ÿWPC„  5JöUN@ %Ž 0”U:›w@Õ4)8 0K@ 0D‹ 0JÏ 0T 0^m 0hË 0r3 U .¥ 0|Ó 0†O ÆÕ 0› 1u+ 0d  AQ BU 0Dr 0@¶ 0Dö D/: Bi D3†U>¹U*÷B)!DCJ AMâÚȼڄÕ^v~3vÓ±c:\office\wpwin\template\opinion.wpt(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ßZ>$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X³—XXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€Å XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular DD‘’[“”D•/e–e—Ó€£ ƒ‰#3|x£(û(3ʘ$¤¤Ý ƒZ>!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XòXXXÔÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€vcXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô%ä2¼A`ArialTT2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ!"#%Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ d(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d,,,,7Border 1dd"-Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ11,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,€401€U.S.€745,€91€S.Ct.€1122,€28€L.Ed.2d€453€(1971),Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€concluded€the€holding€in€òòOn€Leeóó€was€sound.€ÏHowever,€the€Court€said€the€reasoning€that€there€was€no€trespass€was€no€longerÏapplicable€in€view€of€its€holding€in€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€88€S.Ct.€507,Ï19€L.Ed.2d€576€(1967).Ì ÐÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€prosecution€referred€to€Chin€Poy€as€ð ðan€undercover€agent.ðð€€The€defenseÏreferred€to€him€as€ð ða€stool€pigeon.ððÌ ËÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€*ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€language€was€first€used€in€the€case€of€òòThompson€v.€Carsonóó,€186€Tenn.Ï170,€173,€208€S.W.2d€1019,€1020€(1948).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€*ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ#€++Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÓ  Ó›œÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÙ€ÙœßR€./-A1-j|?ÿ`` à. `€€@ÿRß›AT€JACKSONÌÌFEBRUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€APPELLEE,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àNo.€02„C„01„9609„CC„00307Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àHardin€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àC.€Creed€McGinley,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à(Possession€of€Cocaine€and€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àMarijuana€with€Intent€to€Sell)ÌCHARLES€DAVID€VANDERFORD,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àAPPELLANT.à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌJ.€Daniel€Freemonà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAttorney€at€Lawà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ327€West€Gaines€Streetà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌLawrenceburg,€TN€38464à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEugene€J.€HoneaÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€Robert€RadfordÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€38344„0686ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€Overton,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€484Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSavannah,€TN€38372ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€„Ôò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÓ  ÓÔ€XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Charles€David€Vanderford€(defendant),€was€convicted€ofÏpossessing€over€five€grams€of€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€possessing€more€than€.5Ïounces€of€marijuana,€a€Class€E€felony,€by€a€jury€of€his€peers.€€The€trial€court€found€theÏdefendant€was€a€standard€offender€and€imposed€the€following€Range€I€sentences:€aÏfine€of€$25,000€and€confinement€for€nine€(9)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction€forÏpossessing€cocaine€and€a€fine€of€$5,000€and€confinement€for€eighteen€(18)€months€inÏthe€Department€of€Correction€for€possessing€marijuana.€The€sentences€are€to€beÏserved€concurrently.€€The€effective€sentence€imposed€consisted€of€fines€totalingÏ$30,000€and€confinement€for€nine€(9)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ìà àFive€issues€are€presented€for€review,€namely:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌI.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€compel€the€stateÏto€furnish€certain€discovery€and€exculpatory€materials€to€theÍappellant,€specifically€a€tape€recording€of€allegedÏconversations€between€the€appellant€and€a€paid€informantÏor€in€the€alternative,€a€transcript€of€the€tape?ÌÌII.€Whether€the€paid€informant€used€by€the€Hardin€CountyÏSheriffððs€Department€was€an€agent€of€the€sheriffððsÏdepartment€therefore,€subject€to€the€same€scrutiny€as€aÏgovernment€official€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution?ÌÌIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€appellantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€as€the€result€ofÏan€illegal€and€improper€search€warrant€executed€onÏappellantððs€residence?ÌÌIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€order€the€districtÏattorney€general€to€grant€appellant€pre„trial€diversion€whenÏappellant€applied€for€same€and€the€district€attorney€generalÏdid€not€file€an€answer€setting€forth€the€reason€why€suchÏshould€not€be€granted?ÌÌV.€€Whether€the€appropriate€sentence€in€this€case€wouldÏhave€been€sentencing€the€defendant€to€out„right€communityÏcorrections€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€40„36„101€et€seq?ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€defendant€also€questions€the€constitutionality€of€the€description€of€the€residence€toÏbe€searched€under€color€of€the€search€warrant.€€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,Ïthe€briefs€submitted€by€the€parties,€and€the€law€governing€the€issues€presented€forÏreview,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€should€beÏaffirmed.Ìà àThe€Hardin€County€Sheriffððs€Department€received€information€that€theÏdefendant€was€engaged€in€the€trafficking€of€illicit€narcotics.€€A€deputy€sheriff€had€twoÏconfidential€informants€go€to€the€defendantððs€residence€to€purchase€cocaine.€€TheÏconfidential€informants€went€to€the€residence€on€different€dates.€€The€confidentialÍinformants€wore€a€device€which€permitted€the€deputy€sheriff€to€monitor€theÏconversation€between€the€confidential€informant€and€the€defendant.€€Both€confidentialÏinformants€purchased€cocaine€at€the€defendantððs€residence.€€The€deputy€sheriff€heard€Ïand€recorded€the€conversations.Ìà àOn€March€31,€1995,€a€search€warrant€was€issued€authorizing€the€search€of€theÏdefendantððs€residence.€€The€search€warrant€was€served€shortly€after€it€was€issued.€ÏThe€deputies€seized€12.4€grams€of€cocaine,€25.1€grams€of€marijuana,€$3,033€in€cash,Ïand€a€piece€of€paper€outlining€drug€transactions.€€The€paper€writing€contained€theÏwords€ð ðoweðð€and€ð ðpaidðð€at€the€top€of€the€paper,€and€there€were€several€sums€of€moneyÏlisted€under€these€headings.€€There€was€testimony€that€the€figure€ð ð8,"€which€was€foundÏon€the€paper,€referred€to€an€ð ðeightball,ðð€a€term€used€to€indicate€a€specific€quantity€ofÏcocaine.€€There€was€also€an€initial€or€a€first€name€next€to€each€figure.Ìà àÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€€refusing€to€order€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€furnish€him€with€a€copy€of€the€audioÏtape€containing€the€conversations€between€the€confidential€informants€and€theÏdefendant,€or,€in€the€alternative,€a€transcript€of€the€tape.€€The€State€of€TennesseeÏcontends€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€motion.€€The€state€argues€it€had€the€right€toÏprotect€the€identity€of€the€confidential€informant.Ìà àImmediately€prior€to€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seizedÏunder€color€of€the€search€warrant,€defense€counsel€made€an€oral€motion€for€theÍdisclosure€of€the€taped€conversations€between€the€defendant€and€the€confidentialÏinformants.€€The€following€colloquy€occurred€during€the€prehearing€proceedings:ÌÌÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓMR.€FREEMON:€One€other€thing,€your€Honor,€is€the€tape.€€IÏunderstand€there€was€a€tape€recorded€conversation€madeÏwhen€the€probable€cause€was€obtained€for€this€[search]Ïwarrant.€€And€that€is€important€to€the€argument€of€the€motionÏ[to€suppress]€that€I€know€whatððs€on€that€tape€or€how€„„ÌÌTHE€COURT:€Is€the€tape€available?ÌÌMR.€OVERTON:€Your€Honor,€weððre€going€to€take€theÏposition€that€since€the€informant€„„€the€search€warrant€setsÏout€that€the€informant€is€not€named€in€the€search€warrant€forÏsafety€reasons.