### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Se pte m be r 13, 200 5 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . STEPHANI E ANN MAYS Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Obi on Coun ty No. 4-372 William B. Acre e, Jr., Judge

No. W2005-00575-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Dece m ber 7, 2005

Th e Sta te app e a ls the su pp re ssi on of e vid e nc e by the Ob ion Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt . The De fe nd a nt, Stephanie Ann Ma y s, was ar rested f or criminal trespass, and a sear ch of May s’ per son followed, wh i ch re v ea l ed t h e p re s en ce o f a q u an t i t y o f co ca i n e an d m ar i j u an a. Af

t eran ev i d en t i ar y

h ea ri n g, the trial court gr anted Ma y s’ m otion to suppress and dismissed the c harg es. The State a rg ues that beca use the police had proba

ble cause to arr est May s, the resulting sear ch and seizure of the evidenc e was va lid. After r evie w, we co nclude that Ma y s’ ar rest for trespass, whic h was ba sed upon an err oneously

g ener ated police document, wa s invalid as no probable cause exis ted to arr est. As such, the evidenc e wa s proper ly suppressed. A ccor dingly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Ra c he l E . Willis, A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Thomas A. Thomas, District Attorney Gene ral; and James T. Cannon, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellant, State of

Tenne ssee.
Jame s T . Po we ll, Un ion City , T e nn e sse e , f or the Ap pe lle e , St e ph a nie An n M a y s. OP IN ION
F ac tu al B ac kgr ound
On Au g us t 23 , 2 00 4, Un ion City Pol ic e Of fi c e r S ha wn Pa lme r wa s o n r ou tin e patr ol o f E a st Gate V illage , a public housing complex, when he observe d the Def endant on the pr emises. Ear lier that morning , Off

i ce r P alm er ha d revie wed Ea st Gate Villag e’s “ barr ed list” and re called that the Def endant’ s name wa s on the list. Upon e n countering the Def endant, he questioned her prese nce on housing authority

property due to her barr ed st atus. The De fenda nt responded that she was not ba rr e d a s he r na me ha d be e n r e mov e d f ro m th e lis t. T o c on fi rm

thi s f a c t, the De fe nd a nt u se d h e r c e ll-2-

phone to ca ll the housing authority office . After

the Def endant he ard a

fema le voice on the phone, she hande d the phone to Of fice r Palmer. The person, late r identified a s Ann Oliver with the Union CityHousing Authority , informed Palmer that “ac cording to ou r l ist we have , she is still barr ed.” At this point , the Def

endant wa s ar re s t ed for criminal trespass, a nd a sea rch of her pe rson was conducte d. The sea

rch r evea led the pre sence of 6.5 g rams of c ocaine , in addition to a small amount of marijuana

. The De fenda nt was subs eq u en t l y indicted for f elony possession of .5 g rams or more of cocaine with intent to sell and simple possession of ma ri j uana. A n evidentiary

hearing w as conducte d on the Def

endant’ s motion to suppress ba sed upon g rounds that no proba ble cause existed for he r arr est; there fore , the resulting sear ch and seizure of the evidenc e wa s unlawful. The proof at the hearing established that on the date of the Def endant’ s arr est for c riminal trespass, Aug ust 23, 2 0 0 4 , h ern am e h ad b ee n re m o v ed fr o mt h e na m es o f t h o s e b arre d fr o men tryo n t o E as tGa t e V i l l age property

. Further proof established that beca use of police err ors or omissions, the police g ener ated “bar red l i s t ” which w as distributed to the patrol off icer had not bee n updated a nd was, ther efor e, incorre ct. I n suppressing the evidenc e, the tria l court conc luded:
Mr. Palmer wa s looking at a list date d J anuary 30, 2003. This w as Aug ust 23, 2004, a ve ry lon g tim e a ft e r that li st w a s c omp ile d, a ndit w ou ld s e e m to me that, w ith Offic er Palmer ’s familiarity with the proce ss at E ast Gate Villag e, if he didn’t know, he sh ou ld h a ve kn ow n th a t, i n a ll l ike lih oo d, he ha d a n o ld l ist

. This State appea l followed.
Ana lys is
On app e a l, the Sta te a sse rt s th a t the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d in g ranti ng the De fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to su pp re ss o n th e g ro un ds that O ff ic e r P a lme r l a c ke d pro ba

ble c a us e to a

rr e st. Spe c if

ic a lly , th e Sta te asserts that when Palmer c onducted a n investigatory stop, he had re asonable suspicion t h at the Def endant wa s trespassing based upon the inclusion of her na me on a list of individuals barre d from the ho us ing a uth ority

pr op e rt y
. Th is re a so na

ble su sp ic ion , the Sta te arg ue s, de ve lop e d in to p ro ba ble cause when the housing authority confirme d the Def endant’ s status as a bar

red pe rson. B eca

use the arr est was law ful, the S tate ar g ues that the re sulting sea rch a nd seizure was a lso lawful as it was ma de inc ide nt t o th e arr e st.
The fa cts of this case are not in disput e. The State argue s only that the trial court’s application of the law to the facts i s incorre ct. This court reviews the trial court’s application of the law to the fa cts under a de novo standard of revie w without de fer ence to the determinations of the trial court. State v. W

alton , 41 S.W .3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001) . I t is concede d t h at i f t h e ar rest wa s la wf ul, the se arc h in c ide nt t o th e arr e st w a s a lso la wf ul. Ac c or din g ly , th e di sp os iti ve iss ue is whether the er roneous “ barr ed list” provided pr obable c ause, or at a minimum , rea sonable suspicion to stop the Defe ndant. I t c annot be contested that Offic er Palmer’s stop of the Def endant r estraine d-3-

her liberty , and, as a result, a seiz ure within the m eaning of t he Fourth Amendment and Article 1, sect i on 7, of the Te nnessee Constit ution occurr ed. State v. Daniel , 12 S.W .3d 420, 425 (Tenn. 2000).
At the he ari ng , th e pr oo f e sta bli sh e d tha t the pr oc e du re fo r barring a pe rs on fr om E a st G a te Villag e, a public housing complex which is manag ed by the Union CityHousing Authority , is police initiated. Union Cit y

Police Chief J oe Ga

rner described the proc edure as a c ommunitypolicing partne rship betwee n the Union CityPolice Depa rtment and the Union CityHousing Authority . He e xpla ine d:
if so me on e ha s b e e n in vo lve d in dr ug de a lin g , is con vic te d of a se ri ou s cr ime , or i s causing a problem in the area, the office r can issue a citation, telling them not to be on the proper ty . A t th a t ti me , th e y fi ll o ut an in c ide nt r e po rt wh ic h c ome s in rec ommending w hat ac tion they fee l, such as bar

ri ng from the a

rea . Once that’s signe d off on, it’s se nt to the housing authority and Ea st Gate Villag e mana g ement for their approva l or disapprova l.
After the housing authority

g rants appr oval for the person to be bar red f rom public housing pr e mis e s, the po lic e de pa

rt me nt i s in fo rm e d o f this fa c t, andthe na me is p la c e d o n th e “ ba rr e d li st” by the po lic e . T o b e re mov e d f ro m the “ ba

rr e d li st, ” the pe rs on ba

rr e d mu st f

ile a writt e n r e qu e st wi th b othEa st G a te Vi lla g e a ndthe Un ion City Ho us ing Au tho ri ty

. I f ap pr ov a l is g rante d, the na me is s ub mit te d to the Un ion City Pol ic e Chi e f f

or app ro va l.
Chief Garner testified that he “ha d an application date on [the Defe ndant] of March 17, 2003” fo r r e mov a l f

ro m th e Ea st G a te Vi lla g e ’s ba rr e d li st. Th e De fe nd a nt h a d o btaine d th e re mov a l f or m, and re prese ntatives o f t h e Un i o n CityHousing Authority , as we ll as East Gate Villag e, had note d their appr oval. The form reac hed C hief Garner by May 8, 2003, and he a pproved the Def

endant’ s remova l that same day

. The barre d list for East Gate Village was revised on Fe bruary 17, 2004, and the Def endant’ s name was remove d from the list. Chief Garner, how ever , could not specula te as to w he the r this lis t w a s e ve r d ist ri bu te d b ut h ypo the size d th a t th e lists wer e no t di stribu te d d ue to a cle rica l err or. He testified, “ther e was no way to determine if the re w as distribution to t he housing authority , or if they

used an old list.” The proof

at the hea

ring established that whe n Offic er Pa lmer ar rested the Def

endant on Aug ust 23, 2004, he was r ely ing on a nineteen- month-old “barr ed l i s t ” wh i ch had be en update d se ve n mon t h s b e f

o r e t h e D e f

e n d a n t ’ s n a m e w a s r e m o v e d

. T h e D e f e n d a n tw a s arr e s t e d b e c a us e information had be en re tained in the sy stem when it was no long er va lid. This matter was within the re sp on sib ili ty

a ndc on tr ol o f the po lic e de pa rt me nt w ho faile d to up date its reco rds to ac c ur a te ly ref lect the De fenda nt’s status. To validate the D efe ndant’s ar rest in this case woul d sanction ineffic iency

and permit the police to rely on an er ror of their own making . The State’s a rg ument that the offic er ha d rea sonable suspicion, as oppose d to probable c ause, to stop the Defenda nt based upon the “ba rre d list” is not persuasive as the information on the l ist was e rrone ous from the ince ption and thus insufficient to support a stop based upon e ither re asonable suspicion or probable cause
.-4-

We c on clu de tha

t th e De fe nd a nt’ s a

rr e st, wh ic h w a s ma de in r e lia nc e up on a n in a c c ur a te police g ener ated “ barr ed list,” was made without p ro bable c ause a nd was invalid. Thus, any subsequent sea

rch inc ident to the unlawful a rre st was also invalid.
CO NC LU SION
Ba sed upon the fore g oing, the judgme nt of the trial court gr anting Def endant Ma y s’ motion to suppress is aff

irmed.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE