€€(Emphasis€added).€€The€court€saw€the€witness€testify€and€wasÏable€to€observe€the€witnessððs€demeanor€while€he€testified.€In€addition,€there€is€nothingÏcontained€in€the€record€which€would€indicate€the€person€allegedly€seen€was€aware€ofÏthe€officersðð€authority€and€purpose.Ìà àThe€officerððs€statements€that€the€execution€team€failed€to€follow€the€ð ðknock€andÏannounceðð€rule€because€of€safety€concerns€and€the€general€fear€someone€wouldÏdestroy€the€evidence€were€not€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€exigent€circumstances.€ÏThe€officers€could€not€point€to€any€circumstance€which€led€them€to€believe€someoneÏwas€about€to€destroy€the€evidence.€€As€previously€stated,€circumstances€which€areÏpredicated€upon€generalized€fears€of€the€officers€executing€the€search€warrant€will€notÏsupport€a€finding€of€exigent€circumstances.€€òòBeckeróó,€23€F.3d€at€1541.Ìà àThe€record€is€silent€as€to€whether€the€officers€had€any€information€indicatingÏKeith€Chambers€kept€weapons€inside€his€residence,€was€likely€to€use€a€weapon€orÏbecome€violent,€had€threatened€an€officer€in€the€past,€had€a€criminal€record€reflectingÏviolent€tendencies,€or€had€a€reputation€for€violence€or€a€violent€nature€in€theÏcommunity.€€None€of€the€other€factors€constituting€exigent€circumstances€are€present€inÏthis€case.Ìà àThe€safety€of€law€enforcement€officers€is€a€concern€of€this€court.€€No€civilizedÏperson€wants€to€see€another€person€injured,€particularly€a€public€servant€who€protectsÏthe€community.€€However,€this€court€must€consider€the€constitutional€and€other€rights€ofÏa€person€who€occupies€a€residence€in€the€community.€The€Chamberses€had€a€right€toÏprivacy€in€their€residence.€€One€of€the€purposes€of€the€ð ðknock€and€announce€ruleðð€isÏthe€protection€of€this€privacy€right.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€failed€to€show€sufficientÏfacts€and€circumstances€to€establish€exigent€circumstances€which€would€haveÏoverridden€the€Chambersesðð€right€to€privacy.€€Therefore,€the€search€of€the€residenceÏand€the€seizure€of€the€illicit€narcotics€were€constitutionally€unreasonable€pursuant€toÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€òòWilsonóó,€òòsupraóó.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÓ  Óò òIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àTwo€issues€were€litigated€regarding€Norman€Curtis.€€The€first€issue€was€CurtisððsÏdetention€and€the€search€of€his€person€and€truck€when€he€arrived€at€the€ChambersesððÏresidence.€€The€second€issue€concerned€the€search€of€Curtisððs€residence€under€colorÏof€a€search€warrant.€€Shelly€Bragg€lived€with€Curtis€at€his€residence.Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€has€framed€the€issue€in€the€following€manner:€ð ðWasÏthere€probable€cause€for€the€officers€to€detain€and€search€appellee€Norman€Curtis€(orÏwere€there€exigent€circumstances)€so€that€the€warrantless€search€was€reasonableÏunder€the€circumstances.ðð€€The€appellees€frame€the€issue€as€follows:€ð ðWhether€the€trialÍcourt€erred€in€granting€the€motion€to€suppress€of€the€defendants€Norman€Curtis€andÏShelly€Bragg€as€to€both€the€search€of€the€person€of€Norman€Curtis,€as€well€as€theÏsubsequent€search€of€the€residence.ðð€€In€short,€the€state€simply€challenges€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€regarding€the€search€of€Curtis€when€he€arrived€at€the€ChambersesððÏresidence.