WPC MNfjc NkWL#18<`W$0׊n[(] Ĩ2B(k K9t@)1%.VlBY)+40$"%6eΗ&p2۽ MFlܬh;8AlZ6;Lq(=:]Pƚ[w%"k i,m0K]&Z}@Ժ|mwa%cqPf}~xL%Q3 $ Wr!dh7TǓ*ִ`ʴHR&:6w!c..,B)6O\vutdͷnF4jy>@ܣ+d ^ 8ނf'@rqKydǣ*q6Ec*Ik(_ϙbXІ$R\O-3h&.67{C m/\b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1 0DN;=9EE~~~E4kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkb 0 B 0 D3S D- 0K ASQ 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0p+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularXq+GRA~1 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.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    / R$      1    _When_Talley_wasdecided,therequirementsnowfoundinRule41(c)werecodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.40  518(1959). ; R$      2    _ SeeUnitedStatesv._Chadwick_,433U.S.1,10,97S.Ct.2476,2482,53L.Ed.2d538(1977)( Oncealawful  searchhasbegun,itisalsofarmorelikelythatitwillnotexceedproperboundswhenitisdonepursuanttoajudicial t authorizationparticularlydescribingtheplacetobesearchedandthepersonsorthingstobeseized.)   R$      3    _SeeWayneR.LaFave,SearchandSeizure,4.3(a)&(b)(3ded.1996);Note,TheConstitutionalityofthe  UseofUnrecordedOralTestimonytoEstablishProbableCauseforSearchWarrants,70Va.L.Rev.1603,161015 t (1984). * R$      4    _SeealsoStatev.Gambrel,783S.W.2d191,192(Tenn.Crim.App.1989)(upholdingthesearchbecausethe  copycreatedwasfoundsufficient).- -(|G2$ !.8Sdd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Sdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Sdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Sdd8     _   S8XXdd8@ ^SINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#S^ #Ԉ &   February7,2001Session L XXS #SXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.EDWARDD.COFFEEXXS  J @@ AppealfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J CriminalCourtforWilsonCounty  6 @@No.980018J.O.Bond,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199800472SCR11CDFiledAugust29,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XXXX# SX Xd# XX SEdwardD.Coffeewasindictedforpossessionofcertaincontrolledsubstanceswithintenttoselland x  possessionofdrugparaphernalia.Becausethejudicialcommissionerfailedtomakeandretainan d exactcopyoftheoriginalsearchwarrantasrequiredbyTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure41(c), P thetrialcourtsuppressedtheevidencerecoveredinthesearchanddismissedtheindictment.The < CourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgment,andwenowalsoaffirm. (x #XXX X# Tenn.R.App.P.11AppealbyPermission;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals P Affirmed  <   AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich E.RileyAnderson,C.J.,  FrankF.Drowota,III,JaniceM.Holder,andWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,LucianD.  Geise,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,TomP.Thompson,Jr.,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,DavidE. t Durham,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellant,theStateofTennessee. ` HughGreen,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellee,EdwardD.Coffee. 8!  (@@OO& OPINION  #`" I.FactsandProceduralHistory $8 $    XXXX  OnDecember6,1997,DetectiveStevenN.Loweryappliedforasearchwarrantfroma &"& WilsonCountyjudicialcommissioner.Lowerysaffidavitstatedthatonthepreviousday,a '"' confidentialinformanthadbeenfittedwithanelectronicmonitoringdeviceandgiven$70.Itfurther (#( statedthattheinformantthenpurchasedmarijuanafromEdwardD.Coffee,theappellee SX X#S SQ # SS. )$) # XX S( #  Thecommissionerissuedthesearchwarrant,andLoweryandothersexecutedit.From +&+ Coffeesresidence,theyconfiscated#XXX Xj # XXXXԀ$2,423,$125infoodstamps,andseveralplasticbagscontaining ,', cocainepowderandmarijuana. -(- Ї  Coffeefiledamotiontosuppresstheseizedevidence,allegingseveralviolationsof  TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure41(c).Themotionincludedanallegationthat theJudicial  Commissionerissuingthewarrantfailedtokeepanexactcopyoftheoriginalofsaidsearchwarrant  aspartofhisofficialrecordsasrequiredbyRule41(c).Theassistantdistrictattorneystipulated t thatthisallegationwastrue.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthefailuretomakecopiesofthewarrant ` violatedoneofthemandatoryprovisionsofRule41(c)andgrantedthemotiontosuppress.Because L  nootherevidenceexisteduponwhichtoprosecuteCoffee,thetrialcourtdismissedtheindictment. 8  TheStateappealed,andtheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmed.Wegrantedreviewtodetermine $ t whetherthejudicialcommissionersfailuretomakeandretainanexactcopyoftheoriginalsearch  ` warrantrequiressuppressionoftheevidenceseized.Weholdthatitdoes,andaccordingly,we  L  affirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.  8  @JJII.StandardofReview     Whenreviewingatrialcourtsrulingonamotiontosuppress,[q]uestionsofcredibilityof   thewitnesses,theweightandvalueoftheevidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidenceare   mattersentrustedtothetrialjudgeasthetrieroffact.Statev.Carter,16S.W.3d762,765(Tenn. p 2000)(quotingStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996)). [W]henatrialcourtsfindings \ offactatasuppressionhearingarebasedonevidencethatdoesnotinvolveissuesofcredibility,a H reviewingcourtmustexaminetherecorddenovowithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Statev. 4 Binette,33S.W.3d215,217(Tenn.2000).Ineithercase, [t]heapplicationofthelawtothefacts  p ...isaquestionoflawwhichthisCourtreviewsdenovo.Carter,16S.W.3dat765(quotingState  \ v.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997)).ThequestionwhetherRule41(c)oftheTennessee H RulesofCriminalProcedurerequiressuppressionoftheevidenceinthiscaseisaquestionoflaw 4 whichwereviewdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessaffordedtothejudgmentofthecourt   below.   @#III.Analysis    Rule41oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureauthorizesasearchandseizureof l privatepropertyifsuchpropertyisevidenceofthecommissionofacriminaloffense,wasobtained X  bycriminalaction,orisintendedforuseincommittingacriminaloffense.Subsection(c)provides D! inpertinentpart, 0"  8  8`   Ifthemagistrateissatisfiedthatgroundsfortheapplication[fora $X" search]existorthatthereisprobablecausetobelievethattheyexist, $D # themagistrateshallissueawarrantidentifyingthepropertyand %0!$ namingordescribingthepersonorplacetobesearched....The &"% magistrateshallprepareanoriginalandtwoexactcopiesofthesearch '#& warrant,oneofwhichshallbekeptbythemagistrateasapartofhis (#' orherofficialrecords,andoneofwhichshallbeleftwithpersonor )$( personsonwhomthesearchwarrantisserved....Failureofthe |*%) magistratetomakesaidoriginalandtwocopiesofthesearchwarrant h+&* orfailuretoendorsethereonthedateandtimeofissuanceandthe  nameoftheofficertowhomissued,orthefailureoftheserving  officerwherepossibletoleaveacopywiththepersonorpersonson  whomthesearchwarrantisbeingserved,shallmakeanysearch t conductedundersaidsearchwarrantanillegalsearchandanyseizure ` thereunderanillegalseizure.L ` x` x (Emphasisadded.)Thus,therulenotonlyrequiresprobablecausetoissueasearchwarrant,italso $ t imposesspecificproceduralsafeguards.  ` Ѐ  L    Theseproceduralsafeguardsareintended tosecurethecitizenagainstcarelessnessand  8  abuseintheissuanceandexecutionofsearchwarrants.Talleyv.State,345S.W.2d867,869 $  (Tenn.1961)#XXX X# XXXX._ #  1      _   8  8`    Thereisnowritmorecalculatedtobeabusedinitsusethanthe   searchwarrant,forwithitanyhomemaybeenteredandtheinmates   disturbed,humiliated,anddegraded.Topreventsuchapossibility p fromfalseinformantsmadetoofficersinspiredbyoverzeal,oracting \ fromexpediency,orobeyingthecommandutteredbyamobimpulse, H theprovisionsoftheConstitutionandstatutesfoundforceand 4 commandobservance. p` x` x Id.(quotingHamptonv.State,252S.W.1007,1008(Tenn.1923)).#XXX X## XXXXTheprovisionatissue,thata H magistrateprepareandretainacopyofthesearchwarrant,endeavorstopreventimpropersearches 4 andfacilitatejudicialreviewofwhetherasearchwasexecutedwithinthescopeofthewarrant.The   ruleachievesitsgoalsinthatawrittenrecordofthespecificsofthesearchstiflestheeverpresent   temptationforanofficertoconductasearchandjustifyitlater. #  2      ׀Additionally,thecopyofthe  warrantenablesreviewoftheoriginalboundariesofasearch;withoutanexactcopyofthewarrant,  reviewiscompromisedbecausethecriticalfactsanddetailsofthewarrantcannotbeprecisely  determined., #  3      ׀Itisforthesereasonsthatitisimportanttoretainanexactcopyofthewarrant l identifyingthepropertyorpersontobesearched,anditisforthesesamereasonsthatthis X   requirementhasbeenstrictlyenforcedbyourcourtsformanyyears.#XXX X&# XXXXԀSeeTalley,345S.W.2dat868; D! Statev.Brewer,989S.W.2d349,35354(Tenn.Crim.App.1997);Statev.Steele,894S.W.2d318,  319(Tenn.Crim.App.1994). #  4      ׀#XXX X+# XXXX     Asstated#XXX X/-# XXXXԀinTalley, Wordscouldnotbeplainer,and[theproceduralsafeguardsagainst t abuse]aremandatory.345S.W.2dat869(citationomitted).Accordingly,thejudicial ` commissionersfailuretomakeandretainacopyofthesearchwarrantsothatarecordoftheprecise L  limitsofthesearchcouldbemaintainedrequiressuppressionoftheevidenceseized.#XXX X-# XXXX 8  @rr#IV.Conclusion  ` Ѐ  Fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethatthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals  8  shouldbe,andis,hereby,affirmed.CostsofthisappealaretaxedagainsttheStateofTennesseefor $  whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XXX X/#      `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE