ÿWPC x¦ $ÛMö¸‹õ œn2ÇÑüX Ió•2Gô¸ƒ)½²5‚Páù©p¬H%&“F*P5ÍÃpü­§Rž]œœƒde¾ªÕÔ2‚&Êevüy ðev' –û»ŠáÐ4+àÒ¡¢V3€ÃQ6`ž?¨«V5pêùóÚçÈCâ|ü¸ W¸"Éó½üjý€x1ÌŸ~yèb Zèº)Vðù3´·1º¦1Bêh"uµm~Î,‹QTÄIKÛ€I5N×l^C3D`ÌÝ…éXm á+ô¢¥1A«Ÿ›1…ÌC”"[­‹}ˆ¡jÛãÞ+~YÁÀØxù¶GÙrÂsc¢º ö iK:—&È—Á¼xå2F«ÚPHbªµ%x|F £ìP;Wð›ñ)ï,#Ñ4‰Ÿ÷T–ä1ªsé9O1±9© 4Þ\ÇKófk_ñšÑ=ЪiC¢AzÈeÏÄcD²¥ÙëÕADΊ%W°D5ù"-v©3‰„ýÊGã¼MIËH·Òóú$òˆM3ÉŸÐàâã/ù¬!W¼¥>ù‘ÊÏN0åÀ¡ª(V÷ƒ´»¸`/„àñ4(á»Ô옙㵱áþß•ˆUÍæ/=„b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ UN™ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9U>ÿN=Ž??EÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍbÏÏ 0D×××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××× 0ë B 0¤# D3Ç D-ú 0K'' ASrÆÅ 0¤‹ 0D/ A«s»š³’/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularlk.ê:i¢Ø+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ô\  `&Times New Roman  P.J.SmyrnaMarneyWhitesellSpearman OdomHenningYearganMosley CrimHukowiczMcFarlandTidwelld]uringHuddlestonunwarned MappSilverthornepretermitted- ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(|G23C$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ìa»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôþ<ò»»Ô d(|37$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ìa»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ìa»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ìa»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ìa»»»ÔÑ8€Œ£XXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î?^ÌaÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ìa»îî?^ #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAugust€12,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ìa»XXŒ£#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JOHN€E.€TURNERòòóóÔ‡XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Rutherford€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€F„51144A€€€€€€James€K.€Clayton,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02454„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€18,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X¡=XXXŒ£ÔThe€Appellant,€John€E.€Turner,€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€Rutherford€County€jury€for€especiallyÐ V¦  Ðaggravated€robbery,€a€class€A€felony.€€The€single€issue€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erredÐ ? Ðby€not€suppressing€Turnerððs€statement€to€the€police€and€the€victimððs€gun,€which€was€discovered€asÐ (x Ða€result€of€his€statement.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€Appellantððs€statementÐ a Ðwas€obtained€in€violation€of€his€Fifth€Amendment€right€to€remain€silent.€€Moreover,€we€concludeÐ úJ Ðthat€the€stolen€weapon€is€also€inadmissible€unless,€upon€remand,€the€State€can€show€either€that€theÐ ã3 Ðpolice€had€an€independent,€untainted€source€for€the€information€leading€to€the€gun€or€that€the€gunÐ Ì Ðwould€have€been€inevitably€discovered€through€routine€police€investigation.€€Accordingly,€theÐ µ Ðjudgment€of€conviction€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€withÐ žî Ðthis€opinion.Ð ‡× ÐÔ#†XŒ£XX X¡=Â#ÔÔ#†¼Ìa»XXŒ£‹#ÔÔ‡XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔÓ¶ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed€and€Remanded.ó óÐ Y© ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ìa»àXŒ£ #ÔÔ‡XŒ£X.¼ÌaÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€and€òòJerryÐ ,| ÐL.€Smithóó,€J.,€joined.Ð e ÐÌJoe€M.€Brandon,€Jr.,€Smyrna,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€John€E.€Turner.Ð ç 7  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Elizabeth€B.Ð ¹" " ÐMarney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€and€William€C.€Whitesell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ ¢#ò# Ðthe€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ‹$Û$ ÐÔ#†¼Ìa»XXŒ£E #ÔÔ‡XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔÌÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ìa»XXŒ£³ #ÔÔ‡XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔÐ F'–"' ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ )i$) ÐòòóóÔ#†¼Ìa»XXŒ£& #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XŒ£X»¼ÌaÔÌÔ‡ X¡=XXXŒ£Ôà  àIn€the€early€afternoon€of€April€30,€2001,€the€victim,€Reggie€Bowling,€drove€to€the€ImperialÐ ì*<&+ ÐGarden€Apartments€in€Smyrna.€€At€some€point€in€the€evening,€the€victim,€who€had€been€drinkingÐ Õ+%', Ðthroughout€the€day,€passed€out€in€his€automobile,€which€was€parked€in€the€apartment€parking€lot.€Ð ¾,(- ÐThis€same€evening,€the€Appellant€and€Michael€H.€Martin,€a/k/a€Harvey€Martin,€visited€the€apartmentÐ §-÷(.ý ÐÔ_Ôof€Angel€Smith€and€Olivia€Jordan,€which€was€located€in€the€complex.€€Jordan€observed€the€victimÐ ° Ðpassed€out€in€his€car€from€the€balcony€of€her€apartment.€€She€left€the€apartment€and€went€to€the€car.€Ð ™é ÐJordan€returned€to€the€apartment€with€a€ð ðblack€gym€bag,ðð€which€contained€some€clothing.€€JordanÐ ‚Ò Ðagain€left€the€apartment€and€returned€with€the€victimððs€wallet.€€Jordan€informed€the€group€that€sheÐ k» Ðwas€getting€the€items€from€ð ða€guy€in€the€parking€lot€passed€out.ðð€€Both€the€Appellant€and€MartinÐ T¤ Ðthen€observed€the€victim€inside€his€vehicle;€however,€they€went€back€inside.€€On€Jordanððs€third€tripÐ =  Ðto€the€victimððs€vehicle,€she€returned€with€a€gold€necklace€and€a€.25€caliber€automatic€pistol.€€TheÐ & v ÐAppellant€took€possession€of€the€weapon.€€Ð  _ ÐÌà  àA€discussion€ensued€about€taking€the€victimððs€car€and€selling€it€in€Alabama.€€The€AppellantÐ á 1  Ðstated€he€did€not€participate€in€this€conversation.€€The€Appellant,€Martin,€Jordan,€and€Smith€thenÐ Ê   Ðwent€outside,€and€Martin€opened€the€car€door,€rousing€the€victim.€€Martin€then€struck€the€victim€withÐ ³  Ða€beer€bottle€and€called€to€the€Appellant€for€help.€€The€Appellant€opened€the€back€door€and€struckÐ œì  Ðthe€victim.€€The€victim€fell€out€of€the€car€onto€the€pavement.€€Martin€and€Jordan€left€the€apartmentÐ …Õ  Ðcomplex€in€the€victimððs€vehicle,€and€Smith€and€the€Appellant€left€in€Smithððs€vehicle.€€The€partiesÐ n¾  Ðseparated,€with€Martin€and€Jordan€continuing€on€their€trip€to€Alabama.€€The€trip€ended€when€the€twoÐ W§  Ðultimately€wrecked€the€victimððs€vehicle.€Ð @ ÐÌà  àOn€May€1,€2001,€at€approximately€2:54€p.m.,€the€Appellant€was€stopped€and€charged€withÐ b ÐDriving€on€a€Suspended€License.€€The€Appellant€was€taken€to€the€Smyrna€Police€Department€andÐ ûK Ðinterviewed€by€Detectives€Jeff€Duke€and€Todd€Spearman€about€the€robbery.€€Previously,€Jordan€hadÐ ä4 Ðbeen€questioned€by€the€police€and€informed€them€of€the€Appellantððs€involvement€in€the€crime.€€InÐ Í Ðthe€interview€room,€the€Appellant€was€read€his€Miranda€rights€and€signed€a€waiver€of€rights€formÐ ¶ Ðat€3:39€p.m.;€however,€the€Appellant€advised€that€he€would€not€prepare€a€written€statement.€€EarlyÐ Ÿï Ðin€the€interview,€the€Appellant€stated€to€the€detectives,€ð ðI€donððt€have€anything€to€say.ðð€€During€thisÐ ˆØ Ðinitial€interview€period,€the€Appellant€continually€denied€any€knowledge€of€the€events.€€This€portionÐ qÁ Ðof€the€interview€lasted€twenty€to€thirty€minutes.€€The€interview€terminated€when€the€detectivesÐ Zª Ðlearned€that€Martin€had€just€been€arrested€and€was€being€held€for€questioning.€€After€questioningÐ C“ ÐMartin€for€approximately€fifteen€to€twenty€minutes,€he€admitted€to€both€his€and€the€AppellantððsÐ ,| Ðinvolvement€in€the€crime.€€The€detectives€then€returned€to€further€interrogate€the€Appellant.€€DuringÐ e Ðthis€second€period€of€questioning,€the€Appellant€made€numerous€incriminating€statements,€includingÐ þN Ðthat€he€struck€the€victim€and€describing€the€location€of€the€victimððs€gun.€€Upon€becoming€upset€withÐ ç 7 Ðthe€detectivesðð€questions,€the€Appellant€requested€an€attorney,€and€the€interview€ceased.€€ThisÐ Ð!   Ðsecond€part€of€the€interview€lasted€approximately€thirty€minutes.€€€€€€Ð ¹" ! ÐÌà  àOn€May€8,€2001,€the€Appellant,€Martin,€and€Jordan€were€indicted€for€attempted€secondÐ ‹$Û# Ðdegree€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€murder€charge€was€dismissed€on€the€morningÐ t%Ä $ Ðof€the€trial.€€òòóóThe€Appellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€his€statement€and€the€subsequent€discoveryÐ ]&­!% Ðof€the€victimððs€gun€in€his€home,€which€was€denied.€€Following€a€jury€trial,€the€Appellant€wasÐ F'–"& Ðconvicted€of€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€He€now€appeals,€arguing€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€erred€inÐ /(#' Ðnot€suppressing€[his]€statements€after€he€stated€he€had€nothing€to€say:€which€would€also€result€in€aÐ )h$( Ðsuppression€of€the€handgun.ðð€€€€Ð *Q%) ÐÌÓ  Óò òANALYSIS€ó óÐ Ó+#'+ ÐÓ‚!ÓÌà  àIn€reviewing€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,€this€court€looks€to€the€facts€adduced€at€theÐ ™é Ðsuppression€hearing€which€are€most€favorable€to€the€prevailing€party.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ ‚Ò Ð420,€423€(Tenn.€2000)€(citing€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996)).€€In€considering€theÐ k» Ðevidence€presented€at€the€hearing,€this€court€extends€great€deference€to€the€fact„finding€of€theÐ T¤ Ðsuppression€hearing€judge€with€respect€to€weighing€credibility,€determining€facts,€and€resolvingÐ =  Ðconflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòId.;€see€also€State€v.€Walton,óó€41€S.W.3d€75,€81€(Tenn.€2001).€€Indeed,Ð & v Ðthese€findings€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€òò€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€atÐ  _ Ð423.€€Furthermore,€this€court€may€consider€the€entire€record,€including€the€evidence€submitted€bothÐ ø H Ðat€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial,€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€the€trial€court's€ruling.€€òòStateÐ á 1  Ðv.€Henningóó,€975€S.W.2d€290,€299€(Tenn.€1998).€€Although€deference€is€given€to€the€trial€court'sÐ Ê   Ðfindings€of€fact,€this€court€conducts€its€own€appraisal€of€the€constitutional€questions€presented€byÐ ³  Ðreviewing€the€law€and€applying€it€to€the€specific€facts€of€the€particular€case.€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978Ð œì  ÐS.W.2d€861,€864€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)).ò òÐ …Õ  ÐÌI.€Statement€to€Law€Enforcement€Officersó óÐ X¨  ÐÌà  àThat€a€defendant€has€a€constitutional€right€to€remain€silent€in€the€face€of€accusations€againstÐ +{ Ðhim,€not€only€during€his€trial€but€also€upon€arrest€and€while€in€custody,€is€a€rule€so€fundamental€asÐ d Ðto€require€little€elaboration.€€òòBraden€v.€Stateóó,€534€S.W.2d€657,€660€(Tenn.€1976)€(citations€omitted).€Ð ýM ÐWhen€a€suspect€clearly€articulates€during€custodial€interrogation€that€he€wishes€to€invoke€the€FifthÐ æ6 ÐAmendment€privilege€against€self„incrimination,€the€officers€conducting€the€interrogation€must€stopÐ Ï Ðquestioning€the€suspect.