### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON Fe br ua ry 1, 200 5 S es sio n

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. DE LAWR ENC E WILLIA MS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for DyerCounty

No. C03-405 Lee Moore , Judge

No. W2004-01682-C CA-R 9-CD - F iled March 8, 2005

This is a Rule 9, Tennesse e Rules of Appe llate Proce dure, inter locutory appea l of the trial court’s denial of the defe ndant’s motion to suppres s d ru g ev i d ence seized from his home during a sea rch executed pursua nt to a war rant. The defe ndant, Delaw renc e Willi ams, is char g ed with possession of more tha n .5 g rams of c ocai n e wi t h t h e i ntent to sell or deliver ba sed on the drug evidenc e
rec overe d fr o m h i s h o m e and w ith ag g ravated assault base d on a domestic violenc e episode i n v o l v i n g h i s gi rl fr i en d t h at p re ce d ed t h e is s u an ce o f t h e s ea rc h wa rr an t

. At t h e s u p p re s s i o n h ea ri n g, he argued th at the o ff

ic e r’ s a ff ida vit in s up po rt

of the wa rr a nt f a ile d to e sta

bli sh pr ob able c a us e beca use it did not contain sufficient f acts to show that the defendant’s girlf riend, who w as the sourc e for the of fice r’s knowle dg e, satisfied the two-prong ed test, as se t forth in State v

. J acumin, 778 S.W .2d 430 (Tenn. 1989) , for information supplied by a criminal informant. The trial court de nied the motio n , finding that the af fidavit sufficie ntly

demonstrated the basis for the inf ormant’s knowledg e and the reliability of her information. Following our re view, we aff irm the order

of the trial court de ny ing the motion to s uppress.
Tenn. R. App . P . 9 Interlocutor y Appeal; Jud gm ent of the Circuit Court Aff irm ed

A L AN E. G L EN N , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., and J OE H. W AL KE R , III
, S P .J ., joined.

Cha rl e s M. Ag e e , Jr. , D y e rs bu rg , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lla nt, De la wr e nc e Willi a ms.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Mark A. Fulks, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral; and C. Phi llip Bivens, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

F AC TS

On Se pte mbe r 2 8, 20 03 , D y e r C ou nty sh e ri ff ’s de pu tie s re sp on de d to a re po rt of a do me sti c dis tur ba nc e a t th e defend ant’ s h ome , w hic h r e su lte d in the arr e st o f b oththe de fe nd a nt andhis-2-

g irlfriend, V ivial Tay lor, on cha rg es of domestic violenc e. As she was being arr ested, Ms. Tay lor informed the of

fice rs that the defe ndant had cocaine and marijuana in his residence . Armed w ith that information, I nvestig ator Terry McCreig ht of the Dy er County Sheriff’ s Depa

rtment obtained a nd

e xec ute d