ÿWPCå& H# UN  %Y 0 D_w@£UHãb+ 0`3 0Æ“ 0DY4± 1mÀ 0J- 0cw 0TÚ 0^. 0hŒ 0wô k AQs ÆÄ 0DŠ 0@Î 0D D/R B D3ž 0rÑ 0|C 0†¿ BE 0b 1uò 0dgU:ËU>›CU*ÞB)U*1DC[ AMžIëf4ešŠÿl‰9õf.v~”vÓ!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò ã=Uä=å=æ=ç=Dè=Ué=Dê=ë=Ó€÷=<à09Z 0Courier (WT) Regular- ù-(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý(8f2²¥$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àÔ€ôú÷ôXXÔÔ€2ôuúôôôú÷ÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóWX$Ôô3|x÷=#;å37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(;3â$´´Ô2;åÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô(O(<$µµà0  àÔ2;åÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd,,,,'ÿÿdxd2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô)*+. ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d< Œ 9p`(Times;;;;7Border 1dd "=Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ?Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€:ÔÔ€:ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€:XÔÌÌò òJuneÏ22,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€:ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ [Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÔ€8ôÔÔ€:ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝApparently€one€of€the€occupants€of€the€car€involved€in€the€exchange€fled€the€scene€onÏfoot€and€the€other€departed€the€scene€in€the€car.Ì €Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÔ€8ôÔÔ€:ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Fourth€Amendment€is€applicable€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€ÏòòMapp›€v.€Ohioóó,€367€U.S.€643,€655,€81€S.Ct.€1684,€1691,€6€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€1081€(1961).Ì bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÔ€8ôÔÔ€:ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝSeldom€will€this€issue€arise€in€Tennessee.€€The€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress€is€very€oftenÏfollowed€by€entry€of€a€guilty€plea.€€Therefore,€if€an€appeal€is€taken€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim›.€P.€37,Ïthe€record€before€the€reviewing€court€will€consist€only€of€the€evidence€offered€at€the€hearing€on€theÏmotion€to€suppress.€€If€a€motion€to€suppress€is€granted,€the€prosecution€is€oftentimes€terminated.Ì /Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àÔ€8ôÔÔ€:ÔòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThough€none€of€these€decisions€address€the€specific€question€at€issue€in€this€appeal€„€theÏevidence€which€may€be€considered€by€an€appellate€court€reviewing€a€pretrial€ruling€that€a€searchÏwarrant€was€validly€executed€„€the€general€principle€is€the€same.€€Where,€as€here,€a€defendantÏattempts€to€suppress€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€a€warrant€on€the€grounds€that€the€State€failed€toÏcomply€with€the€knock€and€announce€rule,€the€State€must€offer€proof€to€establish€an€exception€toÏthe€knock€and€announce€rule.€€Likewise,€when€suppression€of€evidence€seized€in€a€warrantlessÏsearch€is€sought,€the€State€must€offer€proof€to€establish€that€the€search€was€conducted€pursuant€toÏan€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€In€contrast,€where€evidence€is€seized€pursuant€to€aÏwarrant,€and€the€defendant€seeks€suppression€on€the€òòsoleóó€basis€that€the€issuing€judge€erred€inÏfinding€probable€cause€to€support€the€warrant,€the€only€evidence€which€may€be€presented€by€theÏState€is€the€affidavit€supporting€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€€The€State€may€not€offer€extrinsicÏevidence€to€bolster€the€allegations€in€the€affidavit.€€Likewise,€appellate€courts€reviewing€a€finding€ofÏprobable€cause€are€limited€to€the€allegations€contained€in€the€affidavit€supporting€issuance€of€theÏwarrant.€€Our€holding€herein€does€not€alter€nor€abrogate€this€long„standing€rule€of€criminalÏprocedure.€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€8ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ћрÑÑ7€ÜfXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÖ€9ÖÔ€:ÔÑ , ÑÑ õ ÑÑ  ÑÑ€; §u` ÑÑ  Ñò òØ ØÓ&€<<XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà àà àà àà àà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€ ÙœßR€>?=A1-j|Á¸` à. `€€@ÿRß›à@ àAT€JACKSONó óÌÌÌÌÓ` °‚X.h—XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à(à àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Appellee,à àà àà àà àà à(à àò òFiled:ó ó€ò òJune€œ22,›€1998ó óÌà àà àà àà àà à(€€à àÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìv.à àà àà àà àà à(à àMadison€CriminalÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà à(€€à àHon.€Whit€œLaFon›,ÌJOHNNY€M.€œHENNING›,à àà àà à(à àJudge€€à àÌà àà àà àà àà à(Ì€€€€€Appellant.à àà àà àà àà à(à àNo.€œ02S01›„9707„CC„00065ÌÌòòÔ€:&ÔÌÌÌÔ€:XÔFor€State„Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àà àà àà àHughie€œRagan›ÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àà àJackson,€TennesseeÌÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌKenneth€W.€œRucker›ÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÔ€:&ÔÌÌÔ€:XÔJames€G.€œWoodall›ÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌTwenty„Sixth€Judicial€DistrictÌJackson,€TennesseeÌÌShaun€A.€BrownÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€:¼ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€:XÔóóó óÌÌÌÌÌà àà àÌÌAFFIRMED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœDROWOTA›,€J.ÇÑ , ÑÑ ` ÑÓ` Ü‚Xh—XÓÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€primarily€to€consider€two€issues:€1)€whether€theÏsearch€warrant€in€this€case€is€supported€by€probable€cause€and€is€otherwiseÏvalid;€€and€2)€whether€an€appellate€court€reviewing€a€pretrial€ruling€that€a€searchÏwarrant€was€validly€executed€may€consider€the€entire€record,€including€evidenceÏsubmitted€at€trial,€in€addition€to€evidence€submitted€at€the€pretrial€suppressionÏhearing.€€We€have€determined€that€the€search€warrant€issued€in€this€case€isÏsupported€by€probable€cause€and€free€from€other€defects.€€As€to€the€secondÏissue,€which€is€a€question€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee,€we€have€determinedÏthat€an€appellate€court€may€consider€the€entire€record,€including€the€evidenceÏsubmitted€at€trial,€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€a€pretrial€ruling€that€a€searchÏwarrant€was€validly€executed.€€Accordingly,€for€the€reasons€that€follow,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€is€affirmed.ÌÌà@ àò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àOn€October€21,€1993,€Johnny€Henning€was€arrested€at€his€home€andÏpolice€seized€.9€grams€of€cocaine,€an€unknown€quantity€of€Mannitol,€a€substanceÍcommonly€mixed€with€cocaine,€and€a€set€of€scales.€€The€arrest,€search,€andÏseizure€was€the€culmination€of€several€hours€of€surveillance€of€Henningððs€homeÏbyÌOfficer€Mark€Caldwell€of€the€Madison€County€Sheriffððs€Department€and€a€memberÏof€the€Drug€Task€Force€of€the€œ26th›€Judicial€District.ÌÌà àAfter€receiving€information€from€a€confidential€informant€that€Henning€wasÏselling€crack€cocaine,€Officer€Caldwell€positioned€himself€in€a€field€across€theÏroad€from€œHenning›ððs€residence€at€approximately€3:00€p.m.€€Between€3:00€p.m.Ïand€4:20€p.m.€that€day,€Caldwell€observed€three€cars€arrive€separately€atÏHenningððs€house.€€Each€time,€Caldwell€observed€Henning€approach€the€car,€talkÏto€the€occupants€for€a€short€time,€walk€to€the€side€of€his€house,€return€about€fourÏseconds€later,€again€approach€the€car,€and€then€exchange€something€with€theÏoccupants.€€Following€the€last€exchange€at€approximately€4:30€p.m.,€Henning€leftÏhis€home€on€foot.ÌÌà àDuring€his€absence,€Officer€Caldwell€telephoned€Captain€Thomas€A.ÍColeman,€described€the€transactions€he€had€observed,€and€directed€Capt.ÏColeman€to€obtain€a€search€warrant€for€Henningððs€residence.€€Capt.€ColemanÏprepared€an€affidavit,€obtained€the€warrant,€returned€to€a€location€near€HenningððsÏresidence€with€several€other€officers,€and€waited€for€Caldwell€to€call€for€executionÏof€the€warrant.ÌÌà àHenning€returned€at€5:00€p.m,€and€thereafter,€Caldwell€observed€two€moreÏexchanges€before€Henning€again€departed€his€residence€in€a€vehicle€atÏapproximately€6:30€p.m.€€Caldwell€maintained€his€position€in€the€field€across€fromÏHenningððs€home€for€about€twenty€minutes€after€œHenning›€departed,€but€eventuallyÏcrossed€the€road€and€positioned€himself€so€that€he€could€observe€the€west€sideÏof€the€house€to€which€Henning€had€walked€before€each€prior€exchange€hadÏoccurred.Ñ€@ÑÇœ›à àFrom€that€vantage€point,€Caldwell€had€observed€three€different€vehiclesÏarrive€at€Henningððs€residence.€€Each€time€the€occupants€remained€inside€theirÏcars€for€a€short€time€before€approaching€Henningððs€house€and€knocking€on€theÏdoor.€€Each€time€the€visitors€left€as€soon€as€Henningððs€wife€came€to€the€door€andÏtold€them,€ð ðJohnnyððs€not€here.ððÌÌà àHenning€returned€home€at€approximately€8:30€p.m.,€and€shortly€thereafter,€Ïanother€car€arrived€at€his€residence.€€Henning€came€outside€and€spoke€to€theÏdriver€and€passenger€of€the€vehicle.€€Caldwell€observed€Henning€go€to€aÏconcrete€block€at€the€side€of€the€house.€€During€this€activity,€Caldwell€crawled€intoÏHenningððs€yard,€and€was€lying€on€the€ground€beside€an€abandoned€car€on€theÏwest€side€of€the€house.€€Caldwell€said€he€had€been€ð ðvery,€very€closeðð€to€HenningÏand€the€occupants€of€the€car.€€At€that€point,€Caldwell€called€for€backup€assistanceÏfrom€Capt.€Coleman€and€the€other€officers€located€a€short€distance€fromÏHenningððs€residence.€€After€making€the€call,€Officer€Caldwell€stood€andÏapproached€the€defendant€who€was€engaged€in€conversation€with€one€of€theÏoccupants€of€the€car.€€Henning€began€to€flee€toward€his€residence,€and€CaldwellÍœpursued›€him,€stating€that€he€knew€it€would€be€difficult€to€ð ðkeep€up€with€where€theÏdrugs€were€going€to€be€.€.€.€if€they€got€in€the€house.€.€.€.ðð€€Caldwell€seized€HenningÏas€he€was€entering€his€residence,€and€they€fell€into€the€doorway€of€HenningððsÏresidence.× ƒA ××  ×ÌÌà àOnce€he€had€apprehended€Henning,€Caldwell€announced€he€was€aÏpolice€officer€and€told€the€defendant€he€had€a€search€warrant.€€Caldwell€orderedÏHenning€and€the€other€occupants€of€the€house€to€sit€down.€€œHenning›€sat€on€theÏsofa,€and€Caldwell€observed€him€throw€something€on€the€carpet€and€try€to€kick€itÏunder€the€couch.€€Caldwell€recovered€the€object,€and€a€subsequent€laboratoryÏanalysis€revealed€the€substance€to€be€.9€grams€of€cocaine.€€Other€officersÏassisting€in€the€execution€of€the€search€warrant€found€Mannitol,€a€substanceÏoften€combined€with€cocaine,€and€a€set€of€scales,€inside€a€drainage€pipe€on€theÏwest€side€of€the€house€to€which€the€defendant€had€walked€before€eachÏtransaction€occurred.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€moved€pretrial€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€as€a€resultÏof€the€search.€€The€motion€was€denied,€and€the€case€proceeded€to€trial.