ÿWPC‘- UËi¿¶³g{Í î +´p#åeRu'½ïÚ<·mÏb3Ñìn`7läù+>ŽÆŸ/zø£«ÿ9Á­)˜¿Ä± M:îÈ™@Ùçˆé¯Ç=m¶h[sft›ZØBêÐï`ÅS–%©åãvP, i”pGH‚xƒ'µß1íöÊ„¿TÅ„#w•ÿÊò¡y„Ü ](\Š2Ðñœ£t™¿Û,W£Ç{tAP:'-5°w±Î°&ÐBx{¶:ßLF'IÓÛÈ Ûýü4ïé[]tjCÐA‹ÂÙÀœ^B-’kþW´5f®°8x¢öu~ÃE'3ˆÑ:Î×bëtÙÎé/5Øde”¼~;^ú˜Ñ¬!“e¹**Z·¯üó 25ÒÂt¿ Ø3†…¢R"‡Š8#´•\o>0Õ–TâÛ7X»„Wcäˆ'ü%ç³*´øÇuö,Ê‘.&ÑΊ‘L㾋BgÂ#JLx¿²QéØš+´¿ey¢¦Hw¦¶yU$þ l®¿ÖG¸ -¸ 7öt‘’2uÌ®†ˆ¾Kô…§¦/, Ù÷©Ú]1÷÷ÿc8|Šïc>*£ÂŒ€ Ý ƒ t $ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ôÚöôXXÔÔ€2ôUÈôôôÚöÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAt€the€time€of€the€decision€in€òòAdamsóó,€the€two„pronged€veracity€and€basis€of€knowledge€testÐ ,  Ðwas€the€standard€employed€by€federal€courts€to€analyze€the€reliability€of€an€informantððs€tip.€€TheÏfederal€courts€did€not€adopt€the€ð ðtotality€of€the€circumstancesðð€test€until€1983.€€òòSeeóó€òòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,Ð ¨ | Ð462€U.S.€213,€102€S.Ct.€2317,€76€L.Ed.2d€527€(1983).€€üÿP Pd Ý ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€*Xí XXXÔÔ€*rL  X*Xí ÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€*Xí X *rLÔÐ  ÐÌò òSeptember€28,€1998Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€*ôå€ô X*Xí ÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,,,,'ÿÿdxd,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d Ñ 4 Ñ Ý ƒ t $ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ôÚöôXXÔÔ€2ôUÈôôôÚöÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôÈ ôô2ôUÈÔThat€statutory€provision€specifies€that€ð ð[t]he€magistrate,€before€issuing€the€warrant,€shallÐ 4 Ðexamine€on€oath€the€complainant€and€any€witness€the€complainant€may€produce,€and€take€theirÏaffidavits€in€writing,€and€cause€them€to€be€subscribed€by€the€persons€making€them.€€The€affidavitsÏmust€set€forth€facts€tending€to€establish€the€grounds€of€the€application€or€probable€cause€forÏbelieving€that€they€exist.ððÔ#†2ôUÈô ôôÈ#Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ×Ý ƒ t $ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ôÚöôXXÔÔ€2ôUÈôôôÚöÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€following€jurisdictions€have€held€the€omission€of€a€jurat€to€be€fatal€to€the€validity€of€anÐ 4 Ðaffidavit.€€We€note€that€in€these€jurisdictions,€Ô‡ôUÈôô2ôUÈÔeither€the€state€constitution€or€a€statutory€provisionÐ ò¾ Ðexplicitly€required€that€an€affidavit€contain€the€signature€of€the€officer€administering€the€oath.Ô#†2ôUÈôôôUÈC#ÔÐ ° | ÐòòCommonwealth€v.€Dozieróó,€366€N.E.2d€1270€(Mass.€App.€1977);€òòCommonwealth€v.€McAfeeóó,€326Ð n : ÐA.2d€522€(Penn.€1974);€òòElam€v.€Yale€Clinicóó,€783€S.W.2d€638,€(Tex.€App.€1989).€Though€noneÐ , ø Ðinvolve€an€affidavit€given€in€support€of€a€search€warrant,€the€following€state€courts€have€held,€in€theÏabsence€of€a€statutory€provision,€that€a€valid€affidavit€requires€a€completed€jurat.€€òòEx€Parte€FinanceÐ ¨ t ÐAmerica€Corp.óó,€507€So.2d€458€(Ala.€1987);€òòPhoebe€Putney€Mem.€Hosp.€v.€Skipperóó,€487€S.E.2d€1Ð f 2 Ð(Ga.€App.€1997);€òòHough€v.€Weberóó,€560€N.E.2d€5€(Ill.€App.€1990).€ \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ ³Ý ƒ t $ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àÔ€ôÚöôXXÔÔ€2ôUÈôôôÚöÔòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ‡ôÈ ôô2ôUÈÔIn€pertinent€part€the€Rule€specifies€that€ð ð[a]€warrant€shall€issue€only€on€an€affidavit€orÐ 4 Ðaffidavits€sworn€to€before€the€magistrate€and€establishing€the€grounds€of€issuing€the€warrant.ððÔ#†2ôUÈô ôôÈ#ÔÝ ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  ݛѰÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ŒSXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÖ€ÿÿÖÑ€ †ÑÑ€OaÑÔ€XPOXXXÔÑ€8†ÑÑ€©>ÑÑ€-JÑÑ 0XÑÑ  Ñò òÑ€LÑÑ€ŸW ÑÓ=€ÕQXÐXdÐd=Óœñ³Xññ³Xññ³Xññ§Xñœñ§Xñßr€()<,(j 8` `€€@E» ` ttx$óð Õrßñ³Xññ§Xññ§Xñ›à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà@Ø Ø ÌàIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@BB)ÌàAT€JACKSONó óˆÐ øð ÐÌœÌÌÓ'€Ð‚XN ˆ—X°œX'ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à(à è àòòò òFOR€PUBLICATIONóóà H! àó óÐ ¸ ° Ðñ³Xññ³Xñà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(Ì€€€€€Appellee,à N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(à è àò òFiled:ó óñ Xñ€ñ Xññ¡Xññ XñDrñ Xññ¡Xññ£Xññ¢XñSeptemberñ¢Xññ£Xññ£XñSeptemberñ£Xññ¢Xñ€ñ¢Xññ¤Xñ2ñ¤Xññ¥Xñ8ñ¥Xññ¦Xññ¤Xñ9ñ¤Xññ¦Xññ¤Xñ,€1998ñ¤XñÐ ˜  Ðà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(€€à è àÐ ˆ€ Ðñ³Xññ³Xñà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(Ìv.à N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(à è àMadison€Circuit›Ð h`  Ðà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(Ìñ³Xñœßt€()>.*jx-Ä` `€€@Eå ` ttx$H ˜ tß›ñ³Xñà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(€€à è àHon.€Whit€œLaFon›,Ð H@  МDENNIS€KEITH€and›,à à àà 8 àà  à(à è àJudge€€à ˜ àÐ 80  МTIMOTHY€COLLINS›à à àà 8 àà  àœ(Ð (  Ðà N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(Ì›€€€€€œAppellants.›à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à(à è àNo.€œ02S01„9604„CC„00035›Ð  ÐÌòòÌÌÌò òFor€State„Appelleeóó:à à àà 8 àà  àà è àòòFor€œDefendants„Appellantsó óóó:›Ð ¸° ÐÌJohn€Knox€Walkupà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àœJoe€H.€Byrd,€Jr.