### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jul y 26, 200 5

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. JERE MIA H E. HA YES
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Rhea County No. 16159 J. Curtis Sm ith, Jud ge

No. E2005-00196-CC A-R9- CD - F iled Augu st 22, 2005

Th e Sta te ha s a

pp e a le d to thi s Co urt pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 9 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Procedur e fr om an interlocutory order of t he trial court suppressing evidence resulting from a se arc h

a ndse izur e . T he qu e sti on pr e se nte d f or ou r r e vie w i s w he the r the de fe nd a nt ha d sta nd ing to c on te st the sea rch of an outbui lding located on property near his premises. Upon re view of the rec ord, we aff irm the trial court’s finding s that the defe ndant had a rea sonab l e ex p ec tation of privac y in the outbuilding but not in the are a surr ounding the outbuilding.

T en n . R. Ap p . P. 9 Interlocutor y Appeal; Jud gm ent of the Circuit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the op i n i o n o f t he court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., joined.

Ho wa rdL a xon U pc hu rc h, Pik e vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , Jer e miah E . H a y e s.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Kathy D. As lin g e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; J . Michae l Tay lor, District Attorney Gene ral; and James W. P ope, I I I , Assistan t District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

F acts and P roce dural Hi story

On J uly 6, 2003, Deputy Sheriff Dean Cranfield of the R hea County Sheriff’ s Depa rtment ob ta ine d a

wa rr a nt t o s e arc h th e mob ile ho me “ a lon g wi th any ou tbu ild ing s, ou tsi de c on ta ine rs , g ara g e s, c a mpe r t

raile rs or ve hic le s on the said premises ” of the defe ndant, J ere miah E. Hay es. The aff idavit supporting the w arr ant re quest stated that a “conf idential informant saw a larg e amount of marijuana inside the reside nce . . . [and saw the de fenda nt] exchang e marijuana for u.s. curr ency .”

Exe c uti ng the wa

rr a nt, De pu ty

Cr a nf ie ld and oth e r o ff

ic e rs se arc he d th e de fe nd a nt’ s mo bil e ho me

. Th e of

fi c e rs the n pr oc e e de d to a n ou tbu ild ing loc a te d on a n a dja c e nt p ro pe rt y app ro xima te ly-2-

fi ft y fe et fr o m t h e bo u n d ar y o f t h e de fe n d an t ’s l o t

. I n s i d e th e ou tb u i l d i n g, o ff i ce rs fo u n d s i x b ags of ma ri juana , d rying mari

juana plants , tw o s e ts o f s c a le s, ro lli ng pa pe rs , a g la ss p ipe , a nda

c ig are tte
ro l l er

. Fo rt y -t wo m ar i

j u an a p l an t s we re d i s co v er ed gro wi n g b es i d e t h e o u tb u i l d i n g.

Af te r the de fe nd a nt wa s ind ic te d fo r m a nu fa c tur e of mari juana , p os se ssi on of

mari juana wi th the intent to sell or deliver, a nd possession of drug para pherna lia, he moved to suppress the evide nce. He a rg ued that the sear ch wa

rra nt did not ex tend to the outbuilding and the ref ore the evidenc e wa s unlawfully

seized. The State asse rted that the de fendant did n o t h ave a re asonable expectation of priva c y in the ou tbu ild ing a ndthu s la c ke d s ta nd ing to m a int a in h is a rg ume nt.
At the suppression hea

ring , the def

endan t t es t i fied that the outbuilding was located “appr ox imately

50 foot” fr om his trailer, thro u gh some tree s, and on prope rty owned by

J ohn Dunstan. The de fenda nt stated that he and his familyhad bee n renting the outbuilding fr om Dunstan fo r f orty do lla rs pe r m on th f

or app ro xima te ly

on e y e ar. Th e de fe nd a nt t e st if ie d th a t he ke pt a padlock on the outbuilding and had the only two key s, one he kept with him and one he kept inside his mobil e home. He stated t hat m ember s of hi s family “had a cce ss” to the outbuilding only afte r they first would come into his trailer a nd retrie ve the ke y

. The defenda nt stated that, whe n he ar rived home on J uly

6, 2003, Sheriff Mike N eal wa s “beating the loc k o ff the [ outbuilding].” The defe ndant testified that, whe n he as k ed Sheriff Nea l and other of

fice rs to leave , Sheriff N eal responde d, “if y ou [don’t] like it, fight it in court.”

On cr oss-examination, the defendant stated that his lease of the outbuilding w as a ve rbal agr ee m en t , n o ta w ri t t en co n tra ct

. He d en i ed o wn i n g t h e e v i d en ce fo u n d i n t h e o u tb u i l d i n g, admitting only

to keeping “one or

two saws” in the outbuildi ng . The de fenda nt admitted that Dunstan could a cce ss the outbuilding, stating , “He didn’t have a key , but y es, he c ould.”

I n its memorandum opinion and order , the trial court stated:

I n revie wing the applica

ble fa ctors, thi s co u rt conclude s that defe ndant has established a rea sonable expectation of privac y in the outbuilding. Def

endant ha d no

a c tua l ow ne rs hip in the pr op e rt y se arc he d n or

didhe c la im a

po sse sso ry inte re st i n the items s ei z ed and this weig hs ag ainst standing. H oweve r, def endant ha d a possessory i n t ere st in the buildi ng as he a nd other familymembers r ented it for storag e. He t o o k normal pre cautions to maintain his privacy in the contents of the bu ild ing by

pla c ing a loc k on the bu ild ing

. Th e fa c ts e sta bli sh de fe nd a nt s ub

je c tiv e ly

e xpe c te d th e bu ild ing wo uldre ma in fr e e fr om g ov e rn me nta l in va sio n. Th e se fa c ts weig h in favor of

standing

.
Whil e the de fenda nt has established a leg itimate e x pectation of privac y in the b u i l d i n g, h e f

ai l ed t o d o s o as t o t h e ma ri j u an a pl an t s gro wi n g o u t s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g. An a na ly si s of the fo re g oin g se ve n f a c tor s r e ve a l th a t no ne of the fa c tor s w e ig h in defe ndant’s fa vor as to the marijuana plants. De fenda nt rented the building, not the

rea l estate surr ounding the building, thus he ha d no possessory interest. He claimed-3-

no possessory

interest in the plants. He had no rig ht to exclude others fr om the are a around the building, took no precautions t o maintain privac y in the are a ar ound the building and e x presse d no s u b j ec t i ve expectation that the a rea around the building would be fr ee f

rom g overnme ntal intrusion.
Following entry o f t h i s order , the State soug ht and was g rante d permission to file an interlocutory appea l f

or revie w of the trial c ourt’s finding s reg arding the def endant’ s standing a nd expectation of privac y

.
Ana lys is

One who c hall en ges t he re asonable ness of a sear ch or se izure has the initial burden of

e sta bli sh ing sta nd ing a nda

le g iti ma te e xpe c ta tio n of p ri va c y in the pla c e or

pr op e rt y wh ic h is

sear ched. R aw lings v. Ke ntucky , 448 U.S. 98, 104-05 (1980). In determining whe ther one had a leg itimate expectation of privac y , this Court c o n s i d ers the seven fa ctors listed in United States v. Hay del, 649 F.2d 1152, 1154- 55 (5th Cir. 1981): (1) pr operty owner ship; (2) whethe r the de fenda nt ha s a po sse sso ry

int e re st i n th e thi ng se ize d; ( 3) wh e the r the de fe nd a nt h a s a po sse sso ry int e re st i n the place sear ched; ( 4) whether he has a right to exclude other s from that plac e; (5) w hether he has exhibi ted a subjec tive expectation that the pl ace would rema in fre e from g overnme ntal invasion; (6) whether he took normal pre cautions to maintain his privac y ; and (7) whether he wa s leg itimately

on the pr e mis e s. Sta te v. Oo dy , 8 23 S.W. 2d55 4, 56 0 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 91 ). Th is C ou rt ha s a lso

rec og nized that an owner ship inter est in the property sear ched is not a pr ere quisite to establishing a leg itimat e ex p ec tation of privac y beca use an individual may

possess a leg itimate expectation of privac y in another pe rson’s re sidence . State v. Turnbill, 64 0 S

. W

. 2 d 4 0 , 45 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1982).

The trial c ourt examined the fac tors stated in Oody and thoroug hly

set out its finding s that the defe ndant car

ried his bur den to e stablish a rea sonable e x pectation of privacy in the outbuilding but not in the area

surrounding the outbuildi n g. A t ri al co urt’s finding s of fa ct in a suppre ssion hearing w ill be upheld unless the evidence pr eponder ates other wise. State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996)

. “Que stions of cre dibilit y of the witnesses, the w eig ht and value of the evidenc e, and re solution of c onflicts in the evidenc e ar e matter s entrusted to the trial judg e as the trier of fac t.” I d. The application of l aw to the facts found bythe trial court, however , is a question of law w hich this Court wil l review de novo . State v. Yea rg an, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).
Apply ing the fac tors listed in Oody to this case, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the defe ndant maintained standing and a r easona ble expe ct at i o n o f p rivac y in the outbuilding. The State has relied upon one decision, State v. Wil liam D. Ware a nd Virg inia Ware, No . 0 1C0 1- 98 03 -C C- 00 12 9, 19 99 WL 37 83 41 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. , a t Na sh vil le , June 11 , 1 99 9) to arg ue that the de fenda nt in this case d i d n o t h ave a re asonable expectation of privac y in the outbuilding. Howe ver, the fac ts bearing upon the Ware de fenda n t s ’ ex p ec tation of privac y are distinguishable.-4-

Contrary to the fac ts of this case, the de fendant s i n W are had a me re ve rbal a g ree ment of permission to use a neig hboring building in r eturn for “ keeping the building in re pair” and “did not have a lease .” I d. at *7. I n the pre sent ca se, t he defenda nt and his family had entered into a ve rbal lease , pay ing f

orty dollars per

month for the use of

the outbuilding. I n Ware, this Court stated:

most im portantly , there is no indicat i o n i n the re cord that [ the def endants] had the rig ht to ex clude other s

. . . . [T] he rec ord indicates that [the owner ] had a key to the building and nothing indicates that he could not have use d the building a ny time he was in the a

rea . Further, ther e is nothing in t h e re co rd to indicate that [the owner]

c ou ld no t ha ve g ive n his ke y to a ny nu mbe r of pe op le a nda lso pe rm itt e d th e m to us e the building f

or storag e.

I d

. I n co n tra s t , t h e d ef

en d an ti n t h e p re s en tca s e m ai n t ai n ed th e o n l y t wo k ey s t o t h e o u tb u i l d i n g. Thoug h the def

endant state d that other familymembers a nd even the owne r could a cce ss the outbuilding, he testified that they would first have to retrieve the key from his possession.
Apply ing the Oody

fac tors to the facts of this case, w e dete rmine that the de fenda nt had a prop er t y i n t erest evidence d by his oral lease ag ree ment. By maintaining the only

two key s to the outbuilding, the def

endant ha d a righ t t o ex clude other s from the outbuilding. O bviously , the defe ndant exhibit ed a subje ctive expectation that the outbuilding w ould remain fr ee f rom g overnme ntal intrusion and took normal precautions t o maintain his privac y by keeping a lock on t h e o u t b u i l d ing. Furthermor e, bec ause he lease d the outbuilding, he w as leg itimately on the premises. It is true that he did not own the outbuilding and that he denied having an interest in the items seized; however, the rema i n i ng fac tors establish a re asonable expectation of privac y in the

ou tbu ild ing . Co ns e qu e ntl y , th e iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

I n reg ard to the a

rea surrounding the outbu i l d i n g, we determine that the def endant did not maintain a reasonable expectation of privac y . I n this case, the de fenda nt’s lease interest extended only to use of the outbuilding. T hus, the defe ndant had no possessory interest in the surrounding property . The de fenda nt denied a posse ssory interest in the evidenc e seized fr om the are a. B y not having an intere st in the property , the def endant ha d no rig ht to ex clude other s from t he ar ea. Furthermore , he took no pre cautions to maintain his privacy in the are a. L eaving forty -two
mari juana plants in a n un e nc los e d are a do e s no t su pp ort a re a so na ble e xpe c ta tio n th a t th e are a wo uld

rema in free from g overnme ntal intrusion. This is sue is also without merit.

Conclusion

Ac c or din g ly , w e a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ou rt ’s fi nd ing s tha t th e de fe nd a nt h a d a re a so na ble expectation of privac y

in the outbuilding but not in the surrounding are a.-5- ___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE