FILED

May 21, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE 

 MARCH 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE, )

)

Appellee, ) No. 01C01-9606-CR-00242

 )

) Sumner County

v. ) 

) Honorable Jane W. Wheatcraft, Judge 

)

DANNY RAY DORRIS, ) (Certified Question of Law)

) 

Appellant. )

For the Appellant: For the Appellee:

David Allen Doyle Charles W. Burson

District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee

 and and

Steven F. Glaser Peter Coughlan

Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 

117 East Main Street 450 James Robertson Parkway

Gallatin, TN 37066 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Lawrence Ray Whitley

District Attorney General

and

Dee Gay

Assistant District Attorney General

113 East Main Street

Gallatin, TN 37066 

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

Joseph M. Tipton

Judge
2

O P I N I O N

The defendant, Danny Ray Dorris, appeals as of right upon reservation of

a certified question of law from the Sumner County Criminal Court. Upon his plea of

guilty, the defendant was convicted of felonious possession with the intent to sell

marijuana and sentenced to two years, with ninety days of his sentence to be served in

jail and the remainder of his sentence to be served in a community corrections

program. The case arose from a search of the defendant’s residence pursuant to a

warrant. The certified question of law that is dispositive of the case is stated as follows: 

Whether the information provided in the affidavit for the search

warrant was sufficient to allow the magistrate to make the

requisite independent determination of the reliability of the

informant and the information sought to be relied upon. 

We hold that probable cause was shown to render the search warrant valid. 

The affidavit of Jerry Carpenter, a drug task force officer, states as

follows:

YOUR AFFIANT HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION

FROM A CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO STATED THAT

DANNY R. DORRIS IS SELLING MARIJUANA FROM HIS

RESIDENCE AT 199 LAWRENCE TOWN ROAD IN

GALLATIN, SUMNER COUNTY TENNESSEE. WITHIN THE

LAST (5) FIVE DAYS, SAID CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT

HAS MADE A CONTROLLED PURCHASE OF MARIJUANA

FROM DANNY DORRIS INSIDE THE ABOVE DESCRIBED

LOCATION. BEFORE THE PURCHASE THE SAID

INFORMANT AND INFORMANTS VEHICLE WERE

SEARCHED FOR CONTRABAND AND NONE WAS FOUND.

SAID INFORMANT WAS EQUIPPED WITH A POLICE

CONSENSUAL LISTENING DEVICE AND GIVEN

UNDERCOVER BUY MONEY TO PURCHASE MARIJUANA

FROM DANNY DORRIS. SAID INFORMANT ALONG WITH

INV. GREG BUNCH WERE THEN FOLLOWED BY YOUR

AFFIANT AND INV. MONTY MCCURRY TO DORRIS’S

RESIDENCE. SAID INFORMANT WAS THEN OBSERVED

BY INV. GREG BUNCH TO ENTER THE RESIDENCE.

YOUR AFFIANT AND INV. MONTY MCCURRY MONITORED

AND RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN DORRIS

AND THE INFORMANT IN WHICH MARIJUANA WAS SOLD

TO THE INFORMANT BY DANNY DORRIS. AFTER THE
3

PURCHASE THE SAID INFORMANT THEN GAVE INV.

GREG BUNCH THE MARIJUANA WHICH THE INFORMANT

STATED WAS PURCHASED FROM DANNYDORRIS. YOUR

AFFIANT LATER FIELD TESTED THE SAID MARIJUANA

WHICH FIELD TESTED POSITIVE AS MARIJUANA A SCH.

VI CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

FURTHERMORE YOUR AFFIANT AND OTHER

MEMBERS OF THE 18th JUDICIAL DISTRICT DRUG TASK

FORCE HAVE RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT DANNY

DORRIS HAS BEEN TRAFFICKING MARIJUANA FROM HIS

RESIDENCE, 199 LAWRENCE TOWN ROAD GALLATIN,

TENNESSEE. YOUR AFFIANT ALSO CONFIRMED THAT

DORRIS HAS AT LEAST (3) THREE PREVIOUS ARRESTS

AND CONVICTIONS FOR TRAFFICKING OR SELLING

MARIJUANA.

SAID CONFIDENTIAL AND RELIABLE INFORMANT

HAS PROVIDED YOUR AFFIANT WITH INFORMATION

THAT HAS BEEN CORROBORATED WITH INFORMATION

YOUR AFFIANT FOUND TO BE TRUE. THE CONFIDENTIAL

AND RELIABLE INFORMANT HAS NEVER GIVEN YOUR

AFFIANT INFORMATION THAT WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE.

The defendant contends that this affidavit fails to establish probable cause to believe

that he was possessing marijuana in his residence under the two-prong standard

provided in State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989), for evaluating informant

hearsay. 

In Jacumin, our supreme court held that under Article I, Section 7 of the

Tennessee Constitution probable cause based upon informant hearsay requires a

showing (1) of the informant’s basis of knowledge and (2) of either his credibility or the

reliability of his information. Id. at 432, 436. Relative to a search warrant, this means

that a magistrate must make a neutral and detached judgment that the affidavit before

him or her shows probable cause to issue the warrant. See State v. Moon, 841 S.W.2d

336, 338 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). 

As for the informant’s basis of knowledge, the defendant acknowledges

that a controlled purchase of marijuana by the informant occurred at the defendant’s 
4

residence, and that the informant said it was from the defendant. The defendant also

admits that the police aurally monitored the transaction by a hidden microphone. 

However, he claims that the informant’s “uncorroborated” assertion that the defendant

was the seller makes his basis of knowledge “open to question.” As for the informant’s

reliability, the defendant claims that it was not shown in the affidavit other than through

the affiant’s assertion of reliability. 

The defendant’s arguments essentially carry a standard of absolute

certainty that is alien to search and seizure law, which is primarily based upon

reasonableness. The United States Supreme Court has defined probable cause as

“whether at that moment the facts and circumstances within [police] knowledge and of

which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent

man in believing that the petitioner had committed . . . an offense.” Beck v. Ohio, 379

U.S. 89, 91, 85 S. Ct. 223, 225 (1964). See State v. Meeks, 876 S.W.2d 121, 124

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1993). Our supreme court has stated:

In dealing with probable cause, one deals with probabilities.

These are not technical; they are the factual and practical

considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and

prudent men, not legal technicians, act.

State v. Jefferson, 529 S.W.2d 674, 689 (Tenn. 1975).

We believe that as a result of the live monitoring of a drug transaction at

the residence of the defendant, a known convicted drug dealer, whom the buying

informant, a person used by the police to gather information in previous successful

criminal drug investigations, said was the marijuana seller, there was probable cause to

believe that the defendant possessed marijuana, drug paraphernalia, or other evidence

of illegal drug dealings so as to justify the issuance of a search warrant for his

residence. No further analysis is needed. 
5

In consideration of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, the judgment

of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________

Joseph M. Tipton, Judge

CONCUR:

_________________________

Joe G. Riley, Judge

_________________________

Thomas T. Woodall, Judge