### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 10, 200 5 S es sio n ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v
. JA R ED C
. BR OW N
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2004-A- 591 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr ., Judge

No. M2004- 02101-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Augu st 30, 2005

The a ppellant, J are d C. Brow n, pled g uiltyin the Davidson C ounty Criminal Court to possession of over te n pounds of marijuana with the int ent to sell or deliver , and he r ece ived a se ntence of two y ear s. As a c o n d it io n o f h is p le a , th e ap p e ll a n t r e s e r v e d a c e r ti f ie d q u e s ti o n o f la w r e g ar d ing the validity of a sear ch warra nt. Upon review of the record a nd the parties’ brief s, we c onclude that the question is not dis positive of the appe llant’s case and af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.
N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich A L AN E. G L EN N and R O BERT W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Michae l J . Flana g an, Na shville, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, J are d C. Brow n.
Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Wil lis , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and Michae l Rohling , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION We have g leane d the bulk of the fac ts in this case from the or der of the trial court deny ing the app e lla nt’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss:

On Novembe r 15, 2003, De tective Ron B lack rece ived a telephone c all fr o m Special Ag ent Dean Hende rson of the D rug Enforc ement Ag ency ’s office in San Dieg o, California, stating that two packa g es containing marijuana wer e coming into Nashville from San Dieg o via UPS. Special Ag ent Hende rson g ave D et. B lack the fo llo wi ng a dd re sse s o n b othpa c ka g e s:-2- [Jar e d B r o w n , 9 0 8 We a th e r s id e Ct

. , N a s h v il le , TN 37209, Packag e # 1z6706x 70140414076; and B r a n d o n M c D a n i e l , 6 4 9 H u n t i n g t o n P ark w a y, N a s h v i l l e, TN 37211, Packag e # 1zx x 96320118487805.]
Det. B lack c onfirmed the addr esses with UPS security repr esenta tive L aureHar

ris , an d the pac kag es we re ide ntified by drug sniffing canine s in L exington, Kentucky . When the Packa ge[ s ] wer e d e li v e r e d to N a s h v il le , th e y w e r e ta k e n in to th e c u s to d y o f the Metropolitan Nashville Police De partment

. At the Vice office , the trained na

rcotics sniff

ing dr ug canine , Rock y , detec ted a na rcotics odor on both pac kag es. B ased on this information, De t. Blac kwas able to o bta in a se arc h warr a nt fo r the pa c ka g e a ndthe [ap pe lla nt’ s] residenc e, to which the pa ckag e wa s addre ssed.
The sea rch w arr ant identified the place to be sear ched a s “908 We a th e r s id e Co u r t, N a s h v il le , D a v id s o n Co u n ty , T e n n e s s e e ” and further described the pre mises as “B eing 908 Weathersid e C o u rt , a two-story , single family

dwelling made of

red brick a nd having tan tr im. Th e fr on t door is [g ray ] in co lor a nd the nu mbe r ‘9 08 ’ i s c le arl y vis ibl e on the ma ilb ox po st i n f ro nt o f the re sid e nc e .” Th e a ff ida vit in support o f t he sea

rch w arr ant also identifies the pla ce to be
s e ar c h e d a s “ 9 0 8 W e a t h e r s i d e C o u r t , N a s h v i l l e , D a v i d s o n C o u n t y, Tenne ssee,” howeve r, it further states, “The Affia nt further testifies that the said evide nce is now loc ated a nd may b e fo u n d within or upon the pre mises know n as 649 Hunti ng ton Parkway , Nashville, Davidson County , TN. And/or upon the p[ e]rsons of ot hers using or occupying the subject l ocation, which is more pa rticularly described as follows: A two-story , single family dwelling made of red brick and having tan trim. The fr o n t door is [gray ] i n color a nd the number ‘908’ is cle arly

visible on the mailbox post in front of the r esidenc e.”
On the af ternoon of N ovember

26, 2003 , De tective Morton, acting in an under co v er capa city , delivere d the pac kag e to the [ap pe lla nt] at 90 8 We a the rs ide Cou rt , N a sh vil le , T N 3 72 09 . A t th is time the sear ch war

rant was e x ecute d at the [appellant’s] residenc e, a ndof fi c e rs dis c ov e re d s e ve ra l di ff e re nt b ott le s of liq uidste ro ids , Oxy c o n ti n ta

b le ts , ma

r ij u a n a , a

2 0 g a u g e s h o tg u n , a n d d rug para pherna lia. As a re sult of the sear ch of the [appellant’s] residenc e, the [ap pe lla nt] w a s c ha

rg e d in thr e e Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s warr a nts wi th Possession with I ntent to Sell Marijuana, Steroids, and Oxy contin.-3-

Th e app ell ant fi led a

mot ion to s up pr e ss i te ms s e ize d a s a re su lt o f the se arc h o f h is
re s i d en ce , al l egi n g:

1

. T h e a f f i d a v i ti n s u p p o r to f

t h e s e ar c h w arr a n tf

a i l s t o e stabli sh pr ob able c a us e in tha t th ere is a n in su ff ic ie nt a lle g a tio n o f the ba sis of knowledg e of the aff

iant, as we ll as the lack of a suff icient nexus betwee n the items sought a nd the place to be sea rche d.
2. Th e a ff

ida vit in su pp ort of

the se arc h w arr a nt d e sc ri be s p ro pe rt y to b e se arc he d o the r tha n th a t in the wa rr a nt.
3. The sear ch wa rr ant states that we apons will be found at the residenc e, which is unsupporte d by probable cause
. At the su pp res sion h e ari ng , th e app e lla nt f oc us e d h is a

rg ume nt o n th e su ff

ic ie nc y of the a ff ida vit
un de rl y ing the iss ua nc e of the se arc h w arr a nt. Th e app e lla nt c on te nd e d th a t th e a ff ida vit lis te d h is addre ss as the loca tion to be searc hed. Howe ver , t h e aff idavit stated that the pac kag e conta ining marijuana was a ddresse d to “B randon Mc Daniel at 649 Huntington Parkw ay [,] Nashvill e, TN 37211.” Thus, the appellant arg ued that the affidavit did not contain probable cause for sear ching his residenc e.
Th e tr ia l c ou rt

ov e rr ule d th e app e lla nt’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss, fi nd ing that [a] common-sense application of the fac ts and circ umstan ces surrounding the issuance of the wa rra nt show an obvious clerical
err or. The V ice division of Met ropolitan Nashville Police Depa rtment was a lerted by

the DEA’ s office in San Di ego , t o two simil ar pa ckag es, identified as containing illega l drug s mailed on the the same day

to Nashville reside nces. . . . [S] ear ch wa rr ants wer e obtained for

both of the pac kag es and the re sidence s to which they we r e a d d r e s s e d

. T h e e rr o r in th e a f f id a v it in s u p p o r t o f

th e sear ch war rant for the [appellant’s] residence at 908 We at h er s ide Court included the a ddress of 649 H untington P ar k way , contained on the other pa ckag e. Furthermore , the addre ss of 649 Hunting ton Parkway had the de scription of the residenc e at 908 Weatherside Court. T he Cou rt fi nd s th a t th e inc on sis te nc y in t he su pp ortin g a ff

ida vit is a clerical error. The Court is of the opinion that this clerica l error was made without prejudice to the [appellant], and that the a ffidavit wa s sufficie nt to establish probable c ause f or the wa rra nt t o s ea rc h the [appella n t’s] residence at 908 Weather side Court, Nashville, TN 37209.-4-

After the trial court overrule d his motion to suppr ess, the appellant pled g uiltyto count one of the indictment, posse ssion of more than ten pounds of marijuana with the intent to sell or deliver. T h e p l e a a g r e e m e n tp r o v i d e d t h a tt h e ap p e l l a n tw o u l d r e c e i v e a t w o
- y e ar s e n t e n c e
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, a s p ar to f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t , c o u n tt w o o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t , p o s s e s s i o n o f s e v e r a l S c h e d u l e III controlled substanc es, and count three , possession of ox y codone, a Schedule I I

controlled substanc e, wer e dismissed. Furthe r, as a condition of his plea, the appellant reser ved a certified question of law:

“ Whe the r the se arc h warr a nt an d af fi da vit su ff

ic ie ntl y de sc ri be the loc a tio n to be se arc he d s o a s to establish probable cause .”
II. Ana lys is
I nitially , we note that certified questions of law a re g overne d by

Rule 3 7 (b )(2) (i) of the Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure. Rule 37( b)(2) (i) provide s that an appe l lant may appea l fr om a ny jud g me nt o f c on vic tio n o c c ur ri ng a s a re su lt o f a g uil ty ple a

if the fo llo wi ng re qu ir e me nts are me t: (A) T he judgme nt of conviction, or other doc ument to which

su c h ju dg me nt r e fe rs that is fi le d b e fo re the no tic e of app e a l, m us t contain a sta tement of the c ertified que stion of la w reserve d by defe ndant for a

ppellate r eview; (B ) T h e question of law must be stated in the judg ment or document so as to identify clea rly the scope and limits of the leg al iss ue re se rv e d; (C) The judg ment or document must re flec t that the certified question was expressly rese rved with the consent of the state a nd the trial judg e; and (D) T he judg ment or document must reflect that the defe ndant, the state, a nd the trial judg e ar e of the o p i nion that the
certified question is disposi tive of the c ase. See also State v. Armstrong, 126 S.W.3d 908, 912 (Tenn. 2003) ; State v. Preston, 759 S.W .2d 647, 650 (Tenn. 1988) . I n the instant case , the appe llant has compl i ed wi t h al l of the for eg oing require ments for re serving a ce rtified question of law

. Th e app e lla nt’ s c e rt if

ie d q ue sti on aske d “ [w]he the r the se arc h w arr a nt anda ff ida vit
su ff ic ie ntl y de sc ri be the loc a tio n to be se arc he d s o a s to e sta bli sh pr ob able c a us e .” With re g ardto this iss ue, our supr eme c ourt has explained that

[t ]he Fourth Amendme nt t o t h e United States Constituti on require s that sear ch wa

rra nts issue only“upon proba ble cause, s u p ported by-5- Oath or a ffirma tion.” Article I , S ection 7 of the Tennesse e Constit u t i o n prec ludes the issuance of wa rra nts ex cept upon “evide nce of the fac t c ommitt ed.” There fore , under both the fede ral and state c onstitut ions, no warr ant is to be issued except upon pr ob a b l e c a u s e
. P r o b ab l e c a u s e h a s b e e n d e f i n e d a s a r e a s o n ab le g round for

suspicion, supported by

circ umstances indicative of an ill e g a l a c t. State v. Henning , 975 S.W .2d 290, 294 (Tenn. 1998) (footnote and citations omitted). Moreove r, in this st ate, “ a finding of proba ble cause supporting issuance of a sea rch w arr ant must be based upon evidenc e included in a

written and sworn aff

idavit.” I d. Specifica lly , this court has observed that “[p] robable cause to support the issuance of a wa rra nt must appear in th e af fidavit, and judicial revie w of the e x istence of probable cause will not include looking to other evide nce pr ovided to or known by

the issuing mag istrate or posse ssed by the af fiant.” State v. B arba

ra Copela nd, No. 03C01-9402-CR-00079, 1996 WL 368209, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvill e, June 28, 1996);
see a lso St ate v. Moon, 841 S.W.2d 336, 337-38 ( Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Additionally , “[i] n order to establish probable cause , an aff idavit must set forth fac ts f rom which a

rea sonable c onclusion may be dra wn that the contr aband w ill be found i n the place to be sea rche d pursuant to the wa rra nt.” State v. Norri s , 4 7 S. W. 3 d 4 5 7 , 4 7 0 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 2 0 0 0 )

. F u r th e r mo r e , “ ‘ a f f id a v it s mu s t be loo ke d a t a ndre a d in a

c omm on se ns e a ndpr a c tic a l ma nn e r’ , a nd

. . . th e fi nd ing of pr ob able c a us e by the issuing mag istrate is entitled to g reat defe renc e.” State v. B ry an, 769 S.W.2d 208, 211 (Tenn. 1989) (quoting State v. Melson, 638 S.W .2d 342, 357 (Tenn. 1982)). Ac cording ly , we must revie w the af fidavi t to determine whe ther ther e wa s sufficient e vidence contained the rein to support the issuance of

the sea rch w arr ant; namely , whether t h e affidavit sufficiently alleg es the e x istence of illega l activity

at the appe llant’s residenc e.
The sea rch w arr ant listed the appellant’ s corr ect a ddress, 908 Weathe rside Court, Nashville, Davidson County , Tenne ssee, a s the location to be sea rche d. Th e wa rrant further described the residenc e as “ [b] eing 908 Weatherside Court, a two-story , single family dwelling made of

red brick and having tan trim. The front door is g ray in c olor and the number ‘908’ is clear ly visible on the mailbox post in front of the re sidence .”
The aff idavit underly ing the issuance of the sea rch w arr ant stated that c ontraba nd would be found at “ 908 Weatherside Court, Nashville, TN.” I n the s econd para g raph, the aff idavit stated that contra band would be f

ound at “649 Hunting ton Parkway , Nashvil l e, Davidson County , TN,” describing the pr emises as “[a] two-story , single family dwelling made of red brick and ha ving ta n tr im. Th e fr on t do or is g ray in c olo r a nd the nu mbe r ‘9 08 ’ is c le arl y vis ibl e on the ma ilb ox po st i n front of the residenc e.” A s his ex planation of proba ble cause, af

fiant De tective Ron B lack state d: On 11-25-03 y o u r affiant wa s contac ted by DEA Spec ial Ag ent De an He rnder son on the matter of possible drug s being [delivered] to Nashville, TN fr om San Dieg o, CA. He stated that he had information that a packa g e wa s to be [delivered] via UPS and the-6- pa c ka g e wa s to c on ta in a

qu a nti ty of mari juana . T he pa c ka g e wo uld b e addressed to Br andon McD aniel at 649 Hunting ton Parkway [,] Nashville, TN 37211. The packages had a U PS route number of 1 ZXX 9 6 3 2 0 1 1 8 4 8 7 8 0 5

. T h i s i n fo rm at i o n wa s co n fi rm ed t h ro u gh
security at UPS on Whit es Cree k Pike[ ,] Nashville, TN. On 11-26-03 a [trained] certifie d narc otics canine , Rocky and De tective Allen He ral d d id a

sn if f a ro un d th e e xterior

of the pa c ka g e s. Roc ky

is
certified throug h United States P o l i ce Canine Association in the detec tion of: marijuana, c ocaine , methamphetamine and heroin. During the sniff, c anine a lerted to a narc otic odor emitting f rom the exterior of the pa ckag e with route numbe r 1Z XX96320118487805 aff ix ed to the side of the packa g e.
Af fi a nt anti c ipate s th a t thi s pa c ka g e wi ll b e de liv e re d to sa id loc a ti o n a n d th a t u p o n it s s u c c e s s f u l d e li v e r y th is w arr a n t w ill be executed.
The trial c ourt ruled that the “ inconsistency ” of ha ving two d i ff er en t addre sses mentioned in the aff idavit was mere ly

a “c lerica l error ” which d i d not prejudice the appe llant. We disagr ee. Ou r s up re me c ou rt

ha s e xpla ine d th a t [a] n aff idavit in support of a se arc h war rant must set forth fa cts from wh ic h a re a so na ble c on c lus ion mig ht be dr a wn that th e e vid e nc e is i n the place to be s ear ched. The ne x us betwee n the place to be sea rche d and the items to be seized may be established by

the type of c rime, the nature of the item s , an d the normal infe renc es whe re a criminal would hide the evide nce.
State v. Smit h, 868 S.W .2d 561, 572 (Tenn. 1993) (citations omitted); see a lso St ate v. Jason Mill er, No. 03C01-9402-CR-00065, 1995 WL 470235, at *2 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Aug . 9, 1995). Further, this court ha s observe d th at “[ t ] h e fa cts which c onnect a crime or criminal ac tivityto the premises to be se arc hed ar e critical and must be included i n an affidavit for a se arc h war rant.” Miller, N o
. 0 3 C0 1

- 9 4 0 2

- CR

- 0 0 0 6 5 , 1 9 9 5 WL 4 7 0 2 3 5 , a t * 2

. I n th e in s tan t c a s e , th e r e is no information containe d in the aff idavit to tie the marijuana to the a ppellant’s addr ess at 908 Weathe rs ide Cou rt , no r did the a ff ida vit me nti on the app e lla nt’ s n a me in c on ne c tio n w ith the dr ug s. See Stat e v
. Evely n C. Bostic, No. M2000-03011- CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL369898, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. A p p
. a t N a s h v il le , M ar
. 8 , 2 0 0 2 )

. T h e a f f id a v it in s te a d p r o v id e d r e a s o n to b e li e v e that
c on tr aba ndc ou ld b e loc a te d a t th e a dd re ss of B rand on Mc Da nie l a t 64 9 H un tin g ton Park way . T his is no mere c lerica l error . Acc ording ly , any contra band seized as a

result of the sear ch wa

rra nt for the appe llant’s addre ss should have bee n suppressed.
I n the trial court, the appellant, the State, and the trial court ag ree d that the appe llant’s
certified question was dispositive of the ca se. “This Court is not bound by t h e d et er mination and-7-

ag ree ment of the trial court, a defe ndant, and the State that a certified question of law is dispositive of the c a se .” State v. Th om ps on, 1 31 S.W. 3d92 3, 92 5 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 03 ). “ ‘A n is su e is dispositi ve when this c ourt must e ither aff irm the judgme nt or

reve rse a nd dismiss . An issue is never dis po sit ive wh e n we mig ht re ve rs e a nd re ma nd .’ ” Sta te v. Ol ive r, 30 S.W. 3d36 3, 36 4 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 2000) (quoting State v. Wil kes, 684 S.W.2d 663, 667 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984)).
As the Sta te no te s o n a

pp e a l, the app e lla nt’ s c on vic tio n o f p os se ssi on of mari juana wi th intent to sell or deliver wa s based on the m arijuana seized at the UPS fac ility . This evidence was se ize d a s a

re su lt o f the fi rs t se arc h w arr a nt. Th e app e lla nt did no t cha lle ng e the va lid ity of the fi rs t s e ar c h w arr a n t a n d n e v e r m o v e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e m ar i j u a n a s e i z e d f r o mt h e s e ar c h a tt h e U P S f a c i l i t y. I n the orde r denying the appellant’ s motion t o suppress the items found duri n g t h e s ear ch of the ap p el l an t ’s h o m e, t h e t ri al co u rt s t at ed t h at t h e ap p el l an t ’s n am e an d ad d re s s we re o n t h e p ac k age containing the marijuana . Police discovere d that the pac kag e conta ined marijuana pri o r to de livering the pac kag e to the appe llant. There fore , we c onclude that this eviden ce wo u l d not have be en e xclu de d b y

the wa rr a nt a uth or izin g a se arc h of the app e lla nt’ s re sid e nc e
. I n o the r w or ds , th e Sta te had proof of the marijuana offe nse prior to the sear ch of theappellant’ s home. Thus, the appe llant’s question is not dis positive of his case. See State v. Michae l Kennedy , No. W2001-03107-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL402798, at **3-4 (T enn. Crim. App. at Jackson, Fe b. 21, 2003). The only i t em s fo u n d as a r esult of the conte sted sear ch wa rra nt were the controlled
su bs ta nc e s fo r w hic h th e app e lla nt w a s c ha rg e d in c ou nts tw o a ndthr e e of the ind ic tme nt. Se e Sta te v. Randall Lunsford, No. 01C01-9603- CC-00098, 1 9 9 7 W L 3 8 1 9 10, at *4 (Te nn. Crim. App. at Na sh vil le , July

11 , 1 99 7) . “ I f the app e llate c ou rt do e s n ot a g re e that th e c e rt if ie d ques ti on is dispositi ve, appe llate re view should b e d en ied.” Pre ston, 759 S.W .2d at 651. Acc ording ly , we conclude the appe llant is not entit led to relief

. III. Conclusi on
Ba sed upon the for eg oing, w e af firm the judg ment of the trial c ourt.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEEOGLE, J UDGE