ÿWPC*  ZК ¬õå2BãPQ$¸«{I¬ìïZǘ®?±“kCƒ<í8ÐѦÔZ™½ÉXÝÙ¼ÂØ‹¦o?'WÀ¤'æ?½€DgN#‚G¾»~{ìÑ„iв6<ÄZàm ˆ˜&ÞŒ%ÀÞS£Ùa|O+™½Á*9䥡 <·^÷»‘Åÿ\…+¶ò,-€|ͤ<Åzì†ò|{b£p d£ûM‘ꢦa)ÕÞ•B™œå>‰ ÿSÌ$p‚QÉ–j®0©žÔÂä~k€€ëp˜n|‘TÂ>x€Üh>?§¢#ÀQŽ/›AèÕÆ»©–Ãÿ –tçUªx±68Ú½e×<¹œ£Ê}‘•÷.m±ÞmbI*§­ì6N `¼Ô<‰ ZkêZ•§hKEÃw¨Îyd£¾.χÓuâ‚eþÃnk7|-böÆÀSÀ`’š (eX±8ÔZŒc¨E{ÏŠ# _À­WYwT¥€íN«¥ƒKdø¿/Äæ y'+s@!­?zíœþ1±-ÏàãóÄÉ&;”¶$ðZðP"¤…5¯ö=\ïlS·«H%?âÃÒÁo]O1€iÕÖà­DŽ»eÌQ % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ U4ž åÒ U:····················· Bñññññ D3 0DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AO…ÆÔÔ 0Dš D/Þ B ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x;«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ )*e+,D-.D/0D1 e2Ó€0–MyA ‹Arial Bold ÛÔ€XLóXXXÔÔ€èXXLóÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XLóXèÔÐ  ÐÌApril€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€+ÏXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýñ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ*ñ›ñ*ññ1ññ*ñ›ñ*ñѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XLóXXXÔÑ7€ Ló XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ2ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ2ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ƒƒ%DàAT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€AUGUST€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellee,€à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9801„CC„00007Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àRutherford€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€€Judge€€€€€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌRUDOLPH€MUNN,€€à h à€€à À à)à  à(First€Degree€Murder)Ð h` Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àAppellant.à h àà À à)Ð 4, ÐÌÌÌò òòòÔ‡Xã8XX XLóÔà@``DàCONCURRING€AND€DISSENTING€OPINIONó óóóˆÐ ÌÄ ÐÌÌÌÓÓÓ-X‚,¸ ˜X°X` ˜X-Óà ¸ àÔ#† XLóXXXã8##ÔI€concur€in€affirming€the€conviction€and€most€of€the€reasoning€reached€inÐ |t Ðthe€majority€opinion.€€I€respectfully€disagree,€though,€with€my€colleaguesðð€conclusionÏthat€the€surreptitious€taping€of€the€conversations€between€the€defendant€and€hisÏparents€did€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€theÏfederal€and€state€wiretapping€statutes.€€Because€I€cannot€conclude€that€the€admissionÏof€the€tainted€statements€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€relative€toÏsentencing,€I€would€reverse€the€sentence€of€life€without€parole€and€remand€the€case€forÏa€new€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€majority€opinion€concedes€that€the€defendant€had€a€subjectiveÏexpectation€of€privacy€but€concludes€that€it€is€not€an€expectation€that€society€shouldÏrecognize€as€reasonable€or€justified.€€I€believe€that€the€defendantððs€expectation€ofÏprivacy€is€one€that€should€be€recognized€as€reasonable€and€justified€in€light€of€the€factÏthat€(1)€there€was€no€showing€that€the€conversations€were€recorded€for€safety€orÏsecurity,€and€(2)€the€officers,€with€full€knowledge€that€the€conversations€were€beingÏvideotaped,€led€the€defendant€to€believe€that€the€conversations€were€private.Ð p9h28 Їà ¸ àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€somewhat€unusual.€€Officers€Peel€and€GuthrieÏrequested€that€the€defendant€come€to€the€police€station€for€questioning,€which€theÏdefendant€voluntarily€did,€accompanied€by€his€parents.€€He€was€initially€interviewed€byÏthe€officers€in€the€Felony€Booking€Room€with€his€father€present.€€The€room€wasÏequipped€with€a€visible€audiotape€recorder€on€the€table€that€was€used€periodicallyÏthroughout€the€interrogation.€€However,€unbeknownst€to€the€defendant€or€his€parents,Ïthe€room€also€contained€hidden€videotape€equipment€and€microphones€which€recordedÏall€of€the€defendantððs€conversations€in€the€room.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€the€first€interview,€which€lasted€fifty„four€minutes,€the€defendantÏdenied€any€involvement€in€the€murder.€€The€officers€then€told€the€defendant€he€was€freeÏto€go€and€accompanied€the€defendant€and€his€father€to€the€lobby.€€However,€theÏdefendantððs€mother€was€concerned,€and€she€asked€one€of€the€officers€if€he€thought€theÏdefendant€murdered€the€victim.€€The€officer€told€the€mother€to€ask€the€defendant.€€TheÏmother€continued€to€express€concern€that€the€defendant€was€not€telling€everything€heÏknew.€€The€officers€then€asked€the€defendant€if€he€would€talk€to€them€without€hisÏparents,€and€the€defendant€agreed.€€ÌÌà ¸ àDuring€the€second€interview,€the€defendant€continued€to€deny€anyÏknowledge€about€the€crime€despite€the€fact€that€the€officers€confronted€him€withÏinconsistencies€in€his€story.€€At€one€point,€the€defendant€asked€the€officers€to€turn€offÏthe€audiotape€that€was€recording€on€the€table.€€They€complied,€and€he€asked€theÏofficers€if€he€could€come€back€on€Monday€and€speak€with€them€when€his€parents€wereÏnot€there.€€Officer€Guthrie€told€the€defendant,€ð ðYour€mommaððs€gonna€want€to€talk€to€meÏwhen€I€get€through€here€.€.€.€.ðð€€A€few€minutes€later,€Officer€Peel€said,€ð ðIððm€gonna€tell€youÏyour€mommaððs€gonna€ask€me€if€I€think€you€did€it.€€And€Iððm€gonna€say€momma€yes€I€do.€ÏAnd€you€know€what€sheððs€gonna€do.€€Sheððs€gonna€have€a€fit.ðð€€ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€mother€then€entered€the€room€and€asked€the€officers€whyÏthey€thought€the€defendant€committed€the€crime.€€She€then€pleaded€with€the€defendantÏto€tell€the€police€what€he€knew,€and€she€told€him€that€God€would€forgive€him€and€thatÏhis€family€would€support€him.€€The€defendant€continued€to€tell€his€mother€that€he€hadÏalready€told€the€officers€everything€he€knew.€€Officer€Guthrie€then€asked€the€defendantÏif€he€wanted€to€speak€to€his€mother€by€himself,€and€the€defendant€said€that€he€did.€€TheÏaudiotape€recorder€was€off,€and€the€officers€left€the€room.€€Officer€Guthrie€went€to€theÏvideotape€room€and€watched€and€listened€to€the€defendantððs€conversation€with€hisÏmother,€during€which€the€defendant€eventually€said€that€he€killed€the€victim.ÌÌà ¸ àFollowing€the€defendantððs€admission€to€his€mother,€the€officers€returned€toÏthe€room,€and€the€defendant€asked€his€mother,€ð ðWhy€donððt€you€go€ahead€and€tellÏthem?ðð€€The€defendantððs€mother€said,€ð ðHe€says€he€shot€[inaudible],ðð€and€the€defendantÏsaid,€ð ð.22€caliber,€is€that€what€you€found?ðð€€The€defendant€then€said,€ð ðDonððt€turn€on€theÏtape,€I€would€rather€not€tape€it.ðð€€Following€this€conversation,€a€series€of€conversationsÏtook€place€in€the€room€between€the€defendant,€his€parents,€and€the€officers.€€SomeÏoccurred€with€the€defendant€and€the€officers€present,€some€occurred€with€the€defendantÏand€one€or€both€parents€present,€and€some€occurred€with€everyone€present.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€defendant€challenges€as€inadmissible€those€conversations€that€wereÏrecorded€when€only€the€defendant€and€one€or€more€parents€were€present.€€He€arguesÏthat€the€recording€and€subsequent€admission€into€evidence€of€the€conversationsÏviolated€his€Fourth€Amendment€right€to€privacy€and€the€federal€and€state€wiretappingÏstatutes.€€As€the€majority€opinion€notes,€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€argument€rest€onÏa€determination€of€whether€the€defendant€had€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€€€€ÏòòSeeóó€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€360,€88€S.€Ct.€507,€516€(1967);€òòState€v.Ð ô3ì,2 ÐRoodeóó,€643€S.W.2d€651,€652„53€(Tenn.€1982).€€This€requires€an€analysis€of€whetherÐ À5¸.4 Ðthe€defendant€manifested€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacy€that,€when€viewedÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ1ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ1ññ*ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ*ñobjectively,€is€reasonable€and€justified.€€òòId.óó;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338,Ð  Ð341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà ¸ àWhile€conceding€that€the€defendant€manifested€a€subjective€expectationÏof€privacy,€the€majority€opinion€refers€to€several€cases€to€support€its€position€that€theÏdefendantððs€expectation€of€privacy€is€not€objectively€reasonable.€€I€believe€that€most€ofÏthe€cases€are€distinguishable€in€that€the€prosecution€showed€in€them€that€it€wasÏnecessary€to€record€the€conversations€for€police€safety€relative€to€prisoners.€€ForÏexample,€in€òòState€v.€Wilkinsóó,€868€P.2d€1231€(Idaho€1994),€the€conversation€of€anÐ h` Ðarrestee„defendant€was€recorded€by€the€emergency€dispatcher€who€testified€thatÏconversations€were€recorded€for€police€safety.€€òòId.óó€at€1237.€€Likewise,€in€òòState€v.€Haussóó,Ð ø Ð688€P.2d€1051,€1055€(Ariz.€Ct.€App.€1984),€the€state€proved€that€the€arrestee„¼defendantððs€conversation€was€recorded€because€the€officers€were€concerned€about€theÏdefendant€receiving€a€weapon€or€discussing€possible€escape€plans.€€Also,€in€òòUnitedÐ d\ ÐStates€v.€Hearstóó,€563€F.2d€1331€(9th€Cir.€1977),€justification€for€recording€stemmedÐ 0 ( Ðfrom€the€governmentððs€interests€in€prison€security€and€order.€€ÌÌà ¸ àA€substantive€distinction€between€those€cases€and€the€instant€case€is€thatÏthere€has€been€no€showing€by€the€state€in€the€present€case€that€the€recordings€wereÏmade€in€the€furtherance€of€police€safety.€€To€the€contrary,€Officer€Guthrie€testified€atÏtrial€that€the€reason€for€videotaping€conversations€is€to€insure€that€the€officers€do€notÏmiss€anything.€€In€the€context€of€interviewing€an€individual€who€has€not€been€arrested,€ñ*ñœ›ñ*ñÏñ*ñœñ*ñthe€explanation€makes€sense,€but€it€has€nothing€to€do€with€safety€or€security.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€factsñ*ñ›ñ*ñ€ñ*ñœñ*ñreflect€that€the€conversations€betweenñ*ñ›ñ*ñ€the€defendant€and€hisÏparents€were€ñ*ñœñ*ñrecordedñ*ñ›ñ*ñ€in€the€hopes€of€securing€evidence.€€With€respect€to€theÏdefendantððs€first€conversation€with€his€mother,€the€officers€deliberately€fostered€anÏexpectation€of€privacy,€knowing€that€the€conversation€would€be€far€from€private.€€TheÐ Œ7„06 Ðofficersðð€comments€to€the€defendant€during€their€interrogation€of€him€indicated€that€theyÏbelieved€the€defendantððs€mother€held€considerable€influence€over€the€defendant.€€TheÏmotherððs€own€questions€of€the€officers€indicated€that€she€believed€the€defendant€wasÏnot€being€forthcoming.€€When€the€officers€could€not€get€the€defendant€to€admit€to€theÏcrime€through€their€questioning,€they€encouraged€the€defendant€to€speak€with€hisÏmother€alone,€anticipating€that€the€defendant€would€admit€the€crime€to€her.€€DetectiveÏGuthrie€even€testified€that€after€he€left€the€defendant€and€his€mother€alone,€he€went€toÏthe€videotape€room€and€watched€the€conversation.€ÌÌà ¸ àPolice€safety€and€security€are€important€and€legitimate€concerns,€and€inÏthe€appropriate€case,€the€need€for€police€safety€and€security€can€outweigh€aÏdefendantððs€right€to€privacy.€€This,€however,€is€not€that€case.€€The€defendant€was€not€inÏcustody.€€The€police€deliberately€fostered€an€expectation€of€privacy€for€the€purpose€ofÏgetting€the€defendant€to€confess€to€his€mother€what€he€would€not€confess€to€them.€€TheÏmajority€opinion€concedes€that€it€does€not€condone€this€type€of€surreptitious€behavior.€ÏNot€only€do€I€not€condone€it,€but€I€also€believe€that€it€violated€the€defendantððs€FourthÏAmendment€rights€and€the€wire€tapping€statutes.ÌÌà ¸ àFor€the€same€reasons,€I€believe€that€the€three€other€recordedÏconversations€that€the€defendant€challenges€are€also€inadmissible.€€The€secondÏconversation€involved€the€defendant€and€his€father€alone€in€the€room,€and€theÏdefendant€said€that€he€killed€the€victim€for€money.€€The€defendantððs€mother€thenÏentered,€and€in€that€conversation,€the€defendant€further€elaborated€on€the€shooting€andÏtold€his€parents€that€it€was€intentional.€€In€the€final€conversation€that€the€defendantÏchallenges,€his€mother€and€father€were€present€in€the€room,€and€he€again€said€that€heÏshot€the€victim.Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 Ðà ¸ àThe€same€inquiry€applies€to€these€three€remaining€conversations€asÏâ âapplied€to€the€first.€€That€is,€did€the€defendant€have€a€subjective€expectation€of€privacyÏthat€was€objectively€reasonable?€€Although€the€officers€did€not€reassure€the€defendantÏeach€time€they€left€the€room€that€the€defendantððs€conversations€would€be€private,€theÏdefendant€was€proceeding€under€the€same€expectation€of€privacy€that€he€had€withÏregard€to€the€first€conversation.€€The€officers€did€nothing€to€make€the€defendant€believeÏthat€his€subsequent€conversations€alone€with€his€parents€were€any€less€private€that€theÏfirst€one€he€had€with€his€mother.€€Again,€because€the€officers€deliberately€misled€theÏdefendant€with€respect€to€the€first€conversation,€that€same€taint€of€deceit€clouds€theÏsubsequent€conversations.€€Furthermore,€there€was€no€showing€by€the€state€that€theÏother€conversations€were€taped€for€security€reasons.€€Under€these€circumstances,€IÏwould€hold€all€of€the€defendantððs€conversations€alone€with€his€parents€inadmissible.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€remaining€issue€is€whether€the€ñ1ñœñ1ñadmissibñ+ñilityñ+ññ,ñleñ,ññ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€of€the€privateÏconversations€into€evidence€was€harmless€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€The€recordÏreflects€that€after€the€conversations€with€his€parents,€the€defendant€provided€detailsÏabout€the€shooting€in€the€presence€of€the€officers.€€In€one€conversation,€the€defendantÏadmitted€to€shooting€the€victim€in€the€presence€of€Officer€Guthrie.€€In€anotherÏconversation,€the€defendant€told€Officers€Guthrie€and€Peel,€ð ðI€wasnððt€in€over€my€head,€itÏwas€all€about€the€gun€and€money,€itððs€always€been€about€money.ðð€€Finally,€in€the€lastÏconversation€in€the€presence€of€both€officers,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€tookÏresponsibility€for€himself€and€stated€that€he€was€not€sorry€for€his€actions€because€theÏdefendant€ð ðwas€a€dirty€little€son€of€a€bitchðð€and€was€a€jerk.€€I€do€not€believe€that€theÏadmission€of€the€defendantððs€statements€in€issue€had€any€effect€on€the€outcome€of€theÏguilt€phase€of€the€trial.€€However,€I€cannot€say€the€same€regarding€the€ñ*ñœñ*ñsentencñ(ñingñ(ññ*ñ›ñ*ñÏphase.€€Ìâ âÐ À5¸.4 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ1ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ1ññ,ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ,ññ*ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ*ññ(ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ(ñà ¸ àThe€defendantððs€discussions€with€his€parents€were€quite€blunt€regardingÏâ âhis€feelings€and€motivations€about€the€killing€ñ*ñœñ*ñandñ)ñ€wereñ)ññ*ñ›ñ*ñ€much€more€detailed€about€theÏevents€ñ(ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ(ñsurrounding€the€murder€than€he€provided€to€the€police.€€The€state€relied€onÏthese€statements€in€the€sentencing€phase.€€In€the€context€of€the€jury€determiningÏwhether€the€defendant€should€or€should€not€have€the€ñ1ñœñ1ñpoñ-ñssibilityñ-ññ.ñtentialñ.ññ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€ñ1ñœñ1ññ/ñofñ/ññ0ñforñ0ññ1ñ›ñ1ññ1ññ1ñ€parole,€I€believe€thatÏthe€statements€could€seriously€affect€the€jurorsðð€view€of€the€defendant,€particularly€as€toÏdetermining€the€relative€weight€of€aggravating€and€mitigating€circumstances.€€I€wouldÏremand€the€case€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing.ÌÌÓÓà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_________________________Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌÌà ¸ àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌñ(ñœœñ(ñ