›Ð ˜ ÐAttorney€General€&€Reporterà 8 àà  àà è àœJackson,€TennesseeÐ ˆ€ ÐÌMichael€E.€MooreÌSolicitor€GeneralÌÌElizabeth€T.€RyanÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌJames€G.€Woodall›ÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌTwenty„Sixth€Judicial€DistrictÌJackson,€TennesseeÌÌœNick€NicolaÌAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌJackson,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌÌÌà@(Ìàòòò òÔ‡¼΄¼XXPOÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XPOX¼¼΄t #Ôóóó óˆÐ (2 +. ÐÌÌÌÌñ§XñÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, ÑÑ  ÑÑ©>ÑÑ ` ÑÑ , ÑÑ  Ññ§XñAFFIRMED.à N àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àDROWOTA›,€J.Ð  þ6ö/3 ÐÑ©>ÑÑ` °ÑÑ, ÑÑ  ÑÓÓÓ0°,X‚X¸ —X€Ð‚XN ˆ—X0Óà Ø àWe€granted€this€œappeal›€œto›€consider€two€œissues:€›1)€whetherœ€the€investigativeÏautomobile€stop€in€this€case€was€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€byÏspecific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€crime€was€being€committed;€and€2)€whetherÏthe€search€warrant€in€this€case€is€invalid€because€the€issuing€judge€failed€toÏcomplete€the€jurat€attesting€that€the€affidavit€in€support€of€issuance€of€the€warrantÏwas€executed€under€oath€by€the€affiant.ÌÌà Ø àUpon€careful€consideration,€we€agree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏthat€the€investigative€automobile€stop€was€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion€andÏtherefore€constitutionally€permissible.€€We€have€also€determined€that€although€it€isÏpreferable€that€every€affidavit€contain€a€completed€jurat,€the€omission€of,€or€defectÏin,€the€jurat€does€not€affect€the€validity€of€a€warrant€issued€upon€probable€causeÏwhen€it€is€proven€by€extrinsic€evidence€that€the€supporting€affidavit€was€properlyÏsworn€by€the€affiant.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€which€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€defendantððs€motion€toÏsuppress.€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÌà@ýý%Ìàò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóó óˆÐ ì+À!$ Ðà Ø àOn€September€9,€1993,€Investigator€Danny€Mullikin€of€the€Drug€Task€ForceÏof€the€26th€Judicial€District,€received€information€from€a€confidential€informant€thatÏthe€defendants,€Dennis€Keith€and€Timothy€Collins€were€storing€illegal€drugs€inÐ Œ1`'* Ðtheir€home€located€at€225€Hollywood€in€the€City€of€Jackson.€€The€informant€alsoÐ Ì2 (, Ðprovided€a€physical€description€of€the€defendants.€€This€confidential€informantÏpreviously€had€supplied€the€Task€Force€with€reliable€information€which€hadÏresulted€in€five€separate€arrests€for€narcotic„related€offenses€and€the€seizure€ofÏcontraband.€€Responding€to€this€information,€Investigator€Mullikin€initiatedÏsurveillance€of€the€residence€located€at€225€Hollywood,€and€on€one€occasion,€heÏobserved€a€red€Honda€CRX€vehicle€parked€outside€the€residence.ÌÌà Ø àApproximately€three€days€after€receiving€the€information€from€theÏconfidential€informant,€on€the€evening€of€September€12,€1993,€Investigator€MullikinÏreceived€a€telephone€call€from€an€anonymous€informant€who€also€related€that€theÏresidents€of€the€house€located€at€225€Hollywood€were€involved€in€the€possessionÏand€sale€of€illegal€drugs.€€The€informant€claimed€to€have€observed€illegal€drugsÏinside€the€residence€within€four€days€of€the€call.€€The€informant€further€claimedÏthat€shortly€before€placing€the€call€he€observed€marijuana€in€a€red€Honda€CRXÏvehicle€which€was€parked€outside€the€residence€and€saw€both€suspects€present€atÏthe€residence.€€The€anonymous€informant€supplied€defendant€Collinsðð€name€asÏthe€owner€of€the€Honda€and€also€provided€a€physical€description€of€bothÏdefendants€which€matched€the€descriptions€previously€given€by€the€confidentialÏinformant.€€Finally,€the€anonymous€informant€said€the€defendants€worked€duringÏthe€day€but€used€the€Honda€to€sell€and€deliver€illegal€drugs€late€at€night.ÌÐ Œ1`'* ÐÑ8†ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñà Ø àLess€than€one€hour€after€receiving€the€phone€call€from€the€anonymousÐ ,  Ðinformant,€Investigator€Mullikin€and€another€officer€again€set€up€surveillance€nearÏthe€defendantsðð€residence.€€They€observed€the€red€Honda€vehicle€at€theÏresidence,€and€approximately€five€minutes€after€the€officers€arrived,€twoÏindividuals€matching€the€physical€descriptions€given€by€both€informants€came€outÏof€the€residence€and€entered€the€automobile.€€When€the€vehicle€left€the€drivewayÏand€traveled€north€on€Hollywood,€the€officers€followed€and€stopped€itÏapproximately€one„fourth€of€a€mile€from€the€residence.ÌÌà Ø àDefendant€Collins€was€driving€the€automobile€and€Keith€was€the€passenger.ÏAfter€confirming€that€Collins€owned€the€car,€Investigator€Mullikin€obtainedÏpermission€from€Collins€to€search€the€vehicle.€€During€the€search,€the€officersÏdiscovered€a€small€amount€of€marijuana€and€two€Lorazepam€tablets,€a€ScheduleÏIV€controlled€substance.€€Collins€said€the€Lorazepam€tablets€had€been€given€toÏhim€by€a€female€friend€and€admitted€that€he€did€not€have€a€prescription€for€theÏdrugs.ÌÌà Ø àThe€officers€placed€Collins€and€Keith€under€arrest€and€then€sought€aÏwarrant€to€search€the€residence.€€Investigator€Mullikin€provided€an€affidavit€inÏsupport€of€issuance€of€the€search€warrant,€and€in€it€he€recounted€the€fact€thatÏillegal€drugs€had€been€found€in€the€defendantsðð€vehicle€during€the€investigativeÏstop.€€A€search€warrant€was€issued€by€Walter€Drake,€Municipal€Court€Judge€of€theÐ Œ1`'* ÐCity€of€Jackson.€€The€officers€executed€the€search€warrant€and€seized€from€theÏresidence€several€pounds€of€marijuana,€marijuana€seed,€Xanax,€LSD,€severalÏother€pills,€and€drug€paraphernalia.€ÌÌà Ø àAs€a€result€of€the€search,€the€defendants€were€charged€by€indictment€withÏpossession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€possession€of€Schedule€IVÏcontrolled€substances€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€and€possession€of€drugÏparaphernalia.€The€defendants€moved€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€during€theÏsearch€of€the€Honda€automobile€and€during€the€search€of€their€residence.€€TheyÏargued€that€their€constitutional€rights€under€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€and€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€hadÏbeen€violated€because€the€officers€lacked€reasonable€suspicion€to€initiate€theÏinvestigative€stop€of€their€automobile.€€The€defendants€also€argued€that€theÏevidence€seized€during€the€search€of€their€residence€should€be€suppressed€asÏð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€because€a€portion€of€the€information€contained€in€theÏaffidavit€supporting€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€was€derived€from€the€illegalÏinvestigative€stop.ÌÌà Ø àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€judge€found€the€investigative€stop€of€theÏdefendantsðð€automobile€constitutionally€invalid€and,€therefore,€granted€the€motionsÏto€suppress€the€evidence€seized€during€the€search€of€the€vehicle€and€during€theÏsearch€of€the€defendantsðð€residence.€€The€State€sought€and€obtained€anÐ Œ1`'* Ðinterlocutory€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€decision.€€Finding€that€the€evidence€inÏthe€record€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€conclusion€that€the€anonymousÏtip€was€not€sufficiently€reliable€to€establish€reasonable€suscipion€to€support€theÏinvestigative€stop€of€the€defendantsðð€vehicle,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏreversed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€and€remanded€for€further€proceedings.€ÏThereafter,€the€defendants€filed€a€joint€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€thisÏCourt,€arguing€first€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€concluding€that€theÏevidence€preponderated€against€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€and€second,€that€theÏsearch€of€the€defendantsðð€residence€was€constitutionally€invalid€because€theÏaffidavit€supporting€issuance€of€the€search€warrant€does€not€contain€a€writtenÏcertificate€of€the€issuing€judge€attesting€that€the€affidavit€had€been€sworn.€€WeÏgranted€the€defendantsðð€application€for€permission€to€appeal€and,€for€the€reasons,Ïhereafter€explained,€now€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà@NN%Ìàò òòòSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWˆÐ l$@ Ðóóó óà Ø àWhen€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€suppress,€€ð ð[q]uestionsÐ L&  Ðof€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolutionÏof€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€ofÏfact.ðð€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€We€afford€to€the€partyÐ ì+À!$ Ðprevailing€in€the€trial€court€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€allÏreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€TheÏfindings€of€a€trial€court€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÐ Œ1`'* Ðpreponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòIdóó.€€The€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ ,  Ðfound€by€the€trial€court,€however,€is€a€question€of€law€which€this€Court€reviews€òòdeóóÐ  à Ðòònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997).Ð ì À Ðòòò òÌÌà@ÍÍ$ÌàREASONABLE€SUSPICIONóóˆÐ Œ`  Ðòòó óà Ø àóóIn€this€Court,€the€defendants€initially€contend€that€the€investigativeÐ l@  Ðautomobile€stop€was€unconstitutional€because€the€anonymous€informantððs€tip€didÏnot€demonstrate€the€informantððs€veracity€or€basis€of€knowledge€as€required€by€thisÏCourtððs€decisions€in€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989)€and€òòState€v.Ð  à ÐPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29€(Tenn.€1993).€€The€State€responds€that€the€investigativeÐ ìÀ Ðstop€in€this€case€was€constitutionally€permissible,€considering€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€including€the€information€which€previously€had€been€provided€byÏthe€confidential€informant€and€the€independent€police€corroboration,€because€theÏlaw€enforcement€officers€had€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€andÏarticulable€facts,€to€believe€that€the€defendants€were€committing€a€crime.ÌÌâ âà Ø àBoth€the€Fourth€Amendment€×ƒ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€ArticleÐ  *à" ÐI,€Section€7׃!×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€prohibit€unreasonable€searches€andÐ ,  Ðâ âseizures€and€direct€that€search€warrants€be€issued€upon€probable€cause.€€TheseÏconstitutional€provisions€are€designed€to€ð ðsafeguard€the€privacy€and€security€ofÏindividuals€against€arbitrary€invasions€of€government€officials.ðð€€òòCamara€v.Ð Ì  ÐMunicipal€Courtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€528,€87€S.Ct.€1727,€1730,€18€L.Ed.2d€930€(1967);Ð ¬€ Ðòòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Downeyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,€106€(Tenn.€1997);€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,Ð Œ`  Ð221€Tenn.€6,€13,€423€S.W.2d€857,€860€(1968).€€ÌÌà Ø àAccordingly,€under€both€the€federal€and€state€constitutions,€warrantlessÏsearches€and€seizures€such€as€the€investigative€automobile€stop€which€occurredÏin€this€case€are€presumed€to€be€unreasonable.€€Evidence€discovered€as€a€resultÏthereof€is€subject€to€suppression€unless€the€prosecution€demonstrates€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€search€or€seizure€was€conductedÏpursuant€to€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517Ð Œ"` ÐU.S.€806,€116€S.Ct.€1769,€1772,€135€L.Ed.2d€89€(1996);€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440Ð l$@ ÐU.S.€648,€654,€99€S.Ct.€1391,€1396,€59€L.Ed.2d€660€(1979);€òòCoolidge€v.€NewÐ L&  ÐHampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454„55,€91€S.Ct.€2022,€2032,€29€L.Ed.2d€564€(1971);Ð ,(  ÐòòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€630;€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.Ð  *à" Ð1992).€Ð ì+À!$ ÐÑL ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ñà Ø àOne€such€exception€was€announced€in€the€landmark€case€of€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,Ð ,  Ð392€U.S.€1,€21,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1880,€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968),€in€which€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€law€enforcement€officer€may€temporarily€seize€aÏcitizen€if€the€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€upon€specific€andÏarticulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been,€is€being,€or€is€about€to€beÏcommitted.€€An€investigative€stop€of€an€automobile€is€also€constitutional€if€lawÏenforcement€officials€have€a€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€andÏarticulable€facts,€that€the€occupants€of€the€vehicle€have€committed,€areÏcommitting,€or€are€about€to€commit€a€criminal€offense.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cortezóó,Ð , Ð449€U.S.€411,€417,€101€S.Ct.€690,€694,€66€L.Ed.2d€621€(1981);€òòProuseóó,€440€U.S.Ð  à Ðat€663,€99€S.Ct.€at€1401;€òòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€631;€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€294.€Ð ìÀ ÐMoreover,€the€facts€forming€the€basis€of€an€officerððs€reasonable€suspicion€needÏnot€rest€upon€the€personal€knowledge€or€observation€of€the€officer.€€Indeed,€inÏòòAdams€v.€Williamsóó,€407€U.S.€143,€147,€92€S.Ct.€1921,€1924,€32€L.Ed.2d€612Ð Œ"` Ð(1972),€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€rejected€the€argument€ð ðthat€reasonableÏcause€for€a€stop€and€frisk€can€only€be€based€on€the€officerððs€personalÏobservationðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€sustained€a€òòTerryóó€investigative€stop€and€frisk€undertaken€on€theÐ ,(  Ðbasis€of€a€tip€given€to€the€officer€by€a€known€informant€who€had€provided€reliableÏinformation€in€the€past.€€òòIdóó.€407€U.S.€at€147,€92€S.Ct.€at€1924.׃&N×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рì+À!$ ÐÐ Ì- #& ÐÑŸW ÑÑ` ÑÑ  Ñà Ø àThis€Court€also€has€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€investigative€stops€ofÏmotor€vehicles€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion,€and€we€have€approved€suchÏstops€even€though€the€specific€and€articuable€facts€establishing€the€reasonableÏsuspicion€were€derived€from€anonymous€tips.€€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€781Ð Ì  Ð(Tenn.€1998);€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€29.€€However,€when€law€enforcement€officialsÐ ¬€ Ðinitiate€an€investigative€stop€as€a€result€of€information€provided€by€an€anonymousÏinformant,€Tennessee€law€requires€some€showing€of€both€the€informantððs€veracityÏor€credibility€and€his€or€her€basis€of€knowledge.€€òòIdóó.;€òòcompareóó€òòJacuminóó,€778Ð L  ÐS.W.2d€at€436€(discussing€the€showing€required€when€an€anonymous€informantððsÏtip€is€relied€upon€to€establish€probable€cause€for€issuance€of€a€warrant).€€WhileÏindependent€police€corroboration€may€be€relied€upon€to€make€up€deficiencies,Ïð ðeach€prong€represents€an€independently€important€consideration€that€must€beÏseparately€considered€and€satisfied€in€some€way.ðð€€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€781;Ð ¬ € ÐòòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31.Ð Œ"` ÐÌà Ø àWe€have€recognized,€however,€that€ÌÓÓà8 Ø à[r]easonable€suspicion€is€a€less€demanding€standard€than€probableÏcause€not€only€in€the€sense€that€reasonable€suspicion€can€beÏestablished€with€information€that€is€different€in€quantity€or€contentÏthan€that€required€to€establish€probable€cause,€òòbut€also€in€the€senseÐ ü*Ð # Ðthat€reasonable€suspicion€can€arise€from€information€that€is€lessÏreliable€than€that€required€to€show€probable€cause.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ"FÓÌPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€32,€quoting€òòAlabama€v.€Whiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110€S.Ct.Ð ¬/€%( Ð2412,€2416,€110€L.Ed.2d€301€(1990)€(emphasis€added).€€As€a€result,€the€two„Ð Œ1`'* Ðpronged€test€of€reliability€is€not€as€strictly€applied€if€the€anonymous€informantððs€tipÏis€being€used€to€establish€reasonable€suspicion€for€an€investigative€stop€ratherÏthan€probable€cause€for€a€search€or€seizure.€€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€782.€€InÐ ì À Ðevaluating€the€reliability€of€an€anonymous€informantððs€tip,€the€circumstances€underÏwhich€a€tip€is€given€are€important€and€may€sufficiently€relate€the€informantððs€basisÏof€knowledge,€even€in€the€absence€of€an€explicit€statement€by€the€informant.€òòId.óó€Ð Œ`  ÐFor€example,€if€an€informant€reports€an€incident€at€or€near€the€time€of€itsÏoccurrence,€ð ða€court€can€often€assume€that€the€report€is€first„hand,€and€henceÏreliable.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€addition,€if€a€tip€is€contemporaneously€corroborated€by€police,€it€isÐ , Ðreasonable€to€infer€eyewitness€reliability€of€the€informant.€€òòIdóó.€€Police€corroborationÐ  à Ðof€several€aspects€of€an€informantððs€report€may€also€satisfy€unknowns€about€anÏinformantððs€credibility.€€òòIdóó.€€Establishing€that€an€anonymous€informantððs€data€isÐ Ì  Ðreliable€may€also€satisfy€the€credibility€prong.€€òòState€v.€Ballardóó,€836€S.W.2d€560,Ð ¬ € Ð562€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà Ø àConsidering€the€information€provided€by€the€anonymous€informant€in€thisÏcase€in€light€of€these€well„settled€principles€of€law,€we€conclude€that€the€proof€inÏthis€record€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€veracity€andÏreliability€of€the€tip€were€not€sufficiently€established.€€The€anonymous€informantÏprovided€law€enforcement€officials€with€the€name€of€one€of€the€defendants,€aÏphysical€description€of€both€defendants,€a€description€of€the€vehicle€which€theyÏallegedly€were€using€in€drug€transactions,€a€description€of€their€schedule,€and€theÐ Œ1`'* Ðlocation€of€the€defendantsðð€residence€in€which€illegal€drugs€were€being€stored.€€InÏaddition,€the€anonymous€informant€told€officers€that€the€two€suspects€and€theÏvehicle€were€then€present€at€the€house€located€at€225€Hollywood.€€Finally,€theÏanonymous€informant€claimed€to€have€observed€marijuana€inside€the€vehicleÏshortly€before€placing€the€call€and€also€claimed€to€have€observed€illegal€drugsÏinside€the€house€within€the€previous€four€days.ÌÌà Ø àSome€of€the€information€provided€by€the€anonymous€informant€wasÏimmediately€corroborated€by€the€information€previously€provided€by€theÏconfidential€informant,€including€the€location€of€the€residence,€the€physicalÏdescription€of€the€defendants,€and€the€presence€of€illegal€drugs€inside€theÏresidence€within€the€previous€days.€€In€addition,€the€officers€themselves€previouslyÏhad€observed€at€225€Hollywood€a€vehicle€matching€the€description€given€by€theÏanonymous€informant.ÌÌà Ø àOther€details€were€corroborated€when€the€officers€arrived€at€the€sceneÏwithin€an€hour€of€the€tip.€€For€example,€as€claimed€by€the€informant,€both€theÏvehicle€and€two€individuals€matching€the€descriptions€given€by€both€of€theÏinformants€were€present€at€the€residence€when€police€arrived.€€In€addition,€policeÏobserved€the€suspects€leave€the€house€in€the€Honda€late€in€the€evening,€whichÏwas€behavior€consistent€with€the€pattern€of€operation€described€by€the€anonymousÏinformant.€€As€previously€stated,€if€a€tip€is€contemporaneously€corroborated€byÐ Œ1`'* Ðpolice,€it€is€reasonable€to€infer€the€first„hand,€eyewitness€reliability€of€theÏinformant.€€In€our€view,€the€circumstances€under€which€the€tip€was€given,€and€theÏpolice€corroboration€of€several€key€aspects€of€the€tip€sufficiently€satisfy€the€two„¼pronged€test€of€reliability.ÌÌà Ø àAs€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€recently€has€recognized,€ÌÓÓà8 Ø à[a]rticulating€precisely€what€ððreasonable€suspicionðð€and€ððprobableÏcauseðð€mean€is€not€possible.€€They€are€common€sense,€nontechnicalÏconceptions€that€deal€with€the€factual€and€practical€considerations€ofÏeveryday€life€on€which€reasonable€and€prudent€men,€not€legalÏtechnicians,€act.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓkWÓÌòòOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€690,€699,€116€S.Ct.€1657,€1661,€134€L.Ed.2dÐ üÐ Ð911€(1996).€€In€evaluating€whether€a€police€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,Ïsupported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€a€court€must€consider€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances.€òòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€632;€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294;€òòCortezóó,Ð œ!p Ð449€U.S.€at€417,€101€S.Ct.€at€695.€€Circumstances€relevant€to€the€evaluationÏinclude,€but€are€not€limited€to,€the€officerððs€personal€objective€observations,Ïinformation€obtained€from€other€police€officers€or€agencies,€information€obtainedÏfrom€citizens,€and€the€pattern€of€operation€of€certain€offenders.€€A€court€must€alsoÏconsider€the€rational€inferences€and€deductions€that€a€trained€officer€may€drawÏfrom€the€facts€and€circumstances€known€to€him„„inferences€and€deductions€thatÏmight€well€elude€an€untrained€person.€€òòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€632;€òòWatkinsóó,€827Ð ¼.$' ÐS.W.2d€at€294;€òòCortezóó,€449€U.S.€at€418,€101€S.Ct.€at€695;€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€21,Ð œ0p&) Ð88€S.Ct.€at€1880.€€Finally,€the€content,€quality,€and€quantity€of€informationÐ |2P(+ Ðpossessed€by€police€must€be€assessed€in€determining€whether€it€is€sufficientlyÏreliable€to€support€a€finding€of€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòIdóó.Ð  à ÐÓÓÌà8 Ø àThe€officer,€of€course,€must€be€able€to€articulate€something€moreÏthan€an€inchoate€and€unparticularized€suspicion€or€hunch.€€TheÏFourth€Amendment€requires€some€minimal€level€of€objectiveÏjustification€for€making€the€stop.€€That€level€of€suspicion€isÏconsiderably€less€than€proof€of€wrongdoing€by€a€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÓ0^ÓÌòòSokolowóó,€490€U.S.€at€7„8,€109€S.Ct.€at€1585€(internal€citations€and€quotationsÐ \0  Ðomitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€632.Ð < ÐÓÓà8 Ø àÓƒ`ÓÐ Ø À!Ø À! Ðà Ø àConsidering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€in€this€case,€including€theÏpersonal€observations€of€the€officers,€the€information€provided€by€the€confidentialÏinformant,€and€the€information€provided€by€the€anonymous€informant,€we€concludeÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€and€insteadÏdemonstrates€that€the€officers€had€a€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specificÏand€articulable€facts,€that€the€defendants€were€committing€or€about€to€commit€aÏcriminal€offense.€€ÌÌòòò òà@¤ ¤ ÌàVALIDITY€OF€AFFIDAVIT€SUPPORTING€SEARCH€WARRANTó óóóˆÐ ü*Ð # Ðà Ø àHaving€determined€that€the€investigative€automobile€stop€wasÏconstitutionally€valid,€we€must€next€consider€the€defendantsðð€contention€that€theÏevidence€seized€from€the€residence€pursuant€to€the€warrant€should€be€suppressedÏbecause€the€judge€failed€to€sign€the€jurat€attesting€that€the€affidavit€was€executedÐ |2P(+ ÐÑ-JÑÑ4, ÑÑ  ÑñžXñÑ-JÑÑ4, ÑÑ  ÑñžXñunder€oath.€€This€is€an€issue€of€first€impression€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà Ø àA€brief€summary€of€the€relevant€facts€is€necessary€to€place€this€issue€inÏcontext.€€Since€the€trial€court€in€this€case€suppressed€the€evidence€seizedÏpursuant€to€the€warrant€as€ð ðfruit€of€the€poisonous€treeðð€upon€finding€the€initialÏinvestigative€stop€invalid,€the€defendants€did€not€seek€to€have€the€warrant€itselfÏdeclared€invalid€in€the€trial€court.€€While€the€defendants€mentioned€the€issue€inÏtheir€brief€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€they€did€not€diligently€pursue€this€issueÏuntil€they€filed€their€joint€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€this€Court.€€In€thatÏapplication€the€defendants€argued€both€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€inÏreversing€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€with€respect€to€the€investigative€stop,€and€alsoÏthat€the€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€the€warrant€should€be€suppressed€becauseÏthe€affidavit€supporting€issuance€of€the€warrant€had€not€been€signed€byÏInvestigator€Mullikin,€the€affiant,€and€also€because€Judge€Drake€had€failed€toÏcomplete€the€portion€of€the€affidavit€known€as€the€jurat,€which€is€the€writtenÏcertificate€of€the€issuing€judge€attesting€that€the€affiant€submitted€the€affidavitÏunder€oath.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4&  ÐÌà Ø àThis€Court€granted€the€defendants€permission€to€appeal.€€Thereafter,€theÏState€moved€to€supplement€the€record,€stating€that€the€unsigned€copy€of€theÏaffidavit€contained€in€the€record€on€appeal€actually€was€not€the€affidavit€uponÏwhich€Judge€Drake€had€based€his€determination€of€probable€cause.€€TheÐ ”/`'* Ðdefendants€filed€a€response€in€opposition€to€the€Stateððs€motion.€€This€CourtÏremanded€the€matter€to€the€trial€judge€to€determine€whether€the€record€should€beÏsupplemented€pursuant€to€Rule€24(e),׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ð ô À ЀÌà Ø àFollowing€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€State€to€supplement€theÏrecord€with€the€affidavit€which€actually€had€been€presented€to€Judge€Drake€andÏupon€which€he€had€based€his€determination€of€probable€cause.€€Though€theÏaffidavit€submitted€in€support€of€the€warrant€contained€the€signature€of€the€affiant,ÏInvestigator€Milliken;€the€jurat€attesting€that€the€affidavit€had€been€given€underÏoath€was€incomplete.€€However,€the€trial€court€permitted€the€State€to€alsoÏsupplement€the€appellate€record€with€affidavits€from€Judge€Drake€and€InvestigatorÏMullikin€stating€that€the€affidavit€had€been€sworn€by€Investigator€Mullikin€beforeÏissuance€of€the€warrant€even€though€Judge€Drake€failed€to€complete€the€jurat.€ÏThe€supplemental€record€was€then€transmitted€to€the€Clerk€of€this€Court.ÌÌà Ø àIn€this€Court,€the€defendants€argue€that€an€affidavit€supporting€issuance€ofÏa€search€warrant€must€contain€a€jurat€completed€by€the€issuing€judge€attestingÏthat€the€affidavit€was€executed€under€oath.€€According€to€the€defendants,€extrinsicÏevidence€is€not€a€permissible€means€to€prove€that€an€affidavit€was€properly€sworn.Ð ô)À!$ ÐBecause€the€affidavit€in€this€case€did€not€contain€a€completed€jurat€on€its€face,€theÏdefendants€contend€that€the€search€warrant€issued€in€reliance€upon€the€affidavit€isÏinvalid€and€evidence€seized€pursuant€to€the€warrant€should€be€suppressed.ÌÌà Ø àWhile€conceding€that€a€jurat€is€the€preferred€means€of€establishing€that€anÏaffidavit€was€executed€under€oath,€the€State€argues€that€it€is€not€the€onlyÏpermissible€means€of€satisying€the€oath€requirement.€€According€to€the€State,€anÏincomplete€or€defective€jurat€does€not€vitiate€the€validity€of€a€warrant€when€it€isÏproven€by€extrinsic€evidence€that€the€supporting€affidavit€was€properly€sworn€byÏthe€affiant.€€The€State€asserts€that€the€warrant€in€this€case€is€valid,€despite€theÏincomplete€jurat,€because€the€affidavits€of€Investigator€Mullikin€and€Judge€DrakeÏestablish€that€the€supporting€affidavit€was€properly€sworn.ÌÌà Ø àWe€begin€our€analysis€of€this€issue€by€reiterating€that€under€both€theÏfederal€and€state€constitutions€no€warrant€is€to€be€issued€except€upon€probableÏcause.€€òòIllinois€v.€Gates,óó€462€U.S.€213,€103€S.Ct.€2317,€76€L.Ed.2d€527€(1983);Ð T$  ÐòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€òòsupraóó;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103€(1997€Repl.).€€€The€FourthÐ 4&  ÐAmendment€to›€the€United€States€Constitution€œexplicitly€mandates›€that€searchÏwarrants€issue€only€ð ðupon€probable€cause,€supported€by€Oath€or€affirmation.ðð€ÏœThough,€Article›€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€œConstitution€does€not€require€anÏoath€or€affirmation,€it›€œprecludes›€issuance€of€warrants€except€upon€ð ðevidence€of€theÏfact€œcommitted.ðð€€Moreover,€the€General€Assembly€has€expressly€directed€that€aÏsearch€warrant€may€be€issued€only€upon€a€written€and€sworn€affidavit€whichÐ t1@), ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñžXñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñžXñcontains€allegations€establishing€probable€cause.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„6„103׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4 Ðand€„104׃0è×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€(1997€Repl.);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€41(c);׃:˜×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€432.€Ð  à ÐLikewise,€this€Court€previously€has€recognized€that€a€written€and€sworn€affidavit›Ïcontaining€allegations€from€which€the€magistrate€can€determine€whether€probableÏcause€exists€is€an€indispensable€prerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€a€search€warrantÏin€this€State.€€òòIdóó.;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€ex€rel.€Blackburn€v.€œFoxóó,€200€Tenn.€227,€230,›€292Ð ”`  ÐS.W.2d€21,€23€(Tenn.€œ1956).€€ÌÌà Ø àThe€law€in€this€State€is€clear€that€a€written€and€sworn€affidavit€is€anÏessential€prerequisite€to€the€issuance€of€a€valid€search€warrant.€€However,€weÏhave€found€no€constitutional€or€statutory€rule€stating€that€an€indispensableÏprerequisite€to€a€valid€affidavit€is€a€jurat€„„€a€written€certificate€of€the€issuing€judgeÏattesting€that€the€affiant€executed€the€affidavit€under€oath.€€An€affidavit€generallyÏhas€been€defined€in€case€law€as€ð ða€statement€in€writing,€signed,€and€made€uponÏoath€before€an€authorized€magistrate.ðð€€òòWatts€v.€Carnesóó,€51€Tenn.€532,€534Ð t"@ Ð(1871).€€Certainly€nothing€in€that€definition€suggests€that€a€jurat€is€an€essentialÏcomponent€of€an€affidavit.€€Moreover,€Tennessee€decisions€addressing€issuesÐ 4&  Ðsimilar€to€the€one€raised€by€this€appeal€lend€support€to€the€proposition€that€a€juratÏis€òònotóó€an€essential€prerequisite€to€a€valid€affidavit€so€long€as€proof€is€offered€toÐ  à Ðestablish€that€the€affidavit€was€properly€sworn.ÌÌà Ø àFor€example,€in€òòWiley€v.€Bennettóó,€68€Tenn.€581€(1877),€this€CourtÐ ´€ Ðconsidered€whether€an€attachment€was€rendered€invalid€because€the€issuing€clerkÏfailed€to€attest€that€the€supporting€affidavit€had€been€sworn.€€The€Court€first€notedÏthat€ð ðthe€affidavit€was€signed,€and€purports€to€have€been€sworn€to€on€its€face.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ð T  Ðat€582.€€Next,€the€Court€observed€that€the€clerk€had€testified€that€the€affidavit€ð ðwasÏduly€sworn€to€before€issuance€(of€the€attachment),€but€by€oversight€the€attestationÏof€the€fact€was€omitted.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Finally,€in€rejecting€the€challenge,€this€CourtÐ ôÀ Ðemphasized€that€ð ð[t]he€fact€that€it€was€sworn€to€is€the€substantial€matter,€and€theÏomission€of€the€clerk€to€do€his€duty€by€attesting€it,€cannot€be€allowed€to€prejudiceÏthe€party.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€This€principle€was€reaffirmed€five€years€later€in€òòAgriculturalÐ ” ` ÐAssociation€v.€Madisonóó,€77€Tenn.€407,€409€(1882)€(ð ðWhen€the€affidavit€wasÐ t"@ Ðactually€sworn€to€and€the€clerk€fails€to€attest€it,€it€is€not€fatal.€.€.€.ðð).€€Though€theseÏdecisions€do€not€address€an€affidavit€that€is€given€in€support€of€a€search€warrant,Ïthey€are€persuasive€authority€for€the€proposition€that€a€defective€or€incompleteÏâ âjurat€does€not€invalidate€an€affidavit€when€it€is€established€by€other€proof€that€theÐ ô)À!$ Ðaffidavit€was€properly€sworn.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 4 Ðâ âÌà Ø àMoreover,€we€observe€that€a€majority€of€other€state€courts€consideringÏwhether€a€search€warrant€is€void€if€based€upon€an€affidavit€which€contains€anÏincomplete€or€defective€jurat€have€concluded€that€a€jurat€is€not€an€essentialÏelement€of€an€affidavit€but€is€simply€evidence€of€the€fact€that€the€affidavit€was€dulyÏsworn€by€the€affiant.€€In€the€face€of€an€incomplete€or€defective€jurat,€these€stateÏcourts€allow€extrinsic€evidence€to€prove€that€the€affidavit€was€properly€sworn.€ÏòòState€v.€Colonóó,€644€A.2d€877€(Conn.€1994);€òòBigler€v.€Stateóó,€602€N.E.2d€509€(Ind.Ð 4 ÐApp.€1992);€òòState€v.€Journeyóó,€562€P.2d€138€(Kan.€App.€1977);€òòPowell€v.€Stateóó,Ð à Ð355€So.2d€1378€(Miss.€1978);€òòPeople€v.€Rodriguezóó,€541€N.Y.S.2d€491€(N.Y.App.Ð ôÀ ÐDiv.€1989);€òòPeople€v.€Zimmeróó,€490€N.Y.S.2d€912€(N.Y.€App.€Div.€1985);€òòState€v.Ð Ô  ÐFlynnóó,€235€S.E.2d€424€(N.C.€App.€1977);€òòWhite€v.€Oklahomaóó,€702€P.2d€1058Ð ´€ Ð(Okla.€Crim.€App.€1985);€òòState€v.€Nunnóó,€783€P.2d€26€(Or.€App.€1989);€òòHuff€v.Ð ” ` ÐCommonwealthóó,€194€S.E.2d€690€(Va.€1973);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòLand€Clearance€forÐ t"@ ÐRedevelopment€Authority€v.€Zitkoóó,€386€S.W.2d€69€(Mo.€1965)€(omission€of€juratÐ T$  Ðwill€not€render€properly€executed€affidavit€a€nullity);€3€Am.Jur.2d€478€Affidavits€ðð17Ï(1986);€2A€C.J.S.€467€Affidavits€ðð€31€(1972)€(ð ðThe€jurat€is€not€such€a€part€of€anÏaffidavit€that€its€omission€will€render€the€affidavit€a€nullity,€at€least€where€theÏaffidavit€is€otherwise€properly€executed.€€Thus,€ordinarily€a€jurat€is€not€essential€toÐ Ô+ #& Ðan€affidavit€if€the€fact€of€the€due€administration€of€the€oath€is€otherwise€shown.ðð)׃4×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р4 ÐThe€majority€rule€is€consistent€with€prior€Tennessee€case€law€on€the€subject,€and€itÏis€sound€as€a€matter€of€policy€and€practice.ÌÌà Ø àTennessee€law€is€clear€that€in€determining€whether€or€not€probable€causeÏsupported€issuance€of€a€search€warrant€only€the€information€contained€within€theÏfour€corners€of€the€affidavit€may€be€considered.€€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€432.€Ð t@  ÐHowever,€we€are€not€confined€to€the€four€corners€of€the€affidavit€in€determiningÏwhether€it€has€been€properly€sworn.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€although€it€isÏpreferable€that€every€affidavit€contain€a€completed€jurat,€an€incomplete€orÏdefective€jurat€does€not€invalidate€a€warrant€issued€upon€probable€cause€if€it€isÏproven€by€extrinsic€evidence€that€the€supporting€affidavit€was€properly€sworn€byÏthe€affiant.€€Any€other€conclusion€would€impose€an€undue€penalty€upon€lawÏenforcement€for€an€inadvertent€omission€on€the€part€of€the€issuing€judge.€€òòColonóó,Ð ” ` Ð644€A.2d€at€883.ÌÌà Ø àApplying€that€rule€to€the€record€in€this€appeal,€we€reject€the€defendantsððÏclaim€that€the€search€warrant€is€invalid.€€The€proof€establishes€that€the€affidavitÏwas€given€under€oath.€€First€of€all,€the€affidavit€recites€on€its€face€that€it€was€beingÐ ô)À!$ Ðgiven€under€oath.€€Investigator€Milliken€signed€the€affidavit.€€The€search€warrant€inÏthe€record€recites€that€it€was€based€upon€an€affidavit€given€by€InvestigatorÏMilliken.€€Judge€Drake€signed€the€search€warrant.€€Finally,€the€record€containsÏaffidavits€from€both€Investigator€Milliken€and€Judge€Drake€stating€that€the€affidavitÏwas€given€under€oath.€€Accordingly,€despite€the€incomplete€jurat,€the€otherÏevidence€in€this€record€establishes€that€the€affidavit€was€properly€sworn.Ì€Ìà@,,)Ìàòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óˆÐ T  Ðà Ø àFor€the€reasons€previously€stated,€we€conclude€that€the€investigative€stopÏin€this€case€was€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion€and€therefore€constitutionallyÏpermissible.€€We€also€conclude€that€the€search€warrant€issued€upon€a€writtenñŸXñ,Ïsigned,ñŸXñ€andÏsworn€affidavit.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€which€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€the€defendantsðð€motion€toÏsuppress.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€necessaryÏproceedings.ÌÌÓÓà Ø àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # àñœXñÌÌÌÌñœXñà Ø àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à______________________________Ìà Ø àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA›,€III,Ìà Ø àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àJUSTICEÌÓ(™ÓÌò òÓÓœConcurñ–XñPanelñ–Xñ:ó ó›Ð ¤.p&) ÐAnderson,€C.J.,Ìœñ—XñBirch,€ñ—XñHolder,€ñ˜XñJñ˜XñJ.ñ™XñÌÌBirch,€J.€„€See€Separate€Dissñ™XññšXññ™Xñtñ™XññšXññ™Xñenñ™Xññ›Xñting€Opinion.ñ›XññXñ›Ð d20*- ÐÐ d20*- ÐñXñ›