€€The€state€does€not€raise€an€issue€concerning€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€theÏsearch€of€€Curtisððs€residence.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€appellees€raise€both€issues.€ÏTherefore,€this€court€will€address€both€issues.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àNorman€Curtis€arrived€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence€while€the€officers€wereÏexecuting€the€search€warrant.€€He€walked€towards€the€back€door.€€Two€officers€exitedÏthe€residence€and€confronted€Curtis.€€The€officers€admitted€they€detained€Curtis€andÏsearched€his€person.€€Apparently,€there€were€no€bulges€detected€in€his€clothing.€€TheÏofficers€discovered€Curtis€was€not€armed.€€The€officers€removed€Curtisððs€billfold,Ïsearched€it,€and€found€the€duplicate€of€the€label€affixed€to€the€package€containing€theÏcrystal€methamphetamine.Ìà àAs€the€affidavit€given€in€support€of€the€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€for€CurtisððsÏresidence€stated,€the€officers€had€obtained€information€that€Curtis€was€involved€in€theÏsale€and€delivery€of€crystal€methamphetamine.€€However,€the€source€of€some€of€theÏinformation€was€six€months€old€when€the€affidavit€supporting€the€issuance€of€theÏwarrant€was€executed;€another€source€of€information€was€eighteen€months€old€whenÏthe€affidavit€was€executed.€€Officer€Davis€testified€he€had€current€information€regardingÍCurtisððs€connection€with€crystal€methamphetamine.€€He€stated€a€reliable,€confidentialÏinformant€who€ð ðhad€been€around€it€„„€seen€it€going€onðð€provided€him€with€thisÏinformation€two€weeks€prior€to€the€execution€of€the€affidavit.€€The€record€does€notÏreveal€when€the€confidential€informant€ð ðhad€been€around€it€„„€seen€it€going€on.ðð€ÏFurthermore,€this€information€was€not€included€in€the€affidavit€given€to€support€theÏissuance€of€the€search€warrant€for€Curtisððs€residence.Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€argues€the€officers€had€probable€cause€to€arrest€Curtis.€ÏIn€the€alternative,€the€state€argues€it€had€probable€cause€to€search€Curtis.€€Due€to€theÏfact€the€confidential€informant€did€not€reveal€when€he€ð ðhad€been€around€it€„„€seen€itÏgoing€on,ðð€the€officers€did€not€have€either€probable€cause€to€arrest€Curtis€or€search€hisÏperson.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThere€is€a€split€of€authority€on€whether€an€officer€executing€a€search€warrant€canÏdetain€and€frisk€a€transient€visitor€to€the€premises€being€searched.€€A€transient€visitorÏmay€be€defined€as€a€person€who€(a)€arrives€at€the€premises€being€searched€while€theÏsearch€is€in€progress,€(b)€does€not€reside€inside€the€dwelling€or€have€a€propertyÏinterest€in€the€dwelling,€and€(c)€is€not€named€in€the€search€warrant€as€a€party€to€beÏsearched€under€color€of€the€search€warrant.€€However,€it€is€clear€that€an€officer€doesÏnot,€as€€a€general€rule,€have€the€right€to€search€a€transient€visitor.€€òòBaker€v.€MonroeÏTownshipóó,€50€F.3d€1186,€1194€(3d€Cir.€1995);€òòUnited€States€v.€Branchóó,€178€U.S.€App.ÏD.C.€99,€106,€545€F.2d€177,€184€(1976);€òòUnited€States€v.€Michelióó,€487€F.2d€429,€431„32€(1st€Cir.€1973).€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Clayóó,€640€F.2d€157,€161€(8th€Cir.€1981),€theÏcourt€said€the€ð ðfourth€amendment€does€not€authorize€the€detention€and€search€of€allÏpersons€who€may€be€present€[when€the€officers€arrive€to€execute€a€search€warrant]€.