€€òòState€v.€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€269€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€506€U.S.€905,Ð ¸ Ð113€S.€Ct.€298€(1992)€(citing€òòMiranda€v.€Arizonaóó,€384€U.S.€436,€473„74,€86€S.€Ct.€1602,€1627Ð ¡ñ Ð(1966)).€€Furthermore,€ð ðthe€admissibility€of€statements€obtained€after€the€person€in€custody€hasÐ ŠÚ Ðdecided€to€remain€silent€depends€under€òòMirandaóó€on€whether€his€ððright€to€cut€off€questioningðð€wasÐ sà Ðððscrupulously€honored.ðððð€òòMichigan€v.€Mosleyóó,€423€U.S.€96,€104,€96€S.€Ct.€321,€326€(1975);€òòsee€alsoóóÐ \¬ ÐòòState€v.€Cameronóó,€909€S.W.2d€836,€847€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Before€the€police€mustÐ E• Ðscrupulously€honor€a€suspect's€right€to€remain€silent,€the€suspect€must€clearly€articulate€that€rightÐ .~ Ðso€that€a€reasonable€police€officer€under€the€circumstances€would€understand€the€suspect's€words€andÐ g Ðconduct€to€mean€that€the€suspect€wants€to€exercise€his€right€to€cut€off€further€questioning.€€òòState€v.Ð  P ÐWilliam€M.€Hukowiczóó,€No.€M1999„00073„CCA„R9„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Aug.€18,Ð é 9 Ð2000).€€In€òòHukowiczóó,€the€defendant,€when€asked€about€the€night€in€question,€told€the€detective€thatÐ Ò!"  Ðhe€could€not€comment€and,€although€he€wanted€to€comment,€he€"knew€better."€€òòIdóó.€€A€panel€of€thisÐ »" ! Ðcourt€concluded€that€a€reasonable€police€officer€under€the€circumstances€should€have€known€that€theÐ ¤#ô" Ðdefendant€was€invoking€his€right€to€terminate€questioning.€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€present€case,€the€trial€courtÐ $Ý# Ðfound€that€the€Appellant€had€invoked€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€We€agree€that€the€record€supportsÐ v%Æ $ Ðthe€trial€court's€finding€that€the€Appellant€invoked€this€right.€€Ð _&¯!% ÐÐ Ðà  àNonetheless,€the€State€contends€that,€although€the€Appellant€invoked€this€right,€he€initiatedÐ 1(#' Ðfurther€communications€with€the€detectives€ð ðby€repeatedly€asking€what€was€going€to€happen€to€himÐ )j$( Ðand€whether€he€could€work€out€a€deal.ðð€€When€it€is€the€State's€contention€that€an€accused€waived€hisÐ *S%) Ðright€to€remain€silent,€having€once€invoked€that€right,€the€State€must€meet€a€heavy€burden€ofÐ ì*<&* Ðdemonstrating€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€an€accused€initiated€the€subsequent€discussionÐ Õ+%'+ Ðand€that€he€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€waived€his€right.€€òòSee€State€v.€AaronÐ ° ÐMcFarlandóó,€No.€W1999„01410„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€Aug.4,€2000)€(citingÐ ™é ÐòòState€v.€Tidwellóó,€775€S.W.2d€379,€€386€(Tenn.€Crim€App.€1989)).€€The€trial€court€found€thatÐ ‚Ò Ðð ð[d]uring€the€initial€part€of€the€interview,€however,€Mr.€Turner€did€say€he€didnððt€want€to€talk€to€theÐ k» Ðpolice€department,€but€he€continued€to€talk€to€the€police€department[.]€.€.€.€€He€didnððt€request€aÐ T¤ Ðlawyer€until€we€got€in€the€second€part€of€the€interview€after€the€gun€had€been€recovered.ðð€€WithÐ =  Ðregard€to€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Appellant€ð ðcontinued€to€talk,ðð€we€conclude€that€thisÐ & v Ðfinding€is€ambiguous€and€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,Ð  _ ÐDetective€Duke€testified€that,€during€the€initial€interview€period,€the€Appellant€ð ðwould€say€I€donððtÐ ø H Ðhave€anything€to€say.€€And€then€he€would€turn€around€and€go€whatððs€going€to€happen€to€me,€whichÐ á 1  Ðto€me€opens€the€door€back€up.ðð€€This€represents€the€only€testimony€that€the€Appellant€initiatedÐ Ê   Ðfurther€communication€with€the€detectives€after€invoking€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€RepeatedlyÐ ³  Ðasking€ð ðwhatððs€going€to€happen€to€me,ðð€does€not,€by€itself,€indicate€that€the€Appellant€wanted€toÐ œì  Ðagain€waive€his€right€to€remain€silent€and€continue€with€questioning.€€We€conclude€that,€withoutÐ …Õ  Ðmore,€the€State€did€not€demonstrate,€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence,€that€the€Appellant€initiatedÐ n¾  Ðfurther€communication€with€the€police€and€that€he€voluntarily,€knowingly,€and€intelligently€waivedÐ W§  Ðhis€right€to€remain€silent.€€After€the€Appellant€invoked€his€right€to€remain€silent,€the€policeÐ @ Ðimmediately€continued€to€question€him.€€While€it€is€true€that€the€Appellant€did€not€request€anÐ )y Ðattorney€until€the€second€part€of€the€interview,€such€request€is€immaterial€to€whether€or€not€theÐ b ÐAppellant€invoked€his€right€to€remain€silent€during€the€initial€stage€of€the€interview.€€It€is€clear,€fromÐ ûK Ðthe€record,€that€the€police€did€not€"scrupulously€honor"€his€invocation€of€his€right€to€remain€silent.Ð ä4 ЀÌà  àThus,€we€must€determine€whether€the€statement€was€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€priorÐ ¶ Ðconstitutional€violation€and,€therefore,€must€be€excluded.€€The€factors€to€be€examined€in€determiningÐ Ÿï Ðwhether€a€confession€has€been€purged€of€the€taint€of€a€prior€constitutional€violation€include:€(1)€theÐ ˆØ Ðgiving€of€proper€Miranda€warnings;€(2)€the€temporal€proximity€of€the€police€misconduct€and€theÐ qÁ Ðconfession;€(3)€the€presence€of€intervening€circumstances;€and€(4)€the€purpose€and€flagrancy€of€theÐ Zª Ðofficial€misconduct.€€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€674„75€(Tenn.€1996)€(citing€òòBrown€v.Ð C“ ÐIllinoisóó,€422€U.S.€590,€603„04,€95€S.€Ct.€2254,€2261„62€(1975));€òòsee€also€Crumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€at€272.Ð ,| ÐÐ Ðò òA.òò€Mirandaóó€Warningsó óÐ þN ÐÌà  àHere,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€Appellant€received€òòÔ#†XŒ£XX X¡=Ý #ÔÔ‡XŒ£XXXŒ£ÔMirandaÔ#†XŒ£XXXŒ£xB#Ôóó€warnings€before€he€wasÐ Ñ!!  Ðquestioned€by€the€detectives€and€that€he€signed€a€written€waiver€of€his€rights€before€he€made€hisÐ º" ! Ðinitial€verbal€statement.€€Thus,€this€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€the€State.€€However,€òòMirandaóó€warningsÐ £#ó" Ðalone€do€not€òòper€seóó€authorize€the€admission€of€the€subsequent€confession.€€òòBrownóó,€422€U.S.€at€603,Ð Œ$Ü# Ð95€S.€Ct.€at€2261.Ð  u%Å $ Ðò òB.€Temporal€Proximityó óÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€Appellantððs€statements€were€made€only€one€to€one€and€one„half€hours€after€the€initialÐ ƒÓ Ð"illegality."€He€was€in€custody€for€the€entire€period,€continued€to€make€broad€incriminatingÐ l¼ Ðstatements,€and€turned€over€additional€evidence,€òòi.eóó,€the€location€of€the€victimððs€weapon.€€Thus,€thereÐ U¥ Ðis€no€indication€that€adequate€time€elapsed€to€allow€the€defendant€to€formulate€"free€will"€sufficientÐ > Ž Ðto€remove€the€taint€caused€by€the€illegality.€€òòBrownóó,€422€U.S.€at€598,€95€S.€Ct.€at€2259;€òòsee€also€StateÐ ' w Ðv.€Johnsonóó,€980€S.W.2d€414,€424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€This€factor€weighs€heavily€in€favor€ofÐ  ` Ðsuppression.Ð ù I ÐÌò òC.€€Intervening€Circumstancesó óÐ Ë   ÐÌà  àThere€were€no€intervening€circumstances€sufficient€to€undermine€the€inference€that€theÐ žî  Ðconfession€was€tainted€by€the€constitutional€violation.€€The€detectivesðð€conversation€with€co„Ð ‡×  Ðdefendant€Martin€was€the€only€possible€intervening€circumstance.€€Prior€to€the€detectivesððÐ pÀ  Ðconversation€with€Martin,€the€Appellant€denied€any€involvement€in€the€crime.€€After€the€detectivesÐ Y©  Ðspoke€with€Martin€and€returned€to€question€the€Appellant,€he€confessed.€€However,€the€AppellantÐ B’ Ðhad€previously€been€informed,€during€the€initial€stage€of€the€interview,€that€there€was€a€witness€whoÐ +{ Ðimplicated€him€in€the€crime.€€Thus,€this€factor€also€weighs€in€favor€of€suppression.€Ð d ÐÌò òD.€Flagrancy€of€the€Misconductó óÐ æ6 ÐÌà  àThe€fourth€factor,€the€one€which€the€supreme€court€has€placed€the€most€significance€upon,Ð ¹  Ðweighs€heavily€in€favor€of€suppression.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Detective€Duke€made€theÐ ¢ò Ðfollowing€comments:Ð ‹Û ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€No,€sir.€€He€at€any€point€ð!ð€all€he€has€to€say€is€I€want€an€attorney.€€If€heÐ ]­ Ðsays€I€want€an€attorney,€I€stop€talking€to€him.ÐF–Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.Ðh` x` x ÐÌà8  àà ` àQ.€€The€magical€thing€you€are€hinging€on€as€to€when€somebody€would€invokeÐ ê : Ðtheir€Miranda€warnings€in€this€particular€case€is€that€he€has€to€say€I€want€a€lawyer?ÐÓ!# Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` àA.€€When€I€read€someone€their€rights€ð!ð€.€.€.€at€any€point€they€say€I€would€likeÐ ¥#õ" Ðto€have€an€attorney,€I€think€I€need€an€attorney€ð!ð€.€.€.€once€they€say€that,€Iððm€throughÐ Ž$Þ# Ðwith€them.€€€Ðw%Ç $Ð Ð  ÐÌRelying€on€these€facts,€we€conclude€that€there€was€flagrant€misconduct.€€According€to€DetectiveÐ I'™"& ÐDuke,€questioning€would€only€cease€upon€invocation€of€the€right€to€an€attorney.€€This€completelyÐ 2(‚#' Ðignores€oneððs€constitutional€right€to€remain€silent.€Ð )k$( ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€three€of€the€four€factors€support€suppression€of€the€Appellantððs€incriminatingÐ í*=&* Ðstatements.€€It€is€clear€that€these€statements€were€obtained€as€a€direct€result€of€the€constitutionalÐ Ö+&'+ Ðviolation.€Therefore,€the€entire€statement€following€the€Appellantððs€invocation€of€his€rights,€òòi.e.óó,Ð ° Ðanything€after€the€first€time€the€Appellant€said,€"I€donððt€have€anything€to€say,"€must€be€suppressed.Ð ™é ЀòòóóÐ ‚Ò Ðò òII.€€Victimððs€gunó óÐ k» ÐÌà  àArguing€the€"fruit€of€the€poisonous€tree"€doctrine,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€the€victimððs€gun,Ð > Ž Ðwhich€was€recovered€from€his€home,€should€have€been€suppressed€because€the€detectives€gainedÐ ' w Ðinformation€about€the€gun's€location€from€him€after€he€had€asserted€his€right€to€remain€silent.€€TheÐ  ` ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court,€concerning€this€issue,€recently€held€that€a€òòper€seóó€exclusionary€rule,€whichÐ ù I Ðwould€automatically€exclude€non„testimonial€evidence€obtained€from€a€technical€failure€to€giveÐ â 2  ÐMiranda€warnings,€is€not€warranted.€€òòState€v.€Waltonóó,€41€S.W.3d€75,€92€(Tenn.€2001).€€Instead,€aÐ Ë   Ðdefendant€may€seek€suppression€of€non„testimonial€evidence€discovered€through€his€or€herÐ ´  Ðunwarned€statements€òòonly€when€the€statements€are€the€product€of€an€actual€violation€of€the€privilegeÐ í  Ðagainst€self„incriminationóó,€òòi.eóó.,€such€as€when€actual€coercion€in€obtaining€the€statement€is€involved,Ð †Ö  Ðor€when€the€invocation€of€the€òòright€to€remain€silent€óóor€to€have€counsel€present€is€not€"scrupulouslyÐ o¿  Ðhonored."€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€While€the€gun€is€non„testimonial€evidence,€we€have€alreadyÐ X¨  Ðdetermined€that€the€Appellantððs€right€to€remain€silent€was€not€ð ðscrupulously€honored.ðð€€Therefore,Ð A‘ Ðunder€òòWalton,óó€the€exclusionary€rule€would€extend€to€the€gun,€which€was€obtained€in€violation€of€hisÐ *z Ðfederal€and€state€constitutional€rights€to€be€free€of€compelled€self„incrimination.€Ô‡ X¡=XXXŒ£Ô€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð c ÐCrumpóó,€834€S.W.2d€265,€270€(Tenn.€1992)€(holding€failure€of€police€to€ð ðscrupulously€honorðð€theÐ üL Ðdefendantððs€invocation€of€his€right€to€remain€silent€is€a€violation€of€the€defendantððs€constitutionalÐ å5 Ðrights€to€be€free€of€compelled€self„incrimination,€not€merely€a€violation€of€òòMirandaððsóó€proceduralÐ Î Ðrules).€€€Ð · Ðà  àÌà  à€Ordinarily,€evidence€obtained€through€the€violation€of€a€suspect's€constitutional€rights€mustÐ ‰Ù Ðbe€excluded€at€trial.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Wong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€485,€83€S.€Ct.€407,€416Ð r Ð(1963);€òòMapp€v.€Ohioóó,€367€U.S.€643,€646„49,€81€S.€Ct.€1684,€1686„88€(1961);€òòSilverthorne€LumberÐ [« ÐCo.€v.€United€Statesóó,€251€U.S.€385,€392,€40€S.€Ct.€182,€183€(1920).€€When,€however,€the€prosecutionÐ D” Ðcan€show€either€that€the€police€had€an€independent,€untainted€source€for€the€information€leading€toÐ -} Ðthe€contested€evidence,€or€that€the€evidence€would€have€been€inevitably€discovered€through€routineÐ f Ðpolice€investigation,€an€exception€to€the€general€rule€of€exclusion€exists.€€òòNix€v.€Williamsóó,€467€U.S.Ð ÿO Ð431,€435„45,€104€S.€Ct.€2501,€2508„10€(1984).à  àÐ è 8 Ðà  àÔS$"tÑ!!ÔThe€trial€court's€erroneous€decision€to€admit€the€Appellantððs€statement€improvidentlyÐ $"t  Ðpretermitted€findings€of€fact€relevant€to€the€determination€of€whether€the€State€could€show€either€thatÐ  #]! Ðthe€police€had€an€independent,€untainted€source€for€the€information€leading€to€the€contested€evidenceÐ ö#F" Ðor€that€the€evidence€would€have€been€inevitably€discovered€through€routine€police€investigation.€Ð ß$/ # ÐThe€record€reveals€that€the€Appellant€had€been€implicated€in€the€crime€by€two€of€his€co„defendants.€Ð È%!$ ÐThe€nature€of€this€information€may€have€been€sufficient€to€establish€probable€cause€for€a€searchÐ ±&"% Ðwarrant€of€the€Appellantððs€residence€and,€thus,€the€gun€may€have€been€discovered€through€routineÐ š'ê"& Ðpolice€investigation.€€However,€the€record€is€not€sufficient€to€make€this€determination.€€This€courtÐ ƒ(Ó#' Ðdoes€not€possess€fact€finding€authority;€our€jurisdiction€being€appellate€only.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„Ð l)¼$( Ð5„108€(1994).€€Thus,€our€review€is€precluded€by€the€absence€of€these€critical€findings,€and€thisÐ U*¥%) Ðdetermination€must€be€made€by€the€trial€court€upon€remand.€Ð >+Ž&* ÐÐ ',w'+ ÐÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ~dÓà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€theÐ ƒÓ ÐAppellantððs€incriminating€statement€to€the€police.€Accordingly,€the€Appellantððs€conviction€forÐ l¼ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery€is€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€new€trial.€€Nonetheless,€theÐ U¥ Ðadmissibility€of€the€victimððs€gun,€upon€remand,€is€subject€to€the€trial€courtððs€determination€ofÐ > Ž Ðwhether€the€gun€was€discoverable€through€an€independent,€untainted€source€or€through€routineÐ ' w Ðpolice€investigation.€€€Ô#†XŒ£XX X¡=ªY#ÔÐ  ` ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð í  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE