WPC  LNsR8ڑ hzxywQWŏg૮. 5IiAc 5fϣZH#ߗIyoi4.(öDօňrًA@riU&E=xcƦOE?= gFlow IÒJ0},^>>A[c'*FM h >w 'Q4\q5ꢾ9?KQkMa6(e,8Hڎ%֦syW J-6&Auy-a޳L Ԭe~Z&SZǼ؉&k4";Npg| 꺵rEJY^/ k5Vwmq"?N/_YB &5m7VTIh=pۉօzbA3VD=d:Rai`aGr9qz*<F!\1C 6Ȝ8#Kx G )# >UNI % 0(4U:U:"b\(dNw@ 0d(:U:b  m u (* U:R R R R R R R R R R AQ  0D 0D 0D+ + D/o B B D3 HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($n~<$ @ d3|x,cAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular- - WeakleyAcreeUSERYWALKUPCOUGHLANSTRAWBRIDGERadfordUseryaffiantAguilarSpinelliJacuminMelsonCauley Crim UUDUUӀ(Wf|$ @*  A   !"  XXXX8XX   Ad FILEDXX8   December3,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.GXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular U k     8[XXdXXd8   !"  XXXX8XX   Ad FILEDXX8   December2,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.GXXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ''' dxd dP Pd&&&&'dxd !  ݛ_4XXXX   TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TUr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, rr(<,(j 8` `@E` ttx$, rINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEt(>.*jxc` `@E` ttx$ 7 tߛATJACKSONSEPTEMBER1998SESSION  ` j  4X 474STATEOFTENNESSEE, 7 )    4 747  7 )C.C.A.No.02C019805CC00154 Appellee, 7 )     7 )WeakleyCountyV. 7 ) n    7 )HonorableWilliamB.Acree,Judge  T    7 )  : JAMESNORMANUSERY,  7 )(PossessionofControlledSubstance)  p   7 ) Appellant. 7 ) B 4c4 FORTHEAPPELLANT: c FORTHEAPPELLEE: p GarryBrown c JohnKnoxWalkup < #X+XXXH#XXXX+AttorneyatLaw c AttorneyGeneral&Reporter "r МCrockerLawFirmP.O.Box505 c PeterM.Coughlan > Milan,TN38358 c AssistantAttorneyGeneral $  c 425FifthAvenueNorth c Nashville,TN372430493 c ThomasA.Thomas c DistrictAttorneyGeneral#X+XXX{#XXXX+ c AllenStrawbridge c AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral c P.O.Box218 c UnionCity,TN38261OPINIONFILED:___________________ AFFIRMED d506  PAULG.SUMMERS,  8l39 Judge#X+XXX3 # XXXX+   4 D4c  ̜U  7+XXdXXd7   U     8[XXdXXd8    ;7= U  7+XXdXXd7   U  7zXXdd7    @ OPINION   U  7zXXdXXd7   U  7zXXdd7    4 4 DXXXX ThisisanappealbaseduponacertifiedquestionoflawpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure37(b)(2)(iv).#XXXX#ԀRelyingoninformation `  suppliedbyanunnamedinformant,LieutenantJoeyRadfordoftheGreenfieldPoliceDepartmentsworeoutanaffidavitinsupportofawarranttosearchthehomeoftheappellant,JamesNormanUsery.Awarrantwasissued;andtheensuingsearchyieldedasmallquantityXXXXԀof#XXXX#XXXXmethamphetamine,marijuana,and   drugparaphernalia.#XXXX*#ԀTheappellantfiledamotiontosuppressthisevidence, \  challengingtheXXXXvalidityof#XXXX#XXXXboththeaffidavitandthe#XXXX_#XXXXwarrant#XXXXż#.Followingahearing, (L thetrialcourtoverruledthemotion.TheappellantenteredapleaofguiltytopossessionofascheduleIIcontrolledsubstancewithintenttosell,reservingtherighttoappealhischallengetothelegalityofthesearch.Allbelowagreethattheseissuesaredispositiveofthiscase. Theappellantarguesthattheaffidavitfailedtoestablishprobablecausefortheissuanceofthewarrantfortworeasons.First,theaffiantfailedtoestablishthereliabilityorcredibilityXXXXofhisinformantorprovideabasisforthe #! determinationthattheinformantwasa citizeninformantand,second,theaffidavitfailedtodescribewithsufficientparticularity#XXXX%#XXXXԀwhatillegalpropertythe  'D!% appellantwasallegedtopossess.Thewarrant,heargues,isfaciallydefectivebecauseitfailstodescribethepropertytobeseizedwithsufficientparticularity.Wefindtheseissuestobemeritlessandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.#XXXX3# ,&+ XXXX LieutenantRadfordsaffidavitprovidedthat Acitizeninformanthasbeen 0@*/ intheresidenceinthepast72hoursandhasdirectlywitnessedwhitepowdersubstance,greenplantmaterial,paraphernalia,weapons,andcontraband associatedwiththeuseofcontrolledsubstances.Thiscitizeninformantis 5/5 familiarwithcontrolledsubstances.Undertheveracityprong,LieutenantRadfordcheckedaboxnexttothelanguage, Theaffianthasreceivedinformationfromareliablecitizeninformantknowntotheaffiant. #XXXX# When,ashere,anaffidavitisbaseduponthehearsaystatementsofan  0 informant,proofoftheveracityoftheinformantmaybesubjecttooneoftwostandards.Withregardtocriminalorprofessionalinformants,TennesseefollowstheapproachofAguilarv.Texas,378U.S.108(1964)andSpinelliv. p  UnitedStates,393U.S.410(1969),whichrequiresafactualshowingthatthe <` sourceiscredibleorhisinformationreliable.XXXXԀSeeStatev.Jacumin,778S.W.2d , 430(Tenn.1989).#XXXX#ԀOntheotherhand,wheninformationissuppliedbya citizen  informantor aninformantnotfromthecriminalmilieu,reliabilityispresumed,seeStatev.Melson,638S.W.2d342(Tenn.1982);and thestateisnot l requiredtoestablisheitherthecredibilityoftheinformantorthereliabilityofhisinformation.Statev.Cauley,836S.W.2d411,417(Tenn.1993).Instead, the , reliabilityofthesourceandtheinformationmustbejudgedfromallthecircumstancesandfromtheentiretyoftheaffidavit.Id.(quotingMelson,638 "  S.W.2dat356(Tenn.1982)).XXXXTheaffidavitmust intrinsicallyaccredit[]the l$" informant.Statev.Smith,867S.W.2d343,348(Tenn.Crim.App.1993). 8&\ $ #XXXX!# UndertheJacuminstandard,theaffidavitinthepresentcasewouldfail. )#( Thus,thedeterminativequestioniswhethertheaffidavitasawhole,includingtheaffiantsdescriptionoftheinformantas XXXXareliablecitizeninformantknownto h-', theaffiant,#XXXX"#Ԁissufficienttoaccredittheinformantandallowaneutraland 4/X). detachedmagistratetocharacterizehimorherasa citizeninformant,makingapplicablethemorelenientMelsonstandard. 2,2   d606  InStatev.Smith,867S.W.2d343,348(Tenn.Crim.App.1993),this   CourtdeterminedthattheMelsonstandardwasinapplicablewhen there[was]  nothingin[the]affidavit[statingthattheinformant]wasabystanderwitness,avictim,orotherwisea"citizeninformant."Wefurtherstated, 44 l Itisincumbent,wethink,uponwhoeverseeksasearch  0 warranttoincludeintheaffidavitwhethertheinformationalsource,namedorconfidential,qualifiesasacitizeninformant.   Otherwise,theissuingmagistratewouldnotknowwhichstandard,JacuminorMelson,toapply.Whethertheaffidavit   describesthestatusofthesourcedirectly,byimplication,orbyinference,isimmaterial;itmust,however,beapparentbeforethelessstringentMelsonstandardcanbeusedtotest X|  thevalidityofthewarrant.4 &4& &Id.at348(emphasisadded).   Inthepresentcase,LieutenantRadforddirectlystatedthatheknewtheinformant,thatheorshewasareliableperson,andthatheorshewasacitizeninformant.Whilewemightbetroubledbythebareconclusorystatementofanaffiantthataninformantisacitizeninformant,thatisnotthecasehere.Althoughonlyminimallydescriptive,theaffiantdidstatethatheknewtheinformant,thusgivingthemagistratesomebasisonwhichtojudgethecredibilityoftheinformationprovidedbytheaffidavit.Thatis,themagistratehadbeforehimapersonwhosecredibilityhecouldjudge.Thatperson,LieutenantRadford,sworethatheknewtheinformantandthatheorshewasreliable.Themagistrate,therefore,hadasubstantialbasisforcreditingthehearsayaffidavit.SeeMelson,638S.W.2dat35455._Ԁ ,&+ XXXX Again,theaffidavitstatesthattheinformant hasbeenintheresidencein 0>*/ thepast72hoursandhasdirectlywitnessedwhitepowersubstance,greenplantmaterial,paraphernalia,weapons,andcontrabandassociatedwiththeuseofcontrolledsubstances.Thiscitizeninformantisfamiliarwithcontrolled 9:39 Їsubstances.𛀀Theappellantarguesthat,ratherthanaccredittheinformant,thisinformationisexactlythetypethantmightbeexpectedfromacriminalinformantand,therefore,suggeststhattheinformantisotherthanthetypicalcitizeninformant.Wecannotagree.Wesuspectthatmanyaveragecitizenswouldreadilyrecognizeillegaldrugsanddrugparaphernalia.Thataninformantrecognizessuchmaterialisaslikelytoindicatethatheorshewatchestheeveningnewsorpopularmoviesasitistoindicateinvolvementwiththecriminalmilieu.#XXXX,# p   Theappellantalsoarguesthattheaffidavitfailstoallegewithsufficientparticularitythattheappellantpossessedillegalproperty.Asquotedabove,theaffidavitprovidesadescriptionofseveralmaterialsthatisconsistentwithadescriptionofcontrolledsubstances;itstatesthattheinformantisfamiliarwithcontrolledsubstances,anditallegesthepresenceof contrabandassociated 8\ withtheuseofcontrolledsubstances.Theappellantarguesthattheaffidavit ( describesnoillegalitems.Thatis,theappellantarguesthattheaffidavitdoesnotallegethepresenceofcontrolledsubstancesand,evenifitdoes,anallegationofthepresenceofcontrolledsubstancesisonlysufficientifitalsoallegesunlawfulpossession.SeeStatev.Johnson,854S.W.2d897,900(Tenn.Crim.App. 4&X $ 1993)(findingareferenceto drugstobeinsufficient,asdrugsmaybeeitherlawfullyorfunlawfullypossessed).Theappellantarguesthattheonlyillegalitemallegedbytheaffidavittohavebeeninhispossessionwas contraband.Contraband,henotes,isanypropertythatitisunlawfultopossess.Anaffidavitallegingonlythepresenceofcontrabandfailstoprovideprobablecauseastothepossessionofanyparticularillegalproperty,andawarrantissuedonsuchabasiswouldconstituteageneralwarrantinviolationofArticleISection7oftheTennesseeConstitution.  `606  Whileweagreethatanaffidavitallegingonlythepresenceofcontraband wouldbeinsufficient,theaffidavitmustbereadasawhole.SeeXXXXCauley,836  S.W.2dat417.#XXXX7#ԀInthepresentcase,theaffidavitrelatesthepresenceof t  substancesbyadescriptionthatisconsistentwiththatofcertaincontrolledsubstances.Moreover,itdoesnotmerelyallegecontraband,butrather, contrabandassociatedwiththeuseofcontrolledsubstances.Wefindsuchlanguagetobeclearlysufficient,whentheaffidavitisreadasawhole,toidentifywithparticularitytheillegalitemsallegedtohavebeenintheappellantspossession. Finally,andalongsimilarlines,theappellantarguesthatthesearchwarrantisfaciallydefectiveinthatitdoesnotdescribethepropertytobeseizedwithsufficientparticularity.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.406103(requiringsearch l warrantsto particularly_describ[e_]theproperty).Thewarrantauthorizedasearchfor whitepowdermaterial,greenplantmaterial,paraphernalia,weaponsandcontrabandtowit.Fromtheplainlanguageofthewarrant,wehavenodifficultyindiscerningwithparticularitytheitemstobeseized.  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtoverrulingtheappellantsmotiontosuppressisaffirmed.         ,8P28  4 cD4    ! 4 4 cD!  __________________________ 4 4 N    PAULG.SUMMERS,JudgeCONCUR:_____________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge_____________________________JOEG.RILEY,Judge