€€That€the€divulging€of€the€tape€would,€in€fact,Ïidentify€that€informant.ÌÌThe€tape€is€not€of€a€transaction€that€occurred€at€the€timeÏ[the]€charge€was€placed€or€the€basis€of€this€charge.€€It€is€aÏtransaction€that€occurs€earlier€that€these€officers€monitoredÏand€then€used€that€transaction€as€part€of€the€information€thatÏthey€used€to€obtain€the€search€warrant.ÌÌSo€itððs€our€position€that€the€identity€of€the€informant€need€notÏbe€€revealed€under€the€law;€nor€would€anything€that€wouldÏtend€to€identify€him€be€revealed€under€the€law.ÌÌMR.€FREEMON:€Your€Honor,€if€the€tape€itself€is€notÏdiscoverable€then,€you€know,€perhaps€I€could€be€furnishedÏwith€a€transcript€of€whatððs€on€the€tape.€€Iððm€not€interested€inÏidentifying€the€informant.ÌÌThe€sheriff€deputy€or€the€officer€involved€in€this€caseÏtestified€that€he€monitored€this€conversation.€€And€part€ofÏwhat€he€says€he€heard€is€the€basis€of€the€[search]€warrant.€ÏItððs€the€application€that€the€Court€is€going€to€have€toÏdetermine€if€itððs€appropriate€probable€cause€or€not.ÌÌSo€certainly,€if€that€conversation€is€mentioned€in€the€affidavit€Ífor€the€search€warrant,€we€should€be€apprised€of€thatÏmaterial.€€And€I€think€weððre€entitled€to€it€under€the€rules€ofÏdiscovery.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€court€declared€a€recess€and€told€defense€counsel:€ð ðYou€folks€need€to€talk€to€theÏAttorney€General€and€see€if€you€can€resolve€your€discovery€problems.ðð€€When€theÏproceedings€commenced€following€the€recess,€the€following€occurred:ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒMR.€FREEMON:€I€need€to,€I€guess,€make€a€motion€to€compelÏdiscovery€of€the€tape,€your€Honor.€€I€would€make€that€orallyÏand€follow€that€up€with€a€written€motion.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThe€argument€of€counsel€continued.€€Counsel€for€the€codefendant€stated€he€felt€theÏtape€would€reveal€exculpatory€evidence€regarding€his€client.€€Counsel€for€theÏdefendant€stated:€€ð ðWell,€we€think€[the€tape]€is€discoverable,€too,€your€Honor.€€Iððm€notÏsure€it€would€contain€exculpatory€information.ðð€€Thereafter,€the€following€colloquy€tookÏplace:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌTHE€COURT:€Is€this€informant€not€a€material€witness?ÌÌMR.€FREEMON:€Your€Honor,€theyððre€not€charged€with€theÏsale€[to€the€informant].€€They€are€charged€with€theÏpossession€of€what€was€found€when€the€search€warrantÏwas€executed.€€This€alleged€sale€was€the€basis€of€theÏsearch€warrant.ÌÌIt€would€be€our€contention€that€that€constituted€an€invalidÏsearch€of€the€residence.€€When€the€sheriff€sent€an€agent,€aÏlaw€enforcement€agent,€into€the€residence€wired€so€that€theÏsheriff€could€monitor€what€took€place€inside€the€residenceÏfrom€outside€the€residence,€we€contend€that€constitutes€aÏsearch€and€an€intrusion€without€the€warrant.ÌÌSo€itððs€very€important€to€our€presentation€of€the€motion€toÍsuppress€that€we€know€whatððs€on€that€tape.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àThe€court€asked€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€if€he€desired€to€reveal€theÏidentity€of€the€informants.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€told€the€court€he€wasÏnot€willing€to€reveal€the€identity€of€the€informants.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€compel€the€discovery€of€the€tape.Ìà àThis€court€must€first€consider€whether€the€state€is€entitled€to€refrain€fromÏrevealing€the€identity€of€a€confidential€informant€to€the€defense.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà à€€As€a€general€rule,€the€identity€of€a€confidential€informant€is€privileged.€€Thus,Ïthe€state€is€not€required€to€reveal€the€identity€of€an€informant€who€has€providedÏinformation€leading€to€a€defendantððs€arrest€and€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€763€S.W.2dÏ756,€760€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Ashóó,€729€S.W.2d€275,€278€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1986),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987);€òòCarver€v.€Stateóó,€570€S.W.2d€872,€874„75Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1978);€òòKeith€v.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€839,€842Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1976).€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€823€S.W.2d€576,Ï586€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€This€privilege€is€predicated€upon€ð ðpublic€policy€andÏseeks€to€encourage€citizens€to€assist€in€crime€detection€and€prevention€by€givingÏinformation€to€law€enforcement€officials€without€unduly€exposing€themselves€to€theÏdanger€inherent€in€such€laudable€activity€and€to€make€possible€their€continuedÏusefulness€in€future€disclosures€that€the€revelation€of€their€identity€would€probablyÍhamper€and€prevent.ðð€€òòRoberts€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€263,€264€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972).€€The€defendant€has€no€constitutional€right€to€the€disclosure€of€aÏconfidential€informant.€€òòMcCray€v.€Illinoisóó,€386€U.S.€300,€313„14,€87€S.Ct.€1056,€1064,Ï18€L.Ed.2d€62,€71„72€(1967);€òòWallis€v.€Stateóó,€220€Tenn.€400,€406,€417€S.W.2d€781,Ï784€(1967);€òòUnited€States€ex€rel.€Cunningham€v.€DeRobertisóó,€719€F.2d€892,€895€(7thÏCir.€1983);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòSimmons€v.€Stateóó,€198€Tenn.€587,€596,€281€S.W.2d€487,€491Ï(1955).Ìà àThis€court€has€held€a€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€the€disclosure€of€a€confidentialÏinformantððs€identity€when€the€only€purpose€is€to€attack€a€search€warrant.€€In€òòState€v.ÏAshóó,€òòsupraóó,€the€defendant€moved€for€the€disclosure€of€a€confidential€informant€whoÏsupplied€information€which€was€incorporated€into€the€affidavit€given€in€support€of€theÏissuance€of€the€search€warrant.€€Defense€counsel€stated€he€wanted€to€establish€theÏinformation€supplied€by€the€confidential€informant€was€false.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏmotion.€€This€court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€It€was€held€that€a€defendantÏis€not€entitled€to€disclosure€of€a€confidential€informantððs€identity€when€the€defendantððsÏsole€and€exclusive€reason€for€seeking€the€identity€is€to€attack€the€validity€of€a€searchÏwarrant.€€òòAshóó,€729€S.W.2d€at€278.Ìà àIn€òòWells€v.€Stateóó,€509€S.W.2d€520,€521€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973),€òòaffððdóó,€517ÏS.W.2d€755€(Tenn.€1974),€the€affidavit€given€in€support€of€the€issuance€of€the€searchÏwarrant€stated€the€confidential€informant€had€purchased€illicit€narcotics€at€theÏdefendantððs€residence.€€The€search€warrant€was€issued€and€the€officers€seized€ð ðratherÏlarge€quantitiesðð€of€the€illicit€narcotics€under€color€of€the€warrant.€€The€defendants€wereÏprosecuted€and€convicted€for€possession€of€the€illicit€narcotics€seized€at€the€residence.€ÍThis€court€ruled€the€state€was€not€required€to€reveal€the€identity€of€the€confidentialÏinformant€to€the€defendant.Ìà àIn€òòPhipps€v.€Stateóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€511,€520„21,€474€S.W.2d€154,€159,€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1971),€the€defendant€burglarized€a€business€and€stole€merchandiseÏowned€by€the€business.€€A€confidential€informant€told€officers€that€the€defendant€wasÏthe€person€who€burglarized€the€building€and€he€was€in€possession€of€the€stolenÏmerchandise.€€The€officers€had€the€confidential€informant€purchase€some€of€the€stolenÏproperty€while€they€observed€the€sale.€€Thereafter€the€officers€obtained€a€searchÏwarrant€and€seized€some€of€the€stolen€merchandise€while€searching€the€defendantððsÏresidence.€€This€stolen€property€was€the€basis€for€the€defendantððs€prosecution€andÏresulting€conviction.€€This€court€held€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€byÏdenying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€compel€the€state€to€divulge€the€name€of€theÏinformant.Ìà àThis€court€must€now€consider€when€a€defendant€is€entitled€to€discover€theÏidentity€of€a€confidential€informant.ÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€privilege€afforded€confidential€informants€is€not€absolute.€€òòRoviaro€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€353€U.S.€53,€59„61,€77€S.Ct.€623,€627„28,€1€L.Ed.2d€639,€644„45€(1957);ÏòòBrownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€586;€òòWashington€v.€Stateóó,€534€S.W.2d€865,€867€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1975),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1976);€òòRoberts€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€263,€264„65Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1972);€òòseeóó€òòGoines€v.€Stateóó,€572€S.W.2d€644,Ï647€(Tenn.€1978).€€Moreover,€ð ðthe€scope€of€the€privilege€is€limited€by€its€underlyingÍpurpose.ðð€€òòRoviaroóó,€353€U.S.€at€60,€77€S.Ct.€at€627,€1€L.Ed.2d€at€644.Ìà àThere€is€no€fixed€rule€regarding€when€the€state€must€divulge€the€identity€of€aÏconfidential€informant€to€the€defendant.€€òòRoviaroóó,€353€U.S.€at€62,€77€S.Ct.€at€628,€1ÏL.Ed.2d€at€646;€òòPhippsóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€520,€474€S.W.2d€at€159.€€Whether€theÏstate€should€be€required€to€disclose€the€identity€of€a€confidential€informant€is€a€matterÏwhich€addresses€itself€to€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòWallisóó,€220€Tenn.€atÏ406,€417€S.W.2d€at€784;€òòSimmonsóó,€198€Tenn.€at€596„97,€281€S.W.2d€at€491„92;ÏòòBrownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€586„87;€òòState€v.€Russellóó,€580€S.W.2d€793,€793€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1979);€€òòPhippsóó,€4€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€520„21,€474ÏS.W.2d€at€159.€€The€trial€court€must€decide€this€question€on€a€case€by€case€basis,Ïtaking€into€consideration€the€facts€peculiar€to€each€case.€€òòRoviaroóó,€353€U.S.€at€62,€77ÏS.Ct.€at€628„29,€1€L.Ed.2d€at€646.€€òòSeeóó€òòCarveróó,€570€S.W.2d€at€874„75.€€However,€thereÏare€certain€factual€circumstances€which€entitle€the€defendant€to€discover€the€identity€ofÏa€confidential€informant.€€Ìà àThe€state€is€required€to€divulge€the€identity€of€a€confidential€informant€to€theÏdefendant€when:€(a)€disclosure€would€be€relevant€and€helpful€to€the€defendant€inÏpresenting€his€defense€and€is€essential€to€a€fair€trial,€òòRoviaroóó,€353€U.S.€at€60„61,€77ÏS.Ct.€at€628,€1€L.Ed.2d€at€645;€(b)€the€informant€was€a€participant€in€the€crime,€òòRoviaroóó,Ï353€U.S.€at€64„65,€77€S.Ct.€at€629,€1€L.Ed.2d€at€647;€òòState€v.€Campbellóó,€549€S.W.2dÏ952,€954€(Tenn.€1977);€òòBrownóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€587;€(c)€the€informant€was€a€witness€toÏthe€crime,€òòWashingtonóó,€534€S.W.2d€at€867;€òòRobertsóó,€489€S.W.2d€at€264;€or€(d)€theÏinformant€has€knowledge€which€is€favorable€to€the€defendant.€€òòGoinesóó,€572€S.W.2d€atÏ647;€òòseeóó€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€€S.Ct.€1194,€10€L.Ed.2d€215€(1963).Ìà àThe€defendant,€as€the€movant€for€disclosure,€has€the€burden€of€establishing€byÏa€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€confidential€informantððs€identity€is€material€toÏhis€defense€because€the€informant€was€a€witness€to€the€crime,€participated€in€theÏcrime,€or€possesses€facts€favorable€or€relevant€to€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòAshóó,€729€S.W.2dÏat€278;€òòBrady€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€245,€251€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1979);€òòKeithóó,€542€S.W.2d€at€842;€òòDortch€v.€Stateóó,€517€S.W.2d€24,€26€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1974).€€If€the€defendant€fails€to€establish€the€materiality€of€the€confidential€informant€toÏhis€defense,€the€state€is€not€required€to€divulge€the€identity€of€the€informant€to€theÏdefendant.€€òòAshóó,€729€S.W.2d€at€278;€òòState€v.€Tidmoreóó,€604€S.W.2d€879,€882€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1980);€òòCarveróó,€570€S.W.2d€at€874„75;€òòKeithóó,€542€S.W.2d€at€842;€òòDortchóó,Ï517€S.W.2d€at€26.Ìà àThis€court€must€now€apply€the€law€to€the€facts€of€this€case€to€determine€if€theÏdefendant€was€entitled€to€discover€the€identity€of€the€confidential€informants.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.ÌÓ  ÓÌà àó óIn€this€case,€the€defendant€stated€the€sole€reason€for€seeking€the€identity€of€theÏconfidential€informants€was€to€attack€the€search€warrant€during€the€suppressionÏhearing.€€He€tacitly€admitted€the€confidential€informants€were€not€material€to€theÏoffenses€alleged€in€the€indictment€because€the€prosecution€was€based€upon€theÏevidence€seized€under€color€of€the€search€warrant,€not€the€purchase€of€illicit€narcoticsÏby€the€confidential€informants.€€Defense€counsel€stated€he€did€not€expect€to€find€anyÏexculpatory€evidence€on€the€taped€conversations€between€the€confidential€informantsÍand€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€not€entitled€to€discover€the€identity€of€the€informants€for€theÏsole€purpose€of€attacking€the€search€warrant.€€òòAshóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòWellsóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòPhippsóó,€òòsupraóó.€ÏAlso,€the€defendant€failed€to€establish€that€the€identity€of€the€confidential€informantsÏwas€material€to€his€defense.€€òòAshóó,€729€S.W.2d€at€278;€òòTidmoreóó,€604€S.W.2d€at€882;€ÏòòCarveróó,€570€S.W.2d€at€874„75;€òòKeithóó,€542€S.W.2d€at€842;€òòDortchóó,€517€S.W.2d€at€26.€€ÏConsequently,€the€state€was€not€required€to€divulge€the€identity€of€the€confidentialÏinformants€to€the€defendant.€€In€short,€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€inÏdenying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€compel€the€discovery€of€the€confidential€informantsÏin€this€case.ÌÌÓ  Óò òD.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌ€€€€à àThe€defendant€contends€he€was€entitled€to€a€copy€of€the€tape„recordedÏconversations€between€the€confidential€informants€and€himself.€€He€argues€the€audioÏtape€is€discoverable€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A).€€The€state€has€notÏaddressed€this€subissue.Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€a€general€motion€for€discovery.€€The€only€reference€in€theÏmotion€to€ð ðstatements€made€by€the€defendantðð€refers€to€a€written€or€oral€statementÏagainst€interest€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A).€€As€previously€stated,Ïimmediately€prior€to€the€suppression€hearing€defense€counsel€moved€the€trial€court€forÏthe€entry€of€an€order€requiring€the€state€to€furnish€the€defendant€with€a€copy€of€theÏaudio€tape,€or,€in€the€alternative,€a€transcript€of€the€audio€tape.€€When€the€state€refusedÍto€furnish€either€a€copy€of€the€audio€tape€or€a€transcript€of€the€audio€tape,€defenseÏcounsel€moved€to€compel€discovery.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€request.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(1)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€in€a€criminal€prosecution€has€the€right€€ð ðto€inspect€and€copy€orÏphotograph:€any€òòrelevantóó€written€or€òòrecorded€statementsóó€made€by€the€defendant,€orÏcopies€thereof,€within€the€possession,€custody€or€control€of€the€State,€the€existence€ofÏwhich€is€known,€or€by€the€exercise€of€due€diligence€may€become€known,€to€the€districtÏattorney€general.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(a)(1)(A)€(emphasis€added).€€The€phraseÏð ðrecorded€statementsðð€is€broad€enough€to€encompass€audio€tape€recordings€ofÏconversations€between€a€confidential€informant€and€a€defendant€during€the€course€ofÏan€investigation€unless€it€is€obvious€the€ð ðrecorded€statementsðð€cannot€be€relevant€toÏany€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€ÌStates€v.€Bailleauxóó,€685€F.2d€1105,€1114€(9th€Cir.€1982);€òòUnited€States€v.€Tayloróó,€707ÏF.€Supp.€696,€700€(S.D.€N.Y.€1989);€òòUnited€States€v.€Feolaóó,€651€F.€Supp.€1068,€1141Ï(S.D.€N.Y.€1987),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€òòsubóó€òònomóó.,€òòMarin€v.€United€Statesóó,€493€U.S.€834,€110ÏS.Ct.€110,€107€L.Ed.2d€72€(1989);€òòHamilton€v.€Stateóó,€496€So.2d€100,€106„07€(Ala.ÏCrim.€App.€1986).Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€conversations€were€recorded,€the€defendant€was€a€party€to€theÏconversations,€and€the€audio€tape€was€in€the€possession€of€either€the€assistant€districtÏattorney€general€or€the€Hardin€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Thus,€the€pivotal€questionÏthis€court€must€determine€is€whether€the€content€of€the€audio€tape€was€relevant€withinÍthe€meaning€of€Rule€16(a)(1)(A).Ì€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÓ  Óò ò(2)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€term€ð ðrelevant,ðð€as€used€in€Rule€16(a)(1)(A),€means€relevant€to€the€crimesÏalleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Disstonóó,€612€F.2d€1035,€1037€(7th€Cir.Ï1980);€€òòUnited€States€v.€Skillmanóó,€442€F.2d€542,€550€(8th€Cir.€1971);€òòUnited€States€v.ÏGarrettóó,€305€F.€Supp.€267,€268€(S.D.€N.Y.€1969).€€However,€not€every€ð ðstatementððÏwhich€pertains€to€the€crimes€alleged€in€the€indictment€is€ð ðrelevant.ðð€€òòDisstonóó,€612€F.2dÏat€1037.Ìà àThe€word€ð ðrelevantðð€is€defined€in€the€following€manner:€ð ða:€having€significantÏand€demonstrable€bearing€on€the€matter€at€hand;€b:€affording€evidence€tending€toÏprove€or€disprove€the€matter€at€issue€or€under€discussion,€c:€having€social€relevance.ðð€ÏòòWebsterððs€Ninth€New€Collegiate€Dictionaryóó,€995€(1984).€€A€legal€dictionary€defines€theÏword€ð ðrelevantðð€in€the€following€manner:€€ð ðApplying€to€the€matter€in€question;€affordingÏsomething€to€the€purpose.ðð€€òòBlackððs€Law€Dictionaryóó,€1160€(5th€ed.€rev.€1979).€€RuleÏ401,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€defines€the€phrase€ð ðrelevant€evidenceðð€asÏð ðevidence€having€any€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€ofÏconsequence€to€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€than€itÏwould€be€without€the€evidence.ððÌà à€€The€term€ð ðrelevant,ðð€as€used€in€Rule€16(a)(1)(A),€does€not€create€a€highÏthreshold.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Yunisóó,€867€F.2d€617,€621€(D.C.€Cir.€1989).€€The€productionÏof€most€statements€has€become€ð ðpractically€a€matter€of€right€without€a€showing€ofÍmateriality.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Haldemanóó,€559€F.2d€31,€75,€n.80€(D.C.€Cir.€1976),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€òòsubóó€òònomóó.,€òòMitchell€v.€United€Statesóó,€431€U.S.€933,€97€S.Ct.€2641,€53€L.Ed.2dÏ250€(1977).Ìà àAs€previously€stated,€the€sole€purpose€for€the€two€purchases€of€illicit€narcoticsÏfrom€the€defendant€and€the€recording€of€the€conversations€between€the€confidentialÏinformants€and€the€defendant€was€to€establish€probable€cause€to€support€the€issuanceÏof€the€search€warrant.€€The€defendant€was€not€prosecuted€for€the€two€sales€made€toÏthe€confidential€informants.€€The€confidential€informants€did€not€testify€at€either€theÏsuppression€hearing€or€the€trial.€€The€audio€tape€was€not€played€on€either€occasion.€ÏNor€did€the€prosecution€mention€or€allude€to€the€audio€tape€or€the€two€sales€of€illicitÏnarcotics€to€the€confidential€informants.€€The€prosecution€was€limited€to€the€quantity€ofÏillicit€narcotics€seized€under€color€of€the€search€warrant.€€Thus,€the€only€issue€the€juryÏhad€to€decide€was€whether€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€possessing€the€two€quantitiesÏof€illicit€narcotics€with€intent€to€sell.Ìà à€In€summary,€the€content€of€the€audio€tape€was€not€ð ðrelevantðð€within€the€meaningÏof€Rule€16(a)(1)(A),€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€content€of€the€audioÏtape€involved€two€crimes€which€were€not€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€òòDisstonóó,€612€F.2dÏat€1037;€€òòSkillmanóó,€442€F.2d€at€550;€òòGarrettóó,€305€F.€Supp.€at€268.€€Defense€counselÏcandidly€stated€he€did€not€expect€to€find€any€exculpatory€information€on€the€tape;€andÏthe€audio€tape€was€not€material€to€the€crimes€alleged€in€the€indictment.ÌÌÓ  Óò ò(3)ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThis€court€understands€and€appreciates€the€district€attorney€general€is€placedÏon€the€horns€of€a€dilemma€by€this€courtððs€holding€that€audio€tapes€containing€aÏdefendantððs€statements€to€a€confidential€informant€are€discoverable€if€relevant.€ÏòòDisstonóó,€612€F.2d€at€1037„38;€òòseeóó€›òòSkillmanóó,€442€F.2d€at€550„51;€òòGarrettóó,€305€F.€Supp.Ïat€268.€€Most€of€the€cases€discussing€the€privilege€of€the€state€to€maintain€theÏanonymity€of€a€confidential€informant€were€written€prior€to€the€enactment€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€opinions€following€the€enactment€of€theÏrules€have€not€addressed€the€discoverability€of€defendant„confidential€informantÏrecorded€statements.€€The€issue€is€squarely€presented€in€this€case.€Ìà àThe€state€may€shield€the€identity€of€a€material€confidential€informant€seeking€aÏprotective€order€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(d)(1).€€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Peltonóó,Ï578€F.2d€701,€707€(8th€Cir.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€òòsubóó€òònomóó.,€òòRich€v.€United€Statesóó,€439ÏU.S.€964,€99€S.Ct.€451,€58€L.Ed.2d€422€(1978).€€When€appropriate,€the€state€can€seekÏa€protective€order€òòexóó€òòparteóó.€€òòIdóó.€€Cases€involving€confidential€informant„defendantÏconversations€qualify€for€an€òòexóó€òòparteóó€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòPeltonóó,€578€F.2d€at€707.€€If€the€ruleÏwas€otherwise,€the€stateððs€ability€to€protect€the€identity€of€the€informant€would€be€anÏeffort€in€futility.Ìà àThis€court€can€review€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€granting€of€a€protective€order.€€The€ruleÏprovides€that€ð ðthe€entire€text€of€the€partyððs€statement€shall€be€sealed€and€preserved€inÏthe€records€of€the€court€to€be€made€available€to€the€[appellate]€courts€in€the€event€of€anÏappeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€16(d)(1).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€à àÌÓ  Óò òII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€confidential€informants,€who€were€paid€to€makeÏpurchases€of€illicit€narcotics,€were€agents€of€the€Hardin€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€ÏAs€a€result,€the€confidential€informants€are€ð ðsubject€to€the€same€scrutiny€as€aÏgovernment€official€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ðð€€He€argues€the€informants,€whoÏwere€wearing€a€device€which€transmitted€the€transactions€between€the€defendant€andÏconfidential€informants,€ð ðbecame€the€eyes€and€ears€of€the€police.ðð€€He€concludes€thatÏthe€property€seized€under€color€of€the€search€warrant€should€have€been€suppressedÏbecause€the€affidavit€supporting€the€issuance€of€the€warrant€contained€informationÏwhich€was€illegally€and€unlawfully€obtained€by€law€enforcement€officers.Ìà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€contends€the€defendantððs€argument€is€predicated€uponÏa€false€premise.€€The€state€argues€ð ðit€does€not€matter€whether€the€informant,€who€wasÏwearing€a€ððwireðð€and€who€bought€drugs€from€the€defendant€in€the€defendantððsÏresidence,€is€considered€an€ððagent€of€the€State.ðððð€€The€state€reasons€the€defendantÏopened€the€door€to€his€home,€admitted€the€informants€for€the€purpose€of€selling€illicitÏnarcotics€to€the€informants,€and€ultimately€sold€illicit€narcotics€to€the€informants.€€As€aÏresult,€the€informants€did€not€intrude€upon€the€sanctity€of€the€defendantððs€residence€orÏthe€privacy€of€his€life.€€€ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€correctly€contends€that€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€anÍunreasonable€search€and€seizure€cannot€be€used€to€establish€probable€cause€for€theÏissuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€òòBewley€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€518,€347€S.W.2d€40€(1961);ÏòòState€v.€Bowlingóó,€867€S.W.2d€338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.ÏReyesóó,€922€F.€Supp.€818€(S.D.N.Y.€1996).€€When€a€search€warrant€is€issued€solely€onÏthe€strength€of€an€affidavit€predicated€upon€facts€obtained€as€a€result€of€anÏunreasonable€search€and€seizure,€the€evidence€seized€under€color€of€the€searchÏwarrant€must€be€suppressed.€€òòIdóó.€€If€the€affidavit€alleges€facts€seized€under€color€of€aÏsearch€warrant,€but€alleges€additional€facts€in€support€of€the€issuance€of€the€searchÏwarrant,€the€information€cannot€be€considered€in€determining€whether€the€affidavitÏestablishes€the€requisite€probable€cause.€€If€the€affidavit€states€probable€causeÏindependently€of€the€tainted€facts,€the€accused€is€not€entitled€to€have€the€evidenceÏseized€under€color€of€the€search€warrant€suppressed.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€519,€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,€the€sheriff€went€to€the€office€of€the€Johnson€City€chief€ofÏpolice€and€had€the€chief€apply€for€and€obtain€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrantÏpredicated€solely€upon€the€information€the€sheriff€acquired€by€the€former€warrantlessÏsearch€of€Bewleyððs€premises.€€òòIdóó.€€The€fruit€jars€containing€the€ð ðwhite€whiskeyðð€wereÏseized€under€color€of€the€search€warrant.€€Bewley€was€prosecuted€for€possession€ofÏthe€ð ðwhite€whiskey,ðð€and€he€was€convicted€of€the€offense.€€The€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt€ruled€the€search€warrant€obtained€by€the€chief€of€police€was€void.€€208€Tenn.