€€The€juryÏfound€the€defendant€guilty€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell,€possessionÏof€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver,€and€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia.€€The€trialÏcourt€merged€the€two€cocaine€possession€verdicts€into€a€single€conviction.€TheÏdefendant€was€sentenced€to€twelve€years€for€the€felony€possession€convictionÏand€eleven€months,€and€twenty„nine€days€for€the€misdemeanor€drugÏparaphernalia€conviction.€€The€sentences€were€ordered€to€be€servedÏconcurrently.€€€The€defendant€appealed,€raising€numerous€issues.€€TheÏintermediate€court€affirmed€the€convictions,€but€remanded€for€œresentencing›Ïbecause€of€a€conflict€between€the€bench€ruling€and€the€judgment€as€to€theÏapplicable€sentencing€range.€€Thereafter,€we€granted€permission€to€appeal€andÏnow€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€8ÔÔ€8¼ÔI.Ô€8XÔÔ€:Ô€CONSTITUTIONAL€VALIDITY€OF€THE€SEARCH€WARRANTóóÌà@ àòòA.€Probable€Causeó óÌà àóóInitially,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€affidavit,€upon€which€the€searchÏwarrant€was€issued,€did€not€establish€probable€cause€because€the€affidavit€failedÏto€allege€facts€from€which€the€credibility€of€the€informant€and€the€reliability€of€theÏinformation€could€be€determined€as€is€constitutionally€required€in€Tennessee€byÏthis€Courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€œJacumin›óó,€778€œS.W.2d›€430€(Tenn.€1989).€€TheÏState€first€responds€that€the€affidavit€contained€facts€from€which€the€magistrateÏcould€determine€the€credibility€of€the€informant€and€the€reliability€of€theÏinformation,€and€alternatively€argues€that€any€deficiencies€in€the€affidavit€wereÏremedied€by€the€independent€police€corroboration€outlined€in€the€affidavit€in€thisÏcase.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€× ƒB ××  ×€to€the€United€States€Constitution€requires€thatÏsearch€warrants€issue€only€ð ðupon€probable€cause,€supported€by€Oath€orÏaffirmation.ðð€€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€precludes€theÍissuance€of€warrants€except€upon€ð ðevidence€of€the€fact€committed.ðð€€Therefore,Ïunder€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions,€no€warrant€is€to€be€issued€exceptÏupon€probable€cause.€€òòIllinois€v.€Gates,óó€462€U.S.€213,€103€œS.Ct›.€2317,€76€œL.Ed›.œ2d›Ï527€(1983);€òòState€v.€œJacumin›óó,€òòsupraóó;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103€(1997€Repl.).€ÏProbable€cause€has€been€defined€as€a€reasonable€ground€for€suspicion,Ïsupported€by€circumstances€indicative€of€an€illegal€act.€€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€181€Tenn.Ï378,€181€S.W.2d€351,€352€(1944).ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€a€finding€of€probable€cause€supporting€issuance€of€aÏsearch€warrant€must€be€based€upon€evidence€included€in€a€written€and€swornÏaffidavit.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€40„6„104€(1997€Repl.);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c);ÏòòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€432.€€Indeed,€an€affidavit€containing€allegations€from€whichÏthe€magistrate€can€determine€whether€probable€cause€exists€is€an€indispensableÏprerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€in€this€State.€€òòIdóó.;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÏex€rel.€Blackburn€v.€Foxóó,€200€Tenn.€227,€230,€292€S.W.2d€21,€23€(Tenn.€1956).€ÏThe€affidavit€must€set€forth€facts€upon€which€a€neutral€and€detached€magistrate,Ïreading€the€affidavit€in€a€common€sense€and€practical€manner,€can€find€probableÍcause€for€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Bryanóó,€769€S.W.2d€208,€210Ï(Tenn.€1989).€€To€ensure€that€the€magistrate€exercises€independent€judgment,Ïthe€affidavit€must€contain€more€than€mere€conclusory€allegations€by€the€affiant.€ÏòòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€432;€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€337€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1992).€€An€affidavit€may€contain€hearsay€information€and€need€not€reflectÏthe€direct€personal€observations€of€the€affiant.€€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€432;ÏòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€354€(Tenn.€1982).€€However,€under€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€an€affidavit€containing€hearsay€information€supplied€byÏa€confidential€informant€can€not€support€a€finding€of€probable€cause€unless€it€alsoÏcontains€factual€information€concerning€the€informantððs€basis€of€knowledge€andÏcredibility.€€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€432,€436.€€While€independent€policeÏcorroboration€can€make€up€deficiencies€in€either€prong,€we€have€recognized€thatÏð ðeach€prong€represents€an€independently€important€consideration€that€must€beÏseparately€considered€and€satisfied€in€some€way.ðð€€€òòIdóó.€€Appellate€courtsÏreviewing€the€existence€of€probable€cause€to€support€issuance€of€a€warrant€mayÏconsider€only€the€affidavit€and€may€not€consider€other€evidence€provided€to€orÏknown€by€the€issuing€magistrate€or€possessed€by€the€affiant.€€òòJacuminóó,€778ÍS.W.2d€at€432;€òòMoonóó,€841€S.W.2d€at€337.ÌÌà àHaving€delineated€the€guiding€principles,€we€now€consider€whether€theÏaffidavit€in€this€case€sufficiently€describes€the€informantððs€credibility€and€basis€ofÏknowledge.€The€affidavit,€in€pertinent€part,€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àPersonally€appeared€before€me,€Capt.