€.€.Ïor€all€personððs€who€may€enter€a€premises.ðð€€(Citations€omitted).€€As€a€general€rule,€theÏtransient€visitor€retains€his€expectation€of€privacy.€€òòMichelióó,€487€F.2d€at€432.Ìà àWhether€an€officer€may€detain€and€frisk€a€transient€visitor€involves€an€analysisÏand€interpretation€of€two€seminal€cases:€òòMichigan€v.€Summersóó,€452€U.S.€692,€101ÏS.Ct.€2587,€69€L.Ed.2d€340€(1981)€and€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€20ÏL.Ed.2d€889€(1968).€€€Ìà àIn€òòTerryóó€a€police€officer€became€suspicious€after€watching€three€men€over€aÏperiod€of€time.€€The€men€appeared€to€be€ð ðcasing€a€job,€a€stickup.ðð€€392€U.S.€at€6,€88ÏS.Ct.€at€1872,€20€L.Ed.2d€at€897.€€The€officer€approached€the€three€men€and€identifiedÏhimself€as€a€police€officer.€€He€asked€the€men€for€their€names.€€Fearing€one€or€more€ofÏthe€three€men€might€have€had€a€weapon,€the€officer€frisked€Terry€on€the€outside€of€hisÏclothing.€€He€discovered€a€bulge€which€appeared€to€be€a€pistol.€€He€removed€a€.38Ïrevolver€from€the€left€breast€pocket€of€Terryððs€coat.€€òòIdóó.€€The€officer€also€discovered€aÏpistol€on€Chilton,€another€of€the€three€men.€€Katz,€the€third€man,€was€not€armed.€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€the€pivotal€question€in€this€case€was€theÏreasonableness€of€the€officerððs€interference€with€the€personal€security€and€privacy€ofÏthe€three€men€at€the€point€he€detained€and€frisked€them.€€392€U.S.€at€9,€88€S.Ct.€atÏ1873,€20€L.Ed.2d€at€899.€€The€Court€held€that€when€an€officer€has€reasonable€andÏspecific€facts,€coupled€with€the€rational€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€from€theseÏfacts,€€the€officer€may€frisk€a€suspicious€person€if€the€officer€is€ð ðjustified€in€believingðð€the€Ícitizen€ð ðis€armed€and€presently€dangerous€to€the€officer€or€others.ðð€€392€U.S.€at€23„24,Ï88€S.Ct.€at€1881,€20€L.Ed.2d€at€907„08.€€In€other€words,€the€circumstances€available€toÏthe€officer€must€warrant€the€belief€his€safety€or€the€safety€of€other€citizens€is€in€danger.€ÏWhen€a€frisk€is€warranted,€the€frisk€must€be€strictly€limited€to€what€is€minimallyÏnecessary€to€determine€whether€the€suspicious€person€is€armed,€and,€if€so,€to€disarmÏhim.Ìà àThe€touchstone€of€a€òòTerryóó€intrusion€is€the€reasonableness€of€the€intrusion.€ÏWhen€determining€the€reasonableness€of€a€òòTerryóó€intrusion,€the€court€must€balance€theÏneeds€of€law€enforcement€officers€against€the€burden€being€placed€upon€the€affectedÏcitizen.€€In€addition,€the€court€must€consider€the€relationship€between€a€lawÏenforcement€officerððs€actions€in€conducting€a€òòTerryóó€stop€and€frisk€for€weapons,€ifÏwarranted,€and€the€officerððs€reasons€for€stopping€the€citizen.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏSharpeóó,€470€U.S.€675,€682„83,€105€S.Ct.€1568,€1573„74,€84€L.Ed.2d€605,€613€(1985).Ìà àAs€the€Supreme€Court€stated€in€òòTerryóó,€not€all€òòTerryóó€stops€necessitate€anÏaccompanying€frisk.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€23„24,€88€S.Ct.€at€1881,€20€L.Ed.2d€at€907„08;€ÏòòClayóó,€640€F.2d€at€161.€€A€frisk€or€protective€search€is€only€authorized€when€a€lawÏenforcement€officer€has€a€reasonable€belief€that€the€suspicious€person€may€be€armedÏwith€a€dangerous€weapon€or€may€otherwise€be€dangerous€when€the€citizen€isÏdetained.€€òòSibron€v.€New€Yorkóó,€392€U.S.€40,€64„65,€88€S.Ct.€1889,€1903„04,€20ÏL.Ed.2d€917,€935„36€(1968).Ìà àIn€òòMichigan€v.€Summersóó,€452€U.S.€692,€101€S.Ct.€2587,€69€L.Ed.2d€340€(1981),Ïofficers€went€to€a€residence€to€execute€a€search€warrant.€€When€the€officers€arrived,ÏSummers€was€descending€the€front€steps€of€the€residence.€€The€officers€askedÍSummers€to€assist€them€in€obtaining€entry€into€the€residence.€€The€officers€detainedÏSummers€while€they€searched€the€residence.€€Once€the€officers€found€and€seized€illicitÏnarcotics,€they€arrested€Summers€after€ascertaining€he€was€the€owner€of€theÏresidence.€€The€officers€searched€his€person€and€found€an€envelope€containing€8.5Ïgrams€of€heroin.€€According€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€the€dispositiveÏquestion€in€this€case€was€ð ðwhether€the€initial€detention€of€respondent€[Summers]Ïviolated€his€constitutional€right€to€be€secure€against€an€unreasonable€seizure€of€hisÏperson.ðð€€452€U.S.€at€694,€101€S.Ct.€at€2590,€69€L.Ed.2d€at€344.€€The€Supreme€CourtÏheld:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àIf€the€evidence€that€a€citizenððs€residence€is€harboringÏcontraband€is€sufficient€to€persuade€a€judicial€officer€that€anÏinvasion€of€the€citizenððs€privacy€is€justified,€it€isÏconstitutionally€reasonable€to€require€that€citizen€to€remainÏwhile€officers€of€the€law€execute€a€valid€warrant€to€searchÏhis€home.€€Thus,€for€Fourth€Amendment€purposes,€.€.€.€aÏwarrant€to€search€for€contraband€founded€on€probableÏcause€implicitly€carries€with€it€the€limited€authority€to€detainÏthe€occupants€of€the€premises€while€a€proper€search€isÏconducted.ÌÌ452€U.S.€at€704„05,€101€S.Ct.€at€2595,€69€L.Ed.2d€at€351.ÌÌÓÓà àIn€ruling,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€ð ðexamine[d]€both€the€character€of€theÏofficial€intrusion€and€its€justification.ðð€€452€U.S.€at€701,€101€S.Ct.€at€2593,€69€L.Ed.2d€atÏ349.€€The€Court€observed€a€judicial€officer€found€probable€cause€for€the€issuance€ofÏthe€warrant,€and€the€detention€of€an€occupant€of€the€premises€is€ð ðless€intrusive€than€theÏsearch€[of€the€premises]€itself,ðð€since€most€citizens€ð ðwould€elect€to€remain€in€order€toÏobserve€the€search€of€their€possessions.ðð€€452€U.S.€at€701,€101€S.Ct.€at€2593,€69ÏL.Ed.2d€at€349.€€Such€a€detention€ð ðis€not€likely€to€be€exploited€by€the€officer€or€undulyÍprolonged€in€order€to€gain€more€information,€because€the€information€the€officers€seekÏnormally€will€be€obtained€through€the€search€and€not€through€the€detention.ðð€€452€U.S.Ïat€701,€101€S.Ct.€at€2594,€69€L.Ed.2d€at€349.€€The€detention€of€the€occupant€of€theÏpremises€to€be€searched€ð ðcould€add€only€minimally€to€the€public€stigma€associatedÏwith€the€search€itself€and€would€involve€neither€the€inconvenience€nor€the€indignityÏassociated€with€a€compelled€visit€to€the€police€station.ðð€€452€U.S.€at€702,€101€S.Ct.€atÏ2594,€69€L.Ed.2d€at€349.€€In€short,€the€Court€said€the€detention€was€ð ðððsubstantially€lessÏintrusiveðð€than€an€arrest.ðð€€452€U.S.€at€702,€101€S.Ct.€at€2594,€69€L.Ed.2d€at€349.€€TheÏCourt€also€noted€ð ðboth€the€law€enforcement€interest€and€the€nature€of€the€ððarticulableÏfactsðð€supporting€the€detention€are€relevant.ðð€€òòIdóó.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(2)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€òòBaker€v.€Monroe€Townshipóó,€the€transient€visitors€arrived€at€the€residence€toÏbe€searched€almost€simultaneously€with€the€officers€executing€the€search€warrant.€€50ÏF.3d€at€1188„89.€€The€officers€detained€the€visitors€and€frisked€them€for€weapons.€€òòIdóó.€ÏThe€court€held€the€officers€had€the€right€to€detain€and€frisk€these€visitors€under€theÏpeculiar€circumstances€of€this€case.€€In€ruling,€the€court€said€that€while€ð ðòòSummersóó€itselfÏonly€pertains€to€a€resident€of€the€house€under€warrant,€it€follows€that€the€police€mayÏstop€people€coming€to€or€going€from€the€house€if€police€need€to€ascertain€whether€theyÏlive€there.ðð€€50€F.3d€at€1192€(discussing€òòMichigan€v.€Summersóó,€452€U.S.€692,€101ÏS.Ct.€2587,€69€L.Ed.2d€340€(1981)).€€However,€òòBakeróó€makes€it€clear€the€officer€did€notÏhave€a€right€to€search€the€visitors.€€òòIdóó.€at€1194.Ìà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Clayóó,€òòsupraóó,€a€transient€visitor€approached€the€residenceÏwhile€a€search€was€in€progress.€€An€officer€frisked€the€visitor.€€The€frisk€revealed€aÏpistol€and€a€small€amount€of€marijuana.€€640€F.2d€at€158.€€The€appellate€courtÏconcluded€the€trial€court€should€have€suppressed€the€evidence.€€The€court€said€ð ðanÏofficerððs€pat€down€of€a€person€[a€transient€visitor]€cannot€be€justified€solely€by€theÏindividualððs€mere€presence€on€the€premises€described€in€the€search€warrant.ðð€€640ÏF.2d€at€162.Ìà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Rembertóó,€838€F.€Supp.€1336,€1338€(D.€Minn.€1993),€aÏtransient€visitor€went€to€an€apartment€and€asked€to€see€the€person€who€leased€theÏapartment.€€There€was€no€evidence€to€connect€the€transient€visitor€to€the€apartment€orÏthe€person€residing€in€the€apartment.€€An€officer€frisked€the€transient€visitor€and€foundÏthe€visitor€was€armed€with€a€pistol.€€The€visitor€was€charged€with€being€a€convictedÏfelon€in€the€possession€of€a€firearm.€€òòIdóó.€€The€court€suppressed€the€pistol€as€evidenceÏbecause€the€officers€did€not€have€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€on€specific€andÏarticulable€facts,€to€justify€an€investigatory€detention€pursuant€to€òòTerryóó.€€The€court€saidÏin€ruling:€ð ðThe€Fourth€Amendment€does€not€authorize€the€search€of€all€persons€whoÏmay€enter€a€premises€during€the€time€of€the€warrantððs€execution.ðð€€838€F.€Supp.€atÏ1339.ÌÓ  Óò òÌ(3)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àIn€this€case,€there€is€some€question€as€to€whether€the€officers€had€a€right€toÏdetain€and€frisk€Curtis€when€he€arrived€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence.€€The€officersÍapparently€did€not€possess€any€information€which€linked€Keith€Chambers€and€Curtis.€ÏThey€did€have€stale€information€Curtis€had€been€involved€with€crystalÏmethamphetamine€in€some€capacity.€€Given€these€facts,€the€officers€had€reasonableÏand€articulable€facts€to€detain€Curtis.€€They€also€had€the€right€to€frisk€his€outer€clothingÏto€determine€if€he€was€armed,€as€weapons€are€carried€by€many€individuals€engaged€inÏillicit€narcotics€trafficking.Ìà àThe€officers€did€not€have€the€right€to€conduct€a€full€search€of€Curtisððs€person€toÏdetermine€if€he€had€any€ð ðevidenceðð€on€his€person.€€Therefore,€the€removal€of€CurtisððsÏbillfold€and€the€subsequent€search€of€the€billfold€constituted€an€unreasonable€searchÏwithin€the€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€search€of€Curtisððs€truck€was€alsoÏunreasonable.€€He€had€left€the€truck€and€was€near€the€back€door€when€the€officersÏconfronted€him.€€The€state€did€not€develop€any€facts€which€would€have€justified€theÏsearch€of€the€truck.€€òòSeeóó€òòNew€York€v.€Beltonóó,€453€U.S.€454,€101€S.Ct.€2860,€69€L.Ed.2dÏ768€(1981).ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€held€the€affidavit€given€in€support€of€the€issuance€of€theÏsearch€warrant€for€Curtisððs€residence€did€not€state€probable€cause.Ìà àThe€salient€allegations€contained€in€the€affidavit€state:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌAffiant€states€that€on€February€8,€1995,€he€talked€to€lawÏenforcement€officers,€Sgt.€Bob€Hunsick€and€Officer€DanÍDeleon€with€the€Phoenix,€Arizona€Airport€NarcoticsÏInterdiction€Agency€and€they€informed€Affiant€that€they€hadÏintercepted€a€package€containing€approximately€457ððÏgrams€of€Methamphetamine€which€was€being€shipped€viaÏUnited€Postal€Service€(U.P.S.)€to€a€Keith€Chambers€ofÏMcEwen,€Tennessee.€€The€package€was€being€sent€fromÏPhoenix,€Arizona.€€This€package€was€forwarded€to€the€23rdÏJudicial€Drug€Task€Force.€€A€search€warrant€was€obtainedÏfor€the€Chambersðð€residence.€€The€U.P.S.€package€wasÏaccepted€by€Keith€Chambers€and€Agents€of€the€23rdÏJudicial€Drug€Task€Force€and€the€20th€Judicial€Drug€TaskÏForce€executed€the€search€warrant€and€recovered€theÏMethamphetamine.€€òòPresent€during€the€search€was€NormanÏCurtis.€€Found€on€Norman€Curtis€was€$350.00€in€cash€and€aÏU.P.S.€shipping€receipt€with€the€same€U.P.S.€packageÏnumber€which€was€found€on€the€package€shipped€fromÏArizona€and€which€contained€the€Methamphetamine.€€TheÏU.P.S.€receipt€showed€that€the€package€was€shipped€toÏKeith€Chambers,€Rt.€2,€Box€329,€McEwen,€Tn..€[sic]€€TheÏU.P.S.€receipt€showed€that€the€package€was€shipped€fromÏArizona€on€February€8,€199€[sic].óó€€Affiant€would€further€stateÏthat€Norman€Curtis€stated€that€he€is€a€self„employed€roofer.€ÏNorman€Curtis€stated€to€Agent€Chris€Davis,€23rd€JDTF€thatÏhe€owns€a€1984€Jaguar,€1979€Chevrolet€Pick„up€and€threeÏHarley„Davidson€motorcycles.€€òòFound€in€Norman€CurtisððÏ1979€Chevrolet€Pick„up€which€he€drove€to€Keith€ChambersððÏresidence€was€a€set€of€read„out€digital€scales.óóÌÌAffiant€would€further€state€that€Sgt.€James€McWright,€20ÏJDTF,€informed€him€that€he€had€received€information€from€aÏreliable€criminal€informant€that€Norman€Curtis€was€dealingÏin€the€sale€of€Methamphetamine.€€Sgt.€McWright,€with€theÏinformation€provided€to€him€by€this€informant,€was€able€toÏarrest€Mike€Stewart€for€felony€possession€ofÏMethamphetamine€and€obtained€a€conviction€of€MikeÏStewart€for€said€offense.€€Sgt.€McWrightððs€criminal€informantÏtold€him€that€Norman€Curtis€would€obtainÏMethamphetamine€from€Mike€Stewart.€€òòHe€received€thisÏinformation€approximately€one€and€one„half€years€ago.óóÌÌAffiant€would€further€state€that€Agent€Chris€Davis,€23rdÏJDTF,€informed€him€that€he€had€received€information€from€aÏreliable€criminal€informant€that€Norman€Curtis€was€involvedÏin€the€sale€and€delivery€of€Methamphetamine€and€cocaine.€ÍFurther€this€Criminal€Informant€stated€that€he€had€seenÏcocaine€in€Norman€Curtisðð€residence€òòwithin€the€last€sixÏmonths€and€that€he€had€bought€both€cocaine€andÏMethamphetamine€from€Norman€Curtis€within€the€last€sixÏmonths.óó€€This€Criminal€Informant€has€given€informationÏagainst€his€penal€interest€in€that€he€admitted€to€possessingÏillegal€drugs€to€law€enforcement€officials€and€assisted€AgentÏDavis€in€the€recovery€of€contraband€to€wit:ÏMethamphetamine.ÌÌAffiant€would€further€state€that€he€has€received€informationÏfrom€a€reliable€criminal€informant€that€òòwithin€the€last€sixÏmonths€óóhe€has€seen€Norman€Curtis€in€the€possession€ofÏMethamphetamine.€This€criminal€informant€has€givenÏinformation€in€the€past€which€has€led€to€the€seizure€of€illegalÏnarcotics.€€(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThe€information€discovered€by€searching€Curtis€at€the€Chambersesðð€residenceÏwas€tainted€and€constituted€fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree€due€to€the€unreasonable€searchÏof€Curtisððs€person€as€set€forth€above.€€As€a€result,€the€information€contained€in€the€firstÏparagraph€of€the€affidavit€regarding€what€was€found€on€Curtisððs€person€and€his€pickupÏtruck€could€not€be€considered€in€determining€whether€probable€cause€existed€for€theÏissuance€of€the€search€warrant.€€òòBewley€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€518,€347€S.W.2d€40Ï(1961);€€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Reyesóó,€922€F.€Supp.€818€(S.D.€N.Y.,€1996).Ìà àIn€òòBewleyóó,€the€sheriff€of€Washington€County€and€three€of€his€deputies€searchedÏthe€exterior€of€Bewleyððs€residence€and€yard€for€ð ðwhite€whiskeyðð€without€the€benefit€of€aÏsearch€warrant.€€208€Tenn.€at€621,€347€S.W.2d€at€41.€€The€sheriff€and€his€deputiesÏdiscovered€fruit€jars€containing€ð ðwhite€whiskeyðð€beneath€the€back€steps.€€The€sheriff€didÏnot€seize€the€jars.€€Instead,€he€went€to€the€office€of€the€Johnson€City€chief€of€police€andÏhad€the€chief€apply€for€and€obtain€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€predicated€solelyÍupon€the€information€the€sheriff€acquired€by€the€former€warrantless€search€of€theÏBewleyððs€premises.€€òòIdóó.€€The€fruit€jars€containing€the€ð ðwhite€whiskeyðð€were€seized€underÏcolor€of€the€warrant,€Bewley€was€prosecuted€for€possession€of€the€ð ðwhite€whiskey,ðð€andÏhe€was€convicted€of€the€offense.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€ruled€the€searchÏwarrant€obtained€by€the€chief€of€police€was€void.€€òòIdóó.Ìà àIn€òòBowlingóó,€a€Nashville€police€officer€was€investigating€a€hit„and„run€accidentÏwhich€resulted€in€the€death€of€a€person€who€was€walking€on€the€shoulder€of€aÏroadway.€€867€S.W.2d€at€339.€€The€officer€received€an€anonymous€telephone€call€threeÏdays€after€the€accident.€€€The€caller€advised€the€officer€the€vehicle€involved€in€the€hitÏand€run€accident€could€be€found€at€Bowlingððs€residence.€€òòIdóó.€€The€officer,€accompaniedÏby€two€Wilson€County€deputy€sheriffs,€went€to€the€Bowling€residence.€€No€one€wasÏhome.€€One€of€the€deputies€told€the€officer€he€saw€a€Ford€Bronco,€brown€in€color,€in€theÏgarage.€€The€officer€got€on€his€hands€and€knees€to€look€into€the€garage€through€anÏeighteen„inch€opening€at€the€bottom€of€the€garage€door.€€With€his€head€almost€on€theÏground,€the€officer€was€able€to€see€the€brown€Bronco€and€determined€there€wasÏdamage€to€the€front€of€the€vehicle.€€òòIdóó.€at€340.€€The€officer€subsequently€obtained€aÏsearch€warrant€€based€on€the€information€he€obtained€from€the€warrantless€search,Ïwhich€this€court€found€to€be€unreasonable.€€In€determining€whether€the€affidavit€usedÏto€obtain€the€search€warrant€contained€sufficient€probable€cause,€this€court€found€theÏevidence€used€to€obtain€the€search€warrant€was€tainted€and€therefore€inadmissible.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€341„42.Ìà àThis€court€parenthetically€notes€the€affidavit€given€to€obtain€the€search€warrantÏfor€the€Curtis€residence€states€Curtis€was€ð ðpresent€during€the€search.ðð€€As€previouslyÍnoted,€Curtis€was€not€at€the€Chambersesðð€residence€when€the€officers€arrived€toÏsearch€the€residence.€€Curtis€arrived€after€the€officers€had€commenced€the€search€ofÏthe€premises.€€ÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€information€contained€in€the€last€four€paragraphs€of€the€affidavit€wereÏadmittedly€received€in€two€separate€transactions.€The€information€was€receivedÏð ðapproximately€one€and€one„half€yearsðð€and€ð ðwithin€the€last€six€monthsðð€prior€to€theÏdate€the€affidavit€was€given€in€support€of€the€search€warrant€for€Curtisððs€residence.€ÏThe€question€this€court€must€resolve€is€whether€information€this€stale€can€constituteÏprobable€cause€for€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant.Ìà àWhen€a€law€enforcement€officer€executes€an€affidavit€in€support€of€the€issuanceÏof€a€search€warrant,€the€allegations€contained€in€the€affidavit€should€state€the€natureÏand€source€of€the€information€received€from€a€confidential€informant€so€the€magistrateÏasked€to€issue€the€search€warrant€can€determine€whether€probable€cause€exists€forÏthe€issuance€of€the€warrant.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€217€Tenn.€544,€550,€399€S.W.2d€507,Ï510€(1965).€€Before€a€magistrate€can€find€the€existence€of€probable€cause,€the€affidavitÏmust€allege€that€the€contraband€sought€to€be€seized€or€the€illegal€activity€in€questionÏexists€at€the€moment€the€search€warrant€is€to€be€issued.€€òòSgro€v.€United€Statesóó,€287ÏU.S.€206,€210„12,€53€S.Ct.€135,€142,€77€L.Ed.€260,€262„63€(1932);€òòBentley€v.€Stateóó,Ï552€S.W.2d€778,€779„80€(Tenn.€1977);€òòLarkins€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€520,€524„25,€376ÏS.W.2d€459,€461„62€(1964)€(the€affidavit€alleged€the€information€supporting€theÏissuance€of€the€search€warrant€was€received€after€the€warrant€was€issued);€òòWaggenerÍv.€McCanlessóó,€183€Tenn.€258,€261,€191€S.W.2d€551,€553€(1946);€òòEverett€v.€Stateóó,€182ÏTenn.€22,€26,€184€S.W.2d€43,€44„45€(1944);€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,€166€Tenn.€227,€228,€60ÏS.W.2d€420€(1933)€(the€affidavit€alleged€the€information€supporting€the€issuance€of€theÏwarrant€was€received€after€the€warrant€was€issued).Ìà àBased€upon€the€authorities€cited,€the€affidavit€failed€to€state€probable€cause€forÏthe€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€for€Curtisððs€residence.€€The€information€contained€inÏthe€affidavit€was€received€eighteen€months€and€six€months€prior€to€the€execution€of€theÏaffidavit.€€This€information€was€stale.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Reyesóó,€922€F.€Supp.€818,€826„27€(S.D.€N.Y.€1996)€(information€which€was€eighteen€months€old€when€warrant€wasÏissued€was€stale€and€affidavit€failed€to€establish€probable€cause).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Starksóó,Ï658€S.W.2d€544,€546€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(information€received€more€than€twoÏmonths,€standing€alone,€was€stale€and€too€remote€to€establish€probable€cause).€€InÏshort,€the€affidavit€did€not€establish€the€activity€alleged€in€the€warrant€was€occurring€atÏthe€moment€the€search€warrant€was€issued.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€THOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE