WPC V&Jfh2+5ߖj_!+z$1%X! 3C.~[^V׬5 Jm X֠;e16-Q % 0 UB 4  n U: f 4 "< w@^  U:U: B D3 0D2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 AOv 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|xh<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\    Q!eRSTUVWXYӀc XXXXwdXX   Ad FILEDXXwd  November3,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXXwdXX   Ad FILEDXXwd  October30,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  7 XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi  QQQQXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7QQYYcYr*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rYccr*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rcYY񀀀QQ8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%DATNASHVILLE@@66-R   AUGUST1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, h   )   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellee, h   )  No.01C019802CC00065       h   )       h   )  CannonCounty   v.    h   )       h   )  HonorableDonAsh,Judge       h   )THOMASMICHAELDAVENPORT,)  (RevocationofSuspendedSentence) h`    ) Appellant. h      4, @&D DISSENTINGOPINION    Irespectfullydissent.IbelievethatinStatev.Wade,863S.W.2d406 ph (Tenn.1993),oursupremecourtprovidedunderstateconstitutionaldueprocessmorestringentstandardsQQforrevocationhearingsbaseduponpositivedrugtestresultsthanwerefollowedinthiscase.QQInWade,thecourtstatedthatminimaldueprocess #  requirementsunderArticleI,Section9,oftheTennesseeConstitutionQQforsuchQQprobationrevocationproceedingsQQincludetheQQprobationersrighttoconfrontandcrossexamineadversewitnessesunless(1)goodcausefornotallowingconfrontationisshownandQQ(2)evidenceRispresentedRreflectingthatthereportisreliable.863S.W.2dat40910.QQIntermsofreliability,thecourtstatedthatthereportSatissueinSTWadeTTSSTdid ,%* notindicatethemethodoftesting,thenameofthetechnician,orthefactthatthetestwasmadeinconformitywithestablishedandreliableprocedures.Id. h0`). QQ QQIbelievethatthepersoncontemplatedbyoursupremecourtinWadeas 4,2 the adversewitnessisthepersonwhoactuallyconductedthetestsandobtainedtheresultsorawitnessthereto.Onlysuchawitness,notonewhoonlyreviewsdocumentsandinstrumentreadingsafterthefact,isinapositiontotestifyfromfirstXXXXhand d9\28 knowledgeastotheactualproceduresfollowedandoperationsoftheinstrumentsthatarethekeytothedrugidentificationprocess.QQ QQInthepresentcase,noexplanationexistsintherecordtoshowgoodcausewhythepersonwhoconductedthedrugtestswasnotrequiredtobeconfrontedandcrossexaminedregardingthetestresults.UInmyview,UVtVWhWWV.VWVThVeQKapperanceKQQappearanceQofa certifyingscientistwhoseknowledgeofthemattercamefromareviewofdocumentsprovidedtohimbytheactualtestingtechnicianandothersdoesnotsufficeunderWade.Therefore,Iwouldvacatetheorderofrevocation. h` QQ QQ  QQ h QQ  QQ  QQ p QQ_____________________________QQ QQ  QQ h QQ  QQ  QQ p QQJosephM.Tipton,JudgeQQ