€Thomas€Coleman,€whoÏmakes€oath€that€he€has€probable€cause€for€believing€and€doesÏbelieve€that€Johnny€Henning€is€in€possession€of€the€followingÏdescribed€property,€to„wit:€illegal€narcotics,€crack€cocaine,€pictures,Ïledgers,€tapes,€or€records€of€drug€sales€or€records€of€proceedsÏtherefrom€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àAffiant€has€been€provided€information€by€a€reliable€informant€whoseÏreliability€has€been€established€by€providing€information€which€hasÏresulted€in€several€œarrest[s›]€in€the€past.€€Said€informant€was€in€theÏcompany€of€a€subject€who€stated€the€intention€to€obtain€crackÏcocaine€and€did€go€to€the€above€described€residence€and€did€enterÏthe€described€residence€and€did€display€crack€cocaine€obtainedÏwithin€the€residence.€€Investigators€with€the€drug€task€force€didÏobserve€five€transactions€of€a€type€believed€to€be€drug€sales.€€TheÏresident€of€the€dwelling,€Mr.€Henning€has€two€prior€arrest€forÏpossession€of€drugs€with€intent€to€œsale[sic›],€and€a€vehicle€seizure€forÏpossession€of€drugs.€€These€transactions€were€observed€within€theÏlast€6€hours€and€the€informant€has€been€on€the€property€within€theÏlast€72€hours.ÌÌÑ  Ñà8 àAffiant€therefore€asks€that€a€warrant€issue€to€search€the€person€ofÏJohnny€Henning€and€the€premises€herein€described€.€.€.€[for]€illegalÏnarcotics€crack€cocaine.ÌÓÓÌÓ  Óà àWith€respect€to€the€informantððs€basis€of€knowledge,€the€affidavit€containedÏspecific€allegations:€ð ð[œs]aid›€informant€was€in€the€company€of€a€subject€who€statedÏthe€intention€to€obtain€crack€cocaine€and€did€go€to€the€above€describedÏresidence€and€did€enter€the€described€residence€and€did€display€crack€cocaineÏobtained€within€the€residence.ðð€€The€affidavit€also€alleged€that€the€informant€hadÏbeen€on€the€premises€in€the€last€72€hours.€€The€informantððs€personal€observationÏand€knowledge€of€Henningððs€activities€satisfies€the€basis€of€knowledge€prong€ofÏòòJacuminóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Valentineóó,€911€S.W.2d€328,€330€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àHowever,€as€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€recognized,€the€affidavitÏcontains€only€a€conclusory€allegation€regarding€the€informantððs€credibility:€ð ðaÏreliable€informant€whose€reliability€has€been€established€by€providingÏinformation€which€has€resulted€in€several€œarrest[s›]€in€the€past.ðð€€Although€there€isÏno€specific€allegation€in€the€affidavit€which,€on€its€face,€establishes€the€credibilityÏof€the€informant,€the€independent€police€corroboration€of€the€informantððs€tip,Ïexplained€in€the€affidavit,€is€sufficient€to€establish€the€informantððs€credibility.€€AsÏJudge€Wade,€writing€for€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àWhile€the€affidavit€here€contains€nothing€more€than€a€conclusoryÏœattestment›€of€the€reliability€of€the€informant,€police€had€seen€ððfiveÍtransactions€of€what€appeared€to€be€drug€sales.ðð€€Police€learnedÏthat€the€defendant€had€two€prior€arrests€for€drug€violations€andÏvehicle€seizure.€€That€officers€knew€of€the€prior€arrests€and€seizure,Ïthat€they€had€placed€his€residence€under€surveillance€for€six€hoursÏwithin€three€days€of€the€report€by€the€informant,€and€that€they€hadÏobserved€actions€by€the€defendant€consistent€with€the€sale€of€illegalÏdrugs,€does€provide€Ñ ` Ñthe€very€kind€of€corroboration€envisioned€byÏthe€ruling€in€òòJacuminóó.ÌÌÌÓÓWe€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€the€independent€policeÏcorroboration€sufficiently€established€the€informantððs€credibility,€and€the€affidavitÏin€this€case€was€sufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€probable€cause€justifyingÏissuance€of€the€search€warrant.ÌÌà@ àò òòòB.€General€Warrantóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€search€warrant€is€unconstitutionalÏbecause€it€failed€to€adequately€specify€the€items€to€be€located€during€the€searchÏof€the€premises.€€The€State€responds€that€the€search€warrant€adequatelyÏdelineated€the€items€for€which€a€search€had€been€authorized.€€We€agree.ÌÌà àUnder€the€Fourth€Amendment€a€search€warrant€must€contain€a€particularÍdescription€of€the€items€to€be€seized.€€òòSeeóó€òòœMarron›€v.€United€Statesóó,€275€U.S.€192,Ï48€œS.Ct›.€74,€72€œL.Ed›.€231€(1927).€€Likewise,€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€prohibits€general€warrants,€and,€in€addition,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103€(1997€Repl.),€specifically€requires€that€search€warrants€describe€theÏproperty€to€be€seized€with€particularity.€€òòSeeóó€òòLea€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó;€òòHampton€v.ÏStateóó,€148€Tenn.€155,€252€œS.W.›€1007€(1923).ÌÌà àThe€constitutional€prohibition€against€general€warrants€is€designed€to€limitÏgovernmental€intrusion€upon€a€citizenððs€privacy€and€property€rights€to€only€thatÏshown€to€the€magistrate€to€be€necessary€and€to€limit€the€discretion€of€the€officerÏconducting€the€search.€€òòœMarron›óó,€òòsupraóó;€Wayne€R.€œLaFave›,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó,€ððÏ4.6(a)€(œ3rd›€ed.€1996)(hereinafter€ð ðœLaFave›ðð).€€To€satisfy€the€particularityÏrequirement,€a€warrant€ð ðððmust€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertain€andÏidentify€the€things€which€are€authorized€to€be€seized.ðððð€òòState€v.€œMeeks›óó,€867ÏS.W.2d€361,€367€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Cookóó,€657ÏF.œ2d›€730,€733€(œ5th›€Cir.€1981).€€However,€as€this€Court€stated€in€òòLeaóó,ÌÓÓà8 à[œW]here›€the€purpose€of€the€search€is€to€find€specific€property,€itÍshould€be€so€particularly€described€as€to€preclude€the€possibility€ofÏseizing€any€other.€€òòOn€the€other€hand,€if€the€purpose€be€to€seize€notÏspecified€property,€but€any€property€of€a€specified€character€which,Ïby€reason€of€its€character,€and€of€the€place€where€and€theÏcircumstances€under€which€it€may€be€found,€if€found€at€all,€would€beÏillicit,€a€description,€save€as€to€such€character,€place€andÏcircumstances,€would€be€unnecessary,€and€ordinarily€impossible.óóÌÌ181€Tenn.€at€382„83,181€S.W.2d€at€352„53€(emphasis€added).€€€€ÌÓÓÌà àThe€warrant€issued€in€this€case€authorized€a€search€for€ð ðcrack€cocaine,Ïillegal€narcotics,€pictures,€records,€ledgers,€tapes€or€items€that€tend€toÏmemorialize€[sic]€drug€sales€and€proceeds€therefrom.ðð€€In€our€view,€the€warrantÏdescribes€the€character€of€the€property€subject€to€seizure€with€sufficientÏparticularity€ð ðto€enable€the€searcher€to€reasonably€ascertain€and€identify€theÏthings€which€are€authorized€to€be€seized.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòMelsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€at€353;ÏòòState€v.€Meadowsóó,€745€S.W.2d€886,€891€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€€Accordingly,Ïthe€warrant€is€not€unconstitutionally€general€and€the€defendantððs€claim€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òC.€Filing€of€the€Affidavitóóó óÌà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€warrant€was€invalid€because€theÏunderlying€affidavit€was€not€attached€to€nor€filed€with€the€warrant.€€We€disagree.€ÏWhile€an€affidavit€must€be€retained€in€order€to€ensure€subsequent€judicial€reviewÏof€the€probable€cause€determination,€there€is€no€statute€or€rule€in€TennesseeÏwhich€requires€an€affidavit€upon€which€a€search€warrant€is€issued€to€be€attachedÏor€otherwise€kept€with€the€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€836€S.W.2d€137,€141€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).€€Rule€41(c),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€contains€mandatory€recordingÏand€filing€requirements€for€warrants,€but€not€for€affidavits.€€The€affidavit€is€notÏconsidered€part€of€the€search€warrant€in€this€State€even€if€it€appears€on€the€sameÏprinted€form€as€the€warrant.€€òòœMinton›€v.€Stateóó,€186€Tenn.€541,€212€S.W.2d€373Ï(1948);€òòHamptonóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Therefore,€the€fact€that€the€affidavit€here€was€notÏattached€to€the€warrant€is€inconsequential.€€The€magistrate€maintained€a€copy€ofÏthe€affidavit€and€it€was€made€a€part€of€the€record€at€the€hearing€on€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€There€is€a€printed€reference€on€the€searchÏwarrant€to€the€affidavit€made€by€Capt.€Thomas€Coleman.€€The€affidavit€reflectsÏthat€it€was€sworn€to€before€the€general€sessions€court€judge€of€Madison€CountyÍon€October€21,€1993,€the€same€date€that€the€warrant€issued.€€This€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€8ÔÔ€8¼ÔIIÔ€8XÔÔ€:Ô.€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSó óóóÌò òòòà@ àA.€Appellate€Reviewóóó óÌà àEven€assuming€the€validity€of€the€search€warrant,€the€defendant€nextÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€because€theÏofficers€executing€the€warrant€failed€to€comply€with€the€federal€and€state€knockÏand€announce€requirement€before€entering€the€defendantððs€home.€€BeforeÏconsidering€the€merits€of€this€claim,€we€must€first€determine€whether€our€review€ofÏthis€issue€extends€to€the€entire€record€or€to€only€that€proof€offered€at€the€hearingÏon€the€motion€to€suppress.€€Ìà àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€commented€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€theÏonly€substantial€issue€raised€by€the€motion€to€suppress€was€the€sufficiency€of€theÏsearch€warrant€affidavit.€€Because€the€sufficiency€of€a€search€warrant€affidavit€isÏto€be€determined€from€the€allegations€contained€in€the€affidavit€alone,€the€StateÏoffered€no€proof€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Only€the€defendant€testified,€andÍœHenning›€said€that€Officer€Caldwell€did€not€ð ðknock€and€announce,ðð€but€simplyÏð ðbargedðð€into€his€home.€€However,€at€trial,€the€State€offered€the€testimony€ofÏOfficer€Caldwell€who€related€the€circumstances€of€the€defendantððs€arrest€and€theÏexecution€of€the€search€warrant,€which€have€been€previously€set€forth€herein.€ÏœHenning›€contends€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€by€considering€theÏproof€offered€by€the€State€at€trial€when€evaluating€the€correctness€of€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€on€the€motion€to€suppress.€According€to€the€defendant,€whenÏevaluating€a€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress,€an€appellateÏcourt€must€only€consider€the€evidence€that€was€before€the€trial€court€at€theÏhearing€on€the€motion.€€The€State,€in€contrast,€argues€that€in€conducting€itsÏreview,€an€appellate€court€may€and€should€consider€the€entire€record,€includingÏevidence€offered€at€trial.ÌÌà àIt€is€well„settled€in€this€State€that€courts€reviewing€a€magistrateððs€finding€ofÏprobable€cause€are€limited€to€the€allegations€contained€in€the€affidavit€supportingÏissuance€of€the€warrant.€€Indeed,€we€previously€have€reaffirmed€and€applied€thisÏrule€in€this€opinion.€€However,€our€research€has€revealed€no€Tennessee€decisionÍregarding€the€evidence€which€an€appellate€court€may€consider€when€reviewing€aÏpretrial€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress€that€does€not€relate€to€the€validity€of€aÏsearch€warrant.€€€While€this€is€a€question€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee,× ƒC ××  ×€otherÏjurisdictions€have€considered€the€question,€in€a€variety€of€contexts,€and€theÏmajority€rule€is€that€appellate€courts€may€consider€evidence€adduced€at€trial€inÏevaluating€the€correctness€of€a€pretrial€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress.€€This€ruleÏis€well€established€and€uniformly€followed€by€the€federal€courts.€€òòCarroll€v.€U.S.óó,Ï267€U.S.€132,€162,€45€œS.Ct›.€280,€288,€69€œL.Ed›.€543€(1925)€(warrantless€search);ÏòòU.S.€v.€œHan›óó,€74€F.œ3d›€537,€539€(œ4th›€Cir.€1996)€(warrantless€search);€òòU.S.€v.€Ricoóó,Ï51€F.œ3d›€495,€503„04€(œ5th›€Cir.€1995)€(warrantless€arrest);€òòU.S.€v.€œVillabona›„œGarnica›óó,€63€F.œ3d›€1051,€1056€(œ11th›€Cir.€1995)€(warrantless€entry);€òòU.S.€v.€œTrevino›óó,Ï60€F.œ3d›€333,€336€(œ7th›€Cir.€1995)€(warrantless€checkpoint€stop);€òòU.S.€v.€Martinóó,Ï982€F.œ2d›€1236,€1240€(œ8th›€Cir.€1993)€(warrantless€œpatdown›€search);€òòU.S.€v.ÏThomasóó,€875€F.œ2d›€559,€562,€n.2€(œ6th›€Cir.€1989)€(warrantless€seizure);€òòU.S.€v.€deÍJesus„œRios›óó,€990€F.œ2d›€672,€674,€n.€2€(œ1st›€Cir.€1993)€(pretrial€identification);€òòU.S.€v.ÏCorralóó,€970€F.œ2d›€719,€723€(œ10th›€Cir.€1992)€(investigatory€stop€and€warrantlessÏsearch);€òòWashington€v.€U.S.óó,€401€F.œ2d›€915,€920,€n.€19€(D.C.€Cir.€1968)Ï(warrantless€arrest);€òòœRocha›€v.€U.S.óó,€387€F.œ2d›€1019,€1020€(œ9th›€Cir.€1967)ÏÑ 4 Ñ(warrantless€arrest).ÌÌà àLikewise,€most€state€courts€addressing€the€issue,€again€in€a€variety€ofÏcontexts,€also€have€held€that€an€appellate€court€may€consider€the€entire€recordÏwhen€reviewing€the€correctness€of€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€pretrial€motion€toÏsuppress.€€òòState€v.€Randallóó,€385€P.œ2d›€709,€710€(Ariz.€1963)€(warrantless€arrest);ÏòòState€v.€œWhitaker›óó,€578€A.œ2d›€1031,€1033€(Conn.€1990)€(voluntariness€ofÏconfession);€òòPeople€v.€œGilliam›óó,€670€œN.E.2d›€606,€614€(Ill.€1996)€(voluntariness€ofÏstatement);€òòLamb€v.€Stateóó,€348€œN.E.2d›€1,€3€(Ind.€1976)€(voluntariness€ofÏstatement);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€542€œN.W.2d›€842,€844€(Iowa€1996)€(inventoryÏsearch);€òòState€v.€Chopinóó,€372€So.œ2d›€1222,€1224,€n.€2€€(La.€1979)€(investigatoryÏstop);€òòState€v.€Parkinsonóó,€389€A.œ2d›€1,€10€(Me.€1978)€(warrantless€arrest);€òòState€v.ÏSharpóó,€702€P.œ2d›€959,€961€(Mont.€1985)€(investigatory€stop);€òòState€v.€œHuffman›óó,Ï148€œN.W.2d›€321,€322€(Neb.€1967)€(warrantless€search);€òòState€v.€Martinezóó,€612ÍP.œ2d›€228,€231€(N.M.€1980)€(warrantless€arrest€and€search);€òòCommonwealth€v.ÏœChacko›óó,€459€A.œ2d›€311,€318,€n.€5€(Pa.€1983)€(voluntariness€of€statement);€òòState€v.ÏKeelingóó,€233€œN.W.2d›€586,€590,€n.2€(S.D.€1975)€(pretrial€identification);€òòState€v.ÏBrunoóó,€595€A.œ2d›€272,€273€(œVt›.€1991)€(investigatory€stop);€òòCarroll€v.€Stateóó,€938ÏP.œ2d›€848,€850€(Wyo.€1997)€(warrantless€arrest);€òòHenry€v.€Stateóó,€468€So.œ2d›€896,Ï899€(Ala.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(voluntariness€of€statement);€òòSayers€v.€Stateóó,€487ÏœS.E.2d›€437,€438€(Ga.€App.€1997)€(investigatory€stop);€òòState€v.€Kongóó,€883€P.œ2d›Ï686,€688€(Hawaii€œApp›.€1994)€(voluntariness€of€statement);€òòState€v.€œSims›óó,€952ÏS.W.2d€286,€290€(Mo.€App.€1997)€(pretrial€identification);€òòWoodson€v.ÏCommonwealthóó,€491€œS.E.2d›€743,€745€(Va.€App.€1997)€(warrantless€search).€òòButóóÏòòseeóó€òòcontraóó€òòTrusty€€v.€Stateóó,€521€A.œ2d›€749,€755€(Md.€1987)€(warrantless€arrest);ÏòòCommonwealth€v.€œDoulette›óó,€609€œN.E.2d›€473,€474€(Mass.€1993)€(warrantlessÏsearch);€òòPeople€v.€œKaigler›óó,€118€œN.W.2d›€406,€409€(Mich.€1962)€(warrantlessÏsearch);€òòState€v.€Buzzardóó,€461€œS.E.2d›€50,€58€(œW.Va›.€1995)€(warrantless€search);ÏòòPeople€v.€œBreault›óó,€273€Cal.€œRptr›.€110,€117€(œCal.App›.€4€œDist›.€1990)€(warrantlessÏsearch);€òòPeople€v.€œBraithwaite›óó,€568€œN.Y.S.2d›€135,€136€(œN.Y.A.D.›€2€Dept.€1991)Ï(investigatory€stop);€òòAlexander€v.€Stateóó,€305€P.œ2d›€572,€576€(Ok.€Crim.€App.€1956)Ï(voluntariness€of€statement);€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€840€S.W.2d€689,€691€(Tex.€App.Í1992)€(investigatory€stop);€òòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€œLaFave›,€ðð€11.7(d).× ƒD ××  ×ÌÌà àWe€previously€have€recognized€that€when€suppression€of€evidence€seizedÏpursuant€to€a€search€warrant€is€advocated,€the€burden€is€upon€the€accused€toÏprove€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence:€(1)€the€existence€of€a€legitimateÏexpectation€of€privacy€in€the€place€or€property€from€which€the€items€sought€to€beÏsuppressed€were€seized;€(2)€the€identity€of€the€items€sought€to€be€suppressed;Ïand€(3)€the€existence€of€a€constitutional€or€statutory€defect€in€the€search€warrantÏor€the€search€conducted€pursuant€to€the€warrant.€€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€815€S.W.2dÏ503,€505€(Tenn.€1991);€òòState€v.€Harmonóó,€775€S.W.2d€583,€585„86€(Tenn.€1989).€ÍConversely,€if€suppression€of€evidence€seized€without€a€warrant€is€sought,€theÏburden€is€upon€the€State€to€prove€that€the€search€and€seizure€was€conductedÏpursuant€to€one€of€the€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòIdóó.€€TheseÏprinciples€are€important€and€òòmustóó€guide€the€trial€courtððs€decision€upon€a€pretrialÏmotion€to€suppress.€€However,€in€our€view,€these€principles€do€not€require€anÏappellate€court,€or€a€trial€court€considering€a€motion€for€new€trial,€to€ignore€trialÏevidence€which€reinforces€or€negates€the€correctness€of€the€pretrial€ruling€on€theÏmotion.€€To€hold€otherwise€would€exalt€form€over€substance.ÌÌà àCertainly,€a€defendant€should€not€be€convicted€upon€evidence€that€wasÏseized€in€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendmentððs€protection€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures€simply€because€the€illegality€is€established€by€proofÏoffered€at€trial,€rather€than€proof€offered€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€Likewise,€ifÏproof€adduced€at€trial€establishes€a€lawful€search€or€seizure,€the€evidence€shouldÏnot€be€excluded€simply€because€the€proof€at€the€suppression€hearing€did€notÏestablish€its€legality.€€This€is€particularly€true€in€light€of€the€primary€purpose€of€theÏœexclusionary›€rule€which€is€to€deter€police€misconduct.€€òòState€v.€œHuddleston›óó,€924ÏS.W.2d€666,€676€(Tenn.€1996).€€Suppressing€evidence€òòlawfullyóó€seized€simplyÍbecause€the€legality€of€the€seizure€was€established€by€proof€introduced€at€trial,Ïrather€than€proof€introduced€at€the€suppression€hearing,€in€no€way€furthers€theÏpurpose€of€the€rule€and€could€perhaps€be€inimical€to€prudent€law€enforcementÏpractices.€€ÌÌà àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€are€to€ð ðbe€construed€toÏsecure€the€just,€speedy,€and€inexpensive€determination€of€every€proceeding€onÏits€merits.ðð€€Rule€1,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€To€that€end,€the€appellate€courts€of€this€StateÏareÑ€EÑÇauthorized€to€ð ðgrant€the€relief€on€the€law€and€facts€to€which€the€party€is€entitled€orÏthe€proceeding€otherwise€requires.€.€.€.ðð€€Rule€36(a),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€€In€our€view,Ïthese€rules€contemplate€that€allegations€of€error€should€be€evaluated€in€light€ofÏthe€entire€record.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€in€evaluating€the€correctness€of€a€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€on€a€pretrial€motion€to€suppress,€appellate€courts€may€consider€theÏproof€adduced€both€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€at€trial.ÌÌà àOur€holding€with€regard€to€the€evidence€which€may€be€considered€by€anÏappellate€court€does€not€modify€the€applicable€òòstandardóó€òòof€reviewóó,€which€weÏrecently€clarified€in€òòState€v.€œOdom›óó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€We€reiterateÏthat€an€appellate€court€should€uphold€a€trial€courtððs€decision€on€a€motion€toÏsuppress,€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€finding.€Ïð ðQuestions€of€credibility€of€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€andÏresolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€asÏthe€trier€of€fact.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€The€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€theÏstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence,€as€well€as€all€reasonable€andÏlegitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€the€evidence.€€òòIdóó.€€UponÏconsideration€of€the€entire€record€in€this€case,€we€conclude,€for€the€reasons€thatÍfollow,€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏthe€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌà@ àòòò òB.€Knock€and€Announceóóó óÌà àPursuant€to€constitutional€and€statutory€mandates,€before€an€officerÏexecuting€a€search€warrant€makes€a€forced€entry€into€an€occupied€residence,€theÏofficer€generally€must€knock€on€the€door€of€the€residence€and€announce€his€orÏher€€authority€and€purpose.€€òòWilson€v.€Arkansasóó,€514€U.S.€927,€115€œS.Ct›.€1914,Ï131€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€976€€(1995);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(e);€òòState€v.€Leeóó,€836€S.W.2d€126Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€To€comply€with€this€rule,€officers€generally€must€(a)Ïidentify€themselves€as€law€enforcement€officials€and€b)€explain€the€purpose€ofÏtheir€presence,€i.e.€the€execution€of€a€search€warrant.€€òòIdóó.€€If€the€officer€is€notÏadmitted€to€the€residence€after€giving€proper€notice,€the€officer€is€authorized€toÏð ðbreak€open€any€door€or€window€.€.€.,€or€any€part€thereof,€.€.€.€to€the€extent€that€it€isÏreasonably€necessary€to€execute€the€warrant€and€does€not€unnecessarilyÏdamage€the€property.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(e).€€This€long€standing€principleÏderives€from€the€common€law€which€generally€protected€€a€manððs€house€as€ð ðhisÏcastle€of€defense€and€asylum.ðð€€òòWilsonóó,€514€U.S.€at€931,€115€œS.Ct›.€at€1916.€€TheÍpurpose€of€the€ð ðknock€and€announceðð€rule€is€threefold.€€It€provides€protection€fromÏviolence,€both€to€the€occupants€of€the€residence€and€to€the€entering€lawÏenforcement€officers.€€Secondly,€it€protects€the€privacy€interest€that€is€inherent€inÏthe€home,€and€finally,€it€protects€against€the€needless€destruction€of€privateÏproperty.€€òòRichards€v.€Wisconsinóó,€__€U.S.€__,€117€œS.Ct›.€1416,€137€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€615Ï(1997);€€òòWilsonóó,€514€U.S.€at€930„32,€115€œS.Ct›.€at€1917;€òòLeeóó,€836€S.W.2d€at€128.Ìà àÌà àHowever,€the€knock€and€announce€requirement€is€not€absolute.€ÏCompliance€is€not€required€if€knocking€and€announcing€would€increase€theÏofficerððs€peril,€or€if€an€officer€executing€a€warrant€perceives€indications€of€flight€orÏindications€that€evidence€is€being€destroyed.€€òòœKer›€v.€Californiaóó,€374€U.S.€23,€83ÏœS.Ct›.€1623,€10€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€726€(1963);€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€789€S.W.2d€565€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990).€€These€are€exigencies€excusing€compliance.€€òòIdóó.€€Indeed,Ïrecently,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€specifically€held€that€law€enforcementÏofficials€executing€a€search€warrant€may€initiate€a€ð ðno„knockðð€entry,€if€they€have€aÏreasonable€suspicion€that€knocking€and€announcing€their€presence,€under€theÏparticular€circumstances€of€a€case€would€be€ð ðdangerous€or€futile,€or€that€it€wouldÏinhibit€the€effective€investigation€of€the€crime€by€.€.€.€allowing€the€destruction€ofÍevidence.ðð€€òòRichardsóó,€__€U.S.€__,€117€œS.Ct›.€at€1421„22.ÌÌà àApplying€these€guiding€principles€to€the€facts€of€this€case€we€agree€withÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€that€under€the€particular€circumstances€of€thisÏcase,€compliance€with€the€rule€was€not€required.€€Here,€Officer€Caldwell€testifiedÏthat€he€was€hiding€a€short€distance€away€and€observed€Henning€complete€a€drugÏtransaction€just€outside€his€home.€€After€calling€for€back€up€assistance,€OfficerÏCaldwell€decided€to€execute€the€search€warrant.€€When€he€stood€andÏapproached€the€defendant,€€Henning€fled€toward€his€residence,€and€CaldwellÏpursued€him,€stating€that€he€knew€it€would€be€difficult€to€ð ðkeep€up€with€where€theÏdrugs€were€going€to€be€.€.€.€if€they€got€in€the€house.€.€.€.ðð€€Caldwell€seized€HenningÏas€he€was€entering€his€residence,€and€they€fell€into€the€doorway€of€HenningððsÏresidence.€€Officer€Caldwell€then€announced€he€was€a€police€officer,€with€aÏsearch€warrant,€and€ordered€Henning€to€sit€on€the€couch.€€Henning€sat€down€andÏattempted€to€kick€crack€cocaine€under€the€sofa.€€Officer€Caldwell€recovered€theÏsubstance.€€These€circumstances€establish€both€that€the€defendant€fled€and€thatÏOfficer€Caldwell€reasonably€suspected€that€the€evidence€would€be€destroyed€ifÏhe€did€not€apprehend€œHenning›€before€he€retreated€inside€his€home.€€ConsideringÍthese€circumstances€the€officerððs€failure€to€formally€comply€with€the€ð ðknock€andÏannounceðð€rule€was€excused€in€this€case€by€the€exigencies€involved.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€defendantððs€warrantless€arrest€in€this€case€was€justified.€€AÏpolice€officer€may€make€a€warrantless€arrest€upon€probable€cause€that€a€felonyÏhas€been€committed.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„7„103(a)(4)€(1997€œRepl›.).€€€€ProbableÏcause€exists€if€the€facts€and€circumstances€within€the€officerððs€€knowledge€at€theÏtime€of€the€arrest,€and€of€which€the€officer€ð ðhad€reasonably€trustworthy€informationÏsufficient€to€warrant€a€prudent€man€in€believing€that€the€petitioner€had€committedÏor€was€committing€an€offense.ðð€€òòBeck€v.€Ohioóó,€379€U.S.€89,€91,€85€œS.Ct›.€223,€225,Ï13€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€142€(1964).€€While€warrantless€felony€arrests€inside€a€home€areÏgenerally€prohibited€by€the€Fourth€Amendment€absent€probable€cause€andÏexigent€circumstances,€€òòœPayton›€v.€New€Yorkóó,€445€U.S.€573,€583„590,€100€œS.Ct›.Ï1371,€1378,€1382,€63€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€639€(1980);€òòState€v.€Clarkóó,€844€S.W.2d€597,€599Ï(Tenn.€1992),€in€this€case,€both€probable€cause€and€exigent€circumstancesÏsupported€the€warrantless€arrest.€€Probable€cause€arose€from€the€confidentialÏinformantððs€tip,€significant€first„hand€corroboration€of€the€tip€by€Officer€Caldwell,Ïand€Officer€Caldwellððs€up„close€observation€of€the€last€of€what€appeared€to€beÍcocaine€sales.€€Exigent€circumstances€arose€when€the€defendant€fled€uponÏOfficer€Caldwellððs€approach.€€òòSeeóó€òòU.S.€v.€œSantana›óó,€427€U.S.€38,€42„43,€96€œS.Ct›.Ï2406,€2409„10,€49€œL.Ed›.œ2d›€300€(1976)€(hot€pursuit€of€a€fleeing€felon€justifiedÏwarrantless€arrest€inside€home).€€The€record€demonstrates€that€both€theÏexecution€of€the€search€warrant€and€the€warrantless€arrest€in€this€case€wereÏconstitutionally€sound.€€Accordingly,€after€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€thatÏthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€theÏdefendantððs€motion€to€suppress.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àFor€the€reasons€previously€stated,€we€conclude€that€€the€search€warrant€inÏthis€case€was€supported€by€probable€cause€and€was€free€from€other€€defects.€ÏMoreover,€upon€consideration€of€the€evidence€in€this€record,€we€have€alsoÏdetermined€that€the€trial€court€appropriately€denied€the€defendantððs€pretrialÏmotion€to€suppress.€€Accordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏupholding€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€and€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àWe€also€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€all€otherÏrespects€and€accordingly€remand€this€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€œresentencing›Ïbecause€of€a€conflict€between€the€bench€ruling€and€the€€judgment€as€to€theÏapplicable€sentencing€range.€€In€imposing€the€appropriate€sentence,€the€trialÏcourt€should€consider€the€terms€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106,€make€anyÏfactual€determinations€necessary,€and€specify€the€applicable€sentencing€range.ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœÌÌÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€œDROWOTA›,€III,Ìà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÓÓÌÌÓÓò òœ›Concur:ó óÌAnderson,€œC.J.,€and€Holder,€J.›ÌœÌSeparate€Concurring€Opinion€By:ÌBirch,€J.€and€Reid,€Sp.€J.ÌÌÌÌ