€atÍ520,€347€S.W.2d€at€41.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€theÏroadway.€€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€hit„and„run€accident€could€be€found€at€Bowlingððs€residence.€€òòIdóó.€€The€officer,€accompaniedÏby€another€Nashville€police€officer€and€one€Wilson€County€deputy€sheriff,€went€toÏBowlingððs€residence.€€òòIdóó€at€339„40.€€No€one€was€home.€€One€of€the€officers€saw€aÏbrown€Ford€Bronco€in€the€garage.€€Another€€officer€got€on€his€hands€and€knees€to€lookÏinto€the€garage€through€an€eighteen„inch€opening€at€the€bottom€of€the€garage€door.€ÏWith€his€head€almost€on€the€ground,€the€officer€was€able€to€see€the€brown€Bronco€andÏdetermined€there€was€damage€to€the€front€of€the€vehicle.€€òòIdóó.€at€340.€€The€officerÏsubsequently€obtained€a€search€warrant€based€upon€the€information€he€obtained€fromÏthe€warrantless€search,€which€the€court€found€to€be€unreasonable.€€In€determiningÏwhether€the€affidavit€used€to€obtain€the€search€warrant€contained€sufficient€probableÏcause,€this€court€found€that€the€evidence€used€to€obtain€the€search€warrant€wasÏtainted,€and,€therefore,€the€evidence€seized€should€have€been€suppressed.€€òòIdóó.€at€341„42.Ìà àThe€question€which€this€court€must€now€consider€is€whether€the€use€ofÏconfidential€informants€to€obtain€the€information€used€in€the€issuance€of€the€searchÏwarrant€made€the€informants€the€alter€ego€of€the€Hardin€County€Sheriffððs€Department.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€courts€have€recognized€law€enforcementððs€need€to€use€undercover€officersÏand€confidential€informants€to€deter€criminal€activity.€€In€òòLewis€v.€United€Statesóó,€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€said:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌBoth€petitioner€and€the€Government€recognize€the€necessityÏfor€some€undercover€police€activity.€.€.€.€€Indeed,€it€has€longÏbeen€acknowledged€by€the€decisions€of€this€Court€.€.€.€that,Ïin€the€detection€of€many€types€of€crime,€the€Government€isÏentitled€to€use€decoys€and€to€conceal€identity€of€its€agents.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ385€U.S.€206,€208„209,€87€S.Ct.€424,€426,€17€L.Ed.2d€312,€315€(1966).Ìà àThe€constitutional€provisions€contained€in€the€Bill€of€Rights€and€theÏconstitutional€rights€provided€by€the€Tennessee€Constitution€protect€an€accused€fromÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€As€the€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòLewisóó:€ð ð[t]heÏvarious€protections€of€the€Bill€of€Rights,€of€course,€provide€checks€upon€such€officialÏdeception€for€the€protection€of€the€individual.ðð€€385€U.S.€209,€87€S.Ct.€at€426,€17ÏL.Ed.2d€at€315.Ìà àThe€facts€peculiar€to€each€case€are€to€be€considered€in€determining€whether€theÏundercover€officer€or€confidential€informant€has€violated€the€constitutional€provisionsÏwhich€are€designed€to€protect€the€accused.€€Courts€have€held€that€a€confidentialÏinformant,€whether€paid€or€promised€relief€in€a€criminal€prosecution,€can€be€used€toÏdetect€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,€401€U.S.€745,€91€S.Ct.€1122,€28ÏL.Ed.2d€453€(1971);€òòHoffa€v.€United€Statesóó,€385€U.S.€293,€87€S.Ct.€408,€17€L.Ed.2dÏ374€(1966);€òòLewisóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòOn€Lee€v.€United€Statesóó,€343€U.S.€747,€72€S.Ct.€967,€96ÏL.Ed.€1270€(1952).Ìà àThis€court€must€resolve€whether€the€means€used€to€obtain€the€informationÏcontained€in€the€affidavit€constituted€an€unreasonable€search€and€seizure.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€decisions€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏCourt,€and€this€court€have€held€that,€as€a€general€rule,€the€audio€recording€of€aÏconversation€with€a€suspect€or€the€transmitting€of€the€conversation€to€a€lawÏenforcement€officer€at€a€remote€location,€which€is€simultaneously€monitored€andÏrecorded€by€the€officer,€does€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€or€Article€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,Ïòòsupraóó;€òòLopez€v.€United€Statesóó,€373€U.S.€427,€83€S.Ct.€1381,€10€L.Ed.2d€462€(1963);ÏòòOn€Lee€v.€United€Statesóó,€òòsupraóó;€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€221„24€(Tenn.€1980);€ÏòòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€783€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989).€€ÏOf€course,€this€evidence€may€be€inadmissible€if€there€is€a€Fourth€Amendment€violationÏor€the€violation€of€another€constitutional€right.€Ìà àWhen€the€suspect€permits€a€confidential€informant€into€his€residence,€and€heÏfreely€and€voluntarily€talks€to€the€confidential€informant,€the€suspect€has€no€expectationÏof€privacy€regarding€the€conversation.€€€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,€401€U.S.€at€751„52,€91ÏS.Ct.€at€1125„26,€28€L.Ed.2d€at€459;€òòseeóó€òòLopezóó,€373€U.S.€at€438,€83€S.Ct.€at€1387,€10ÏL.Ed.2d€at€470.€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€said€in€òòHoffaóó,€no€matter€howÏstrongly€the€suspect€may€trust€a€person,€the€suspectððs€expectations€of€trust€are€notÏprotected€by€the€Fourth€Amendment€when€the€suspect€discovers€his€apparentÍcolleague€€is€a€confidential€informant€working€with€a€law€enforcement€officer.€òòSeeóóÏòòWhiteóó,€401€S.W.2d€at€749,€91€S.Ct.€at€1129,€28€L.Ed.2d€at€457.€€€€€€€€€à àÌ€à àIn€òòOn€Lee€v.€United€Statesóó,× ƒ0 ××  ×€Chin€Poy,€the€confidential€informant,× ƒ1 ××  ×€was€an€oldÏacquaintance€and€former€employee€of€On€Lee.€€Agent€Lee,€of€the€Bureau€of€Narcotics,Ïwired€Chin€Poy€with€a€small€microphone€and€an€antenna€along€one€arm.€€Chin€PoyÏwent€inside€On€Leeððs€business€and€engaged€him€in€conversation.€€Agent€LeeÏremained€outside€the€building.€€He€could€hear€the€conversation€on€a€receiver,€and€heÏcould€see€Chin€Poy€and€On€Lee€talking€through€a€large€window€in€front€of€theÏbusiness.€€On€a€second€occasion,€Chin€Poy€engaged€On€Lee€in€a€conversation€in€NewÏYork€City.€€On€Lee€made€ð ðdamaging€admissionsðð€during€his€conversations€with€ChinÏPoy.€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€ruled€ð ð[t]he€conduct€of€Chin€Poy€and€agentÏLee€did€not€amount€to€an€unlawful€search€and€seizure€such€as€is€prescribed€by€theÏFourth€Amendment.ðð€€343€U.S.€at€751,€72€S.Ct.€at€971.Ìà àIn€òòLopez€v.€United€Statesóó,€an€Internal€Revenue€Service€agent€advised€Lopez€heÏowed€the€United€States€excise€taxes€for€several€years.€€Lopez€gave€the€agent€$420€inÏcash€and€promised€the€agent€and€his€family€certain€amenities€at€his€motel.€€LopezÏadvised€the€agent€he€wanted€him€to€return€to€his€motel€on€an€agreed€date.€€The€agentÏreported€what€had€occurred€to€his€superiors.€€He€was€advised€to€go€to€the€motel€andÍmeet€with€Lopez€on€the€date€set€by€Lopez.€€When€the€agent€went€to€meet€Lopez,€heÏwas€equipped€with€a€pocket€wire€recorder.€€All€of€the€conversations€between€LopezÏand€the€agent€were€recorded.€€Lopez€contended€the€conversations€in€his€office€wereÏseized€within€the€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment,€and€sought€to€suppress€theÏstatements€as€evidence.€€The€Supreme€Court€rejected€his€Fourth€Amendment€claim,Ïand€ruled€the€recorded€conversations€were€properly€admitted€into€evidence.€€373€U.S.Ïat€438,€83€S.Ct.€at€1387.Ìà àIn€òòUnited€States€v.€Whiteóó,€Jackson,€a€government€informant,€was€wired€with€aÏradio€transmitter€when€he€engaged€White€in€conversation€on€eight€separateÏoccasions.€€The€agents€who€wired€Jackson€monitored€all€of€the€conversations€throughÏa€radio€receiver.€These€conversations€were€introduced€at€Whiteððs€subsequent€trial€forÏillegal€narcotics€transactions.€€The€Supreme€Court€held€there€was€no€violation€of€theÏFourth€Amendment.€€The€Court,€quoting€òòHoffaóó,€said€ð ðððno€interest€legitimately€protectedÏby€the€Fourth€Amendment€is€involved,ðððð€because€the€Fourth€Amendment€ð ðaffords€noÏprotection€to€ðða€wrongdoerððs€misplaced€belief€that€a€person€to€whom€he€voluntarilyÏconfides€his€wrongdoing€will€not€reveal€it.ðððð€€401€U.S.€at€749,€91€S.Ct.€at€1125,€28ÏL.Ed.2d€at€457.€€The€Court€further€noted:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌNo€warrant€to€ð ðsearch€and€seizeðð€is€required€in€suchÏcircumstances€[found€in€òòHoffaóó],€nor€is€it€when€theÏGovernment€sends€to€defendantððs€home€a€secret€agent€whoÏconceals€his€identity€and€makes€a€purchase€of€narcoticsÏfrom€the€accused,€òòLewis€v.€United€Statesóó,€.€.€.€or€when€theÏsame€agent,€unbeknown€to€the€defendant,€carries€electronicÏequipment€to€record€the€defendantððs€words€and€theÏevidence€so€gathered€is€later€offered€in€evidence.€òòLopez€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó€.€.€.€.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ401€U.S.€at€749,€91€S.Ct.€at€1125,€28€L.Ed.2d€at€457.€€The€Court€found€the€FourthÏAmendment€was€not€violated.€€The€Court€concluded€that€if€the€circumstances€found€inÏòòHoffaóó€and€òòLewisóó€did€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment,€it€is€not€violated€by€ð ðaÏsimultaneously€recording€of€the€same€conversations€made€by€the€agent€or€by€othersÏfrom€transmissions€received€from€the€agent€to€whom€the€defendant€is€talking€andÏwhose€trustworthiness€the€defendant€necessarily€risks.ðð€€401€U.S.€at€751,€91€S.Ct.€atÏ1126,€28€L.Ed.2d€at€458.Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€the€recording€of€conversationsÏbetween€a€confidential€informant€and€the€accused€does€not€violate€either€the€federal€orÏthe€state€constitution.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€221„24€(Tenn.€1980).€€In€òòJonesóó,Ïthe€agent€was€wired€and€the€law€enforcement€officer€monitored€the€conversationÏbetween€the€accused€and€the€confidential€agent.€€The€court€held€these€recordedÏconversations€were€admissible€as€evidence.Ìà àThis€court€has€also€held€the€recording€of€conversations€between€a€confidentialÏinformant€and€an€accused€does€not€violate€either€the€federal€or€the€state€constitution.€ÏIn€òòWoodson€v.€Stateóó,€579€S.W.2d€893€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1979),€there€were€taped€telephone€conversations€between€the€confidential€informantÏand€the€defendant.€€Also,€the€confidential€informant€was€provided€with€a€small€tapeÏrecorder€to€record€additional€conversations.€€This€court€held€the€recordedÏconversations€were€admissible€as€evidence€because€there€was€no€constitutionalÏviolation.€€Later,€in€òòState€v.€Crawfordóó,€783€S.W.2d€573€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1989),€the€confidential€informant€wore€a€body€wire€when€he€engagedÍthe€defendant€in€conversation.€€The€conversation€was€monitored€and€recorded€by€aÏlaw€enforcement€officer.€€This€court€held€the€recorded€conversation€was€admissible€asÏevidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Mosheróó,€755€S.W.2d€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1988);€òòState€v.€Morrisóó,€666€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983),€òòperóó€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).Ìà àContrary€to€the€defendantððs€contention,€the€information€received€by€the€deputyÏsheriff€by€monitoring€and€recording€the€conversations€between€the€defendant€and€theÏconfidential€informants€was€not€the€result€of€an€unreasonable€search€and€seizure.€€TheÏinformation€obtained€from€these€conversations€could€be€used€to€establish€probableÏcause€for€the€issuance€of€a€warrant€authorizing€the€search€of€the€defendantððsÏresidence,€the€premises€where€the€two€drug€transactions€occurred.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€€€€€€€€Ìò òÌÓ  ÓIII.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€description€of€the€premises€to€be€searchedÏcontained€in€the€search€warrant€was€insufficient€to€pass€constitutional€muster€pursuantÏto€the€Fourth€€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€description€of€the€premises€contained€in€the€searchÏwarrant€is:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àTo€be€searched€for€in€accordance€with€the€laws€of€the€StateÏof€Tennessee€upon€the€following€described€property,Ïnamely,€Rt.€1,€Box€276,€Counce,€Tenn.€38326€(911€addressÏis€210€Preacher€Drive,€Counce€Tn.€38326).€€Beginning€atÍthe€intersection€of€Highway€57€and€Red€Sulpher€Road€inÏCounce€Tenn.€proceed€South€[o]n€Red€Sulpher€Road€to€theÏ1st€road€on€the€right€which€is€Preacher€Road,€then€proceedÏright€(west)€on€the€nest€(sic)€road€which€is€Campbellððs€OldÏMill€Road.€€Then€right€to€the€1st€driveway€which€is€theÏresidence€to€be€searched.€€There€is€a€black€mailbox€at€theÏend€of€the€driveway€€with€the€number€ð ð276"€on€it.€€The€houseÏis€a€red€brick€single€story€house€with€gray€trim€and€a€blackÏshingle€roof.€€There€is€an€in„ground€swimming€pool€in€theÏback€yard€enclosed€by€a€wooden€fence.ÌÌÌÓÓThe€question€this€court€must€resolve€is€whether€the€description€of€the€defendantððsÏresidence,€the€property€to€be€searched,€was€sufficient€to€pass€constitutional€muster.ÌÌÓ  Óò òA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€requires€that€a€searchÏwarrant€must€particularly€describe€the€premises€to€be€searched.€€This€amendmentÏstates:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àÌà8 àà8 àThe€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,Ïhouses,€papers€and€effects,€against€unreasonable€searchesÏand€seizures,€shall€not€be€violated,€and€no€warrants€shallÏissue€but€€upon€probable€cause,€supported€by€oath€orÏaffirmation,€and€òòparticularly€describing€the€place€to€beÏsearchedóó,€and€the€persons€or€things€to€be€seized€(emphasisÏadded).ÌÌÌÓÓThe€Framers€of€the€Constitution€included€the€phrase€ð ðparticularly€describing€the€placeÏto€be€searched,€and€the€person€or€things€to€be€seizedðð€to€prevent€the€issuance€ofÏgeneral€warrants,€a€practice€which€was€prevalent€during€the€colonial€era€of€thisÍcountry.€€òòSeeóó€T.€Taylor,€òòTwo€Studies€in€Constitutional€Interpretationóó,€pp.€23„50€(1969)Ï(Taylor);€Charles€H.€Whitebread€&€Christopher€Slobogin,€òòCriminal€Procedureóó,€ðð€5.04€atÏp.€152€(3d€ed.€1993)(Whitebread).Ìà à€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€the€Fourth€Amendment€isÏenforceable€against€the€states€through€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€òòMapp€v.€Ohioóó,€367€U.S.€643,€655,€81€S.Ct.€1684,€1691,€6€L.Ed.2d€1081,Ï1090€(1961).€€Thus,€an€accused€has€a€Fourth€Amendment€right€to€challenge€a€searchÏwarrant€which€fails€to€ð ðparticularly€describe€the€place€to€be€searched.ððÌà àArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€governs€search€warrants€inÏthis€jurisdiction.€€This€constitutional€provision€states:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌThat€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,Ïpapers€and€possessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€andÏseizures;€and€that€general€warrants,€whereby€an€officer€mayÏbe€commanded€to€search€suspected€places,€withoutÏevidence€of€the€fact€committed,€or€to€seize€any€person€orÏpersons€not€named,€whose€offences€are€not€particularlyÏdescribed€and€supported€by€evidence,€are€dangerous€toÏliberty€and€ought€not€be€granted.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓAlthough€this€provision€does€not€state€on€its€face€the€property€or€premises€must€beÏparticularly€described€in€the€search€warrant,€the€appellate€courts€have€held€thisÏprovision€mandates€a€particular€description€of€the€property€or€premises€to€beÏsearched.€€òòState€v.€Bosticóó,€898€S.W.2d€242,€245„46€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1995);€€òòState€v.€James€C.€Nelson€and€Alicia€Nelsonóó,€Davidson€CountyÏNo.€01„C„01„9505„CC„00127,€1996€WL€233987€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€9,Ï1996),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€October€28,€1996).€€The€prohibition€against€theÍissuance€of€general€warrants€necessarily€embraces€the€need€to€ð ðparticularly€describ[e]Ïthe€place€to€be€searched,€and€the€persons€or€things€to€be€seized.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Taylor€at€23„50;€Whitebread,€ðð€5.04€at€152.€€This€requirement€and€the€probable€cause€requirementÏare€the€ingredients€which€prevent€the€issuance€of€general€warrants.Ìà àThis€requirement€is€also€statutorily€mandated.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ððÏ40„6„103€provides€that€ð ð[a]€search€warrant€can€only€be€issued€on€a€probable€cause,Ïsupported€by€affidavit,€naming€or€describing€the€person€and€òòparticularly€describing€theÏproperty,€and€the€place€to€be€searchedóó.ðð€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„106.€€In€òòDolen€v.ÏStateóó,€187€Tenn.€663,€216€S.W.2d€351€(1948),€the€supreme€court€said:€ÌÓÓÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒIt€is€expressly€required.€.€.[by€the€statute]€that€the€searchÏwarrant€ð ðparticularlyðð€describe€ð ðthe€place€to€be€searched.ðð€ÏThe€word€ð ðparticularlyðð€must€be€deemed€to€have€beenÏintentionally€used€by€the€legislature.€€The€use€of€that€wordÏmakes€it€clear€that€the€legislature€intended€the€searchÏwarrant€to€be€clear€of€ambiguity€as€to€the€place€to€beÏsearched,€and€that€this€word€was€used€in€response€to€theÏconstitutional€prohibition€against€an€unreasonable€search.ÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓ187€Tenn.€at€667,€216€S.W.2d€at€353.Ìà àThis€requirement€is€mentioned€in€Rule€41(c),€Tennessee€Rules€of€CriminalÏProcedure.€€The€rule€states€in€part:€ð ðIf€the€magistrate€is€satisfied€that€grounds€for€theÏapplication€exists€.€.€.€[he]€shall€issue€a€warrant€identifying€the€property€and€naming€orÏdescribing€the€person€or€place€to€be€searched.ððÌà àThe€purpose€of€requiring€the€property€or€premises€to€be€particularly€described€inÏthe€search€warrant€is€twofold.€€First,€this€requirement€protects€the€accused€from€beingÏsubjected€to€an€unreasonable€search€and/or€seizure.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€196€Tenn.Í630,€632,€270€S.W.2d€184,€185€(1954).€€Second,€this€requirement€ð ðprevent[s]€theÏofficer€from€searching€the€premises€of€one€person€under€a€warrant€directed€againstÏthose€of€another.ðð€€òòSquires€v.€Stateóó,€525€S.W.2d€686,€690€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1975).Ìà àThe€question€this€court€must€next€consider€is€what€constitutes€a€constitutionallyÏpermissible€description€of€the€property€or€premises€to€be€searched.ÌÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€issue€raised€by€the€defendant€has€been€addressed€by€numerousÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€and€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€decisions.€€The€reportedÏand€unreported€decisions€are€legion.Ìà àIn€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€868€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€1993),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€513€U.S.€960,€115ÏS.Ct.€417,€130€L.Ed.2d€333€(1994),€the€supreme€court€said€that€ð ða€description€whichÏparticularly€points€to€a€definitely€ascertainable€place€so€as€to€exclude€all€others,€andÏenables€the€officer€to€locate€the€place€to€be€searched€with€reasonable€certainty€withoutÏleaving€it€to€his€discretionðð€is€required€to€satisfy€the€constitutional€mandates.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€868ÏS.W.2d€at€572.€€òòSeeóó€òòBosticóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€245.€€The€most€cited€and€quoted€case€isÏòòHatchett€v.€Stateóó,€208€Tenn.€399,€346€S.W.2d€258€(1961).€€In€òòHatchettóó,€the€supremeÏcourt€said:€ð ðThe€rule€is€that€the€property€to€be€searched€must€be€particularly€describedÏin€the€search€warrant€before€it€is€valid.€€The€test€is€whether,€or€not,€the€description€willÍenable€an€officer€to€locate€the€place€to€be€searched€with€reasonable€certainty.ðð€€208ÏTenn.€at€401,€346€S.W.2d€at€259.Ìà àThe€conclusion€which€may€be€drawn€from€the€prior€decisions€is€that€theÏdescription€of€the€property€or€premises€to€be€searched€must€be€sufficient€to€permit€aÏreasonable€person€to€take€the€search€warrant,€as€prepared,€and€go€immediately€to€theÏpremises€to€be€searched€without€difficulty€or€without€asking€directions€regarding€theÏlocation€of€the€property.€€òòWilliamsóó,€196€Tenn.€at€632,€270€S.W.2d€at€185.€€òòSeeóóÏòòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€197€Tenn.€112,€114„15,€270€S.W.2d€379,€380„81€(1954).€Ìà àThis€court€must€now€apply€the€test€created€by€the€decisions€of€the€appellateÏcourts€€to€the€description€contained€in€the€search€warrant€authorizing€the€search€of€theÏdefendantððs€residence.ÌÓ  Óò òC.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€description€contained€in€the€search€warrant€is€sufficient€to€passÏconstitutional,€statutory€and€regulatory€muster.€€òòSeeóó€òòNorton€v.€Stateóó,€207€Tenn.€656,Ï659,€343€S.W.2d€361,€362€(1961).€€The€description€told€the€officers€how€to€reach€theÏdefendantððs€residence€and€provided€a€description€of€the€residence,€including€the€colorÏof€the€bricks,€the€color€of€the€trim,€the€presence€of€a€swimming€pool€located€in€theÏbackyard€behind€a€wooden€fence,€the€color€of€the€mailbox,€and€the€presence€of€theÏnumber€ð ð276"€on€the€exterior€of€the€mailbox.€€The€warrant€states€the€address€of€theÏpremises€is€Route€1,€Box€276,€and€the€(911)€address€is€210€Preacher€Drive.Ìà àThis€court€is€of€the€opinion€a€reasonably€prudent€law€enforcement€officer€couldÏfind€the€defendantððs€residence€immediately€and€without€difficulty€by€following€theÍdescription€€of€the€premises€contained€in€the€search€warrant.€€It€must€be€rememberedÏthat€the€description€of€the€property€does€not€have€to€adhere€to€the€same€minusculeÏdetail€which€a€deed€must€contain€when€there€is€a€transfer€of€real€property.€€òòBosticóó,€898ÏS.W.2d€at€245.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€Ì€ÌÓ  Óò òIV.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€contends€the€trial€court€committed€error€of€prejudicial€dimensionsÏby€failing€to€order€the€district€attorney€general€to€grant€him€pretrial€diversion.€€HeÏargues€he€filed€a€proper€application€for€pretrial€diversion,€the€state€failed€to€answer€orÏrespond€to€the€application,€and€he€concludes€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€himÏpretrial€diversion€for€this€reason.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€contends€this€issue€hasÏbeen€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€85,€86„87€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1986).Ìà àThe€first€time€this€issue€was€raised€was€in€the€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€ÏThe€trial€court€noted€the€defendant€never€brought€this€issue€to€the€courtððs€attentionÏprior€to€trial,€and€he€did€not€ask€for€a€hearing€on€the€issue.€€It€is€undisputed€the€districtÏattorney€general€did€not€file€a€response€to€the€defendantððs€application.€€The€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€stated:€ð ðI€did€not€really€consider€that€a€serious€application€atÏthat€time,€I€donððt€guess.ððÌà àFirst,€it€was€the€duty€of€the€defendant€to€bring€this€matter€to€the€attention€of€theÏtrial€court€prior€to€trial.€€The€trial€court€could€either€(a)€order€the€district€attorney€generalÍto€file€a€response€to€the€application€or€(b)€hear€the€matter€without€the€benefit€of€theÏdistrict€attorney€generalððs€response.€€Since€the€defendant€failed€to€take€the€necessaryÏsteps€to€bring€this€matter€to€the€trial€court,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.€€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€36(a).€€Second,€the€defendant€was€required€to€raise€this€issue€prior€to€trialÏby€either€filing€an€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€or€anÏextraordinary€appeal€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Bowlinóó,€871ÏS.W.2d€170,€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòState€v.€Nabbóó,€713€S.W.2d€685,€686€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1986);€€òòWilsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€at€86„87;€òòState€v.€McDuffóó,€691€S.W.2d€569,€570Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1985);€òòState€v.€€Montgomeryóó,€623ÏS.W.2d€116,€118€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1981).€€The€failure€toÏpursue€an€interlocutory€or€extraordinary€appeal€in€pretrial€diversion€matters€results€inÏthe€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòWilsonóó,€713€S.W.2d€at€86„87.€€€€€à àToday,€a€defendant€mayÏappeal€the€denial€of€pretrial€diversion€as€part€of€the€appeal€as€of€right,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï3(b).€€Rule€38,€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€states€in€part€ð ðthe€defendantÏmay€pursue€an€interlocutory€appeal€pursuant€to€either€Rule€9€or€Rule€10€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€In€the€event€the€defendant€does€not€pursueÏan€interlocutory€appeal,€the€defendant€shall€have€the€right€to€appeal€the€decision€of€theÏtrial€court€denying€the€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€ofÏAppellate€Procedure€3(b)€following€the€entry€of€the€final€judgment€in€the€trial€court.ðð€ÏThis€rule€became€effective€on€July€1,€1997.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€38€advisoryÏcommission€comments.€Ìà àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€applied€rules€of€procedure€retroactively€inÏthe€past.€€In€òòState€v.€Enochsóó€823€S.W.2d€539,€540„41€(Tenn.€1991),€the€supreme€courtÍheld€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f),€the€thirteenth€juror€rule,€should€be€applied€retroactively€toÏcases€which€were€tried€before€the€rule€became€effective€and€were€pending€in€theÏappellate€courts€on€the€effective€date€of€the€rule.€€òòEnochsóó€was€followed€by€the€supremeÏcourt€in€òòState€v.€Baroneóó,€852€S.W.2d€216,€219€(Tenn.€1993).€€However,€it€isÏquestionable€whether€òòEnochsóó€and€òòBaroneóó€should€be€applied€to€the€facts€in€this€case.€ÏUnlike€the€defendants€in€òòEnochsóó€and€òòBaroneóó,€who€were€not€entitled€to€the€benefit€ofÏthe€thirteenth€juror€rule€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€rule,€the€defendant€here€hadÏthe€right€to€appellate€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€or€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.Ìà àAssuming€òòarguendoóó€Tenn.€€R.€€Crim.€€P.€38€could€be€applied€retroactively€in€thisÏcase€pursuant€to€the€rationale€of€òòEnochsóó€and€òòBaroneóó,€this€court€would€not€be€able€toÏreview€the€issue.€€As€previously€noted,€the€defendant€did€not€bring€this€matter€to€theÏattention€of€the€trial€court€prior€to€trial.€€Thus,€there€was€no€hearing€in€the€trial€court,Ïand,€as€a€result,€there€is€no€record€for€this€court€to€review.€€It€is€elementary€that€anÏappellate€court€may€only€review€what€is€contained€in€the€record€„„€not€what€might€haveÏbeen€or€should€have€been€included€in€the€record.€€òòDearborne€v.€Stateóó,€575€S.W.2dÏ259,€264€(Tenn.€1978).€€The€allegations€contained€in€an€application€for€pretrialÏdiversion€are€not€evidence€and€cannot€replace€the€necessity€of€a€hearing€and€theÏmemorializing€of€the€hearing€by€a€transcript€of€the€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Richardsonóó,Ï875€S.W.2d€671,€674€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.ÏAucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€716€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€489€U.S.€1084,€109ÏS.Ct.€1541,€103€L.Ed.2d€845€(1989);€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÓ  Óò òV.ó óÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€serve€one€year€in€the€Hardin€CountyÏJail€with€the€balance€of€the€sentences€to€be€served€pursuant€to€the€TennesseeÏCommunity€Corrections€Act€of€1985.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„36„101,€òòetóó.€òòseqóó.€€TheÏdefendant€contends€his€entire€sentence€should€be€served€pursuant€to€the€Act.€€He€alsoÏcontends€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€refusing€to€apply€a€mitigating€factor,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„35„113(1).€€The€State€of€Tennessee€argues€the€sentenceÏimposed€by€the€trial€court€was€proper€given€the€defendantððs€prior€criminal€record€andÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offenses.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€properly€rejected€theÏmitigating€circumstance€due€to€the€nature€of€the€offense€and€the€prior€decisions€of€thisÏcourt.ÌÓ  Óò òÌA.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àWhen€an€accused€challenges€the€length€and€manner€of€service€of€a€sentence,€itÏis€the€duty€of€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€on€the€record€with€a€presumptionÏthat€ð ðthe€determinations€made€by€the€court€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€are€correct.ðð€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€This€presumption€is€ð ðconditioned€upon€theÏaffirmative€showing€in€the€record€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencingÏprinciples€and€all€relevant€facts€and€circumstances.€€òòState€v.€Ashbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€166,Ï169€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€presumption€does€not€apply€to€the€legal€conclusions€reachedÏby€the€trial€court€when€sentencing€the€accused€or€to€the€determinations€made€by€theÏtrial€court€which€are€predicated€upon€uncontroverted€facts.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2dÍ305,€311€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€this€court€is€required€to€give€great€weightÏto€the€trial€courtððs€determination€of€controverted€facts€as€the€trial€courtððs€determinationÏof€these€facts€is€predicated€upon€the€witnessesðð€demeanor€and€appearance€whileÏtestifying.Ìà àIn€conducting€a€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€review€of€a€sentence,€this€Court€must€consider€(a)€anyÏevidence€received€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€(b)€the€presentence€report,€(c)€theÏprinciples€of€sentencing,€(d)€the€arguments€of€counsel€relative€to€sentencingÏalternatives,€(e)€the€nature€and€characteristics€of€the€offense,€(f)€any€mitigating€orÏenhancing€factors,€(g)€any€statements€made€by€the€accused€in€his€own€behalf,€and€(h)Ïthe€accusedððs€potential€or€lack€of€potential€for€rehabilitation€or€treatment.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„103€and€„210;€òòState€v.€Scottóó,€735€S.W.2d€825,€829€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Ïòòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1987).€€€Ìà àThe€party€challenging€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court€has€the€burdenÏof€establishing€that€the€sentences€are€erroneous.€€Sentencing€Commission€CommentsÏto€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401;€òòAshbyóó,€823€S.W.2d€at€169;€òòButleróó,€900€S.W.2d€atÏ311.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€has€the€burden€of€illustrating€the€sentences€imposedÏby€the€trial€court€are€erroneous.ÌÓ  Óò òB.ó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€trial€court€found€one€enhancement€factor,€namely,€€the€defendant€has€aÏhistory€of€prior€convictions€or€criminal€behavior.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1).€€TheÏdefendant€was€previously€convicted€of€public€intoxication,€driving€without€a€license,Ïpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia,€driving€while€under€the€influence,€and€possessionÍof€marijuana.€€In€addition,€the€defendant€told€the€presentence€officer€he€had€a€history€ofÏdrug€use.€€Of€course,€each€time€he€obtained€drugs€for€his€personal€use€he€committed€aÏseparate€crime.Ìà àThe€defendant€asked€the€trial€court€to€find€one€mitigating€factor,€namely,€hisÏconduct€neither€caused€nor€threatened€serious€bodily€injury.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„113(1).€The€court€refused€to€find€this€mitigating€factor€in€this€case.€€This€court€hasÏheld€this€factor€should€not€be€applied€when€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€an€offenseÏinvolving€cocaine.€€òòState€v.€Keelóó,€882€S.W.2d€410,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.Ïòòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994);€€òòState€v.€Michael€Anthony€Pikeóó,€Henry€County€No.€02„C„01„9509„CC„00261,€1997€WL€13740€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€January€16,€1997),€òòperóó.Ïòòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€September€15,€1997);€€òòState€v.€Larry€D.€Jonesóó,€Davidson€CountyÏNo.€01„C„01„9112„CR„00368,€1992€WL€146719€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€June€30,Ï1992),€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€October€26,€1992).€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kenny€Cheathamóó,€ÏWilliamson€County€No.€01„C„01„9506„CC„00196,€1996€WL€310405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€June€11,€1996).€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€refused€to€apply€this€mitigatingÏfactor.ÌÌÓ  Óò òC.à àó óÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€defendant€also€contends€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€refusing€toÏpermit€him€to€serve€the€entire€sentences€pursuant€to€the€Community€Corrections€Act.€ÏThe€trial€court€required€the€defendant€to€serve€twelve€months€of€his€œeighteen„monthÏsentence›€in€the€county€jail€with€the€balance€of€the€sentence€served€pursuant€to€the€Act.Ìà à€The€defendant€was€convicted€of€a€Class€B€felony€and€a€Class€E€felony.€€As€aÏpractical€matter,€this€issue€must€rise€or€fall€upon€the€Class€B€felony.€€While€there€is€aÏpresumption€the€defendant€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€as€to€aÏClass€E€felony,€there€is€no€such€presumption€when€the€defendant€is€convicted€of€aÏClass€B€felony.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(6)Ìà àThe€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€by€requiring€the€defendant€to€serve€aÏportion€of€his€sentence.€€The€defendant€has€been€convicted€of€several€criminalÏoffenses.€€He€also€has€a€history€of€criminal€behavior.€€He€made€two€sales€of€illicitÏnarcotics.€€He€apparently€trafficked€in€illicit€narcotics€for€an€extended€period€of€time.€ÏHe€candidly€admitted€to€the€presentence€officer€that€he€was€a€user€of€illicit€narcotics.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà à_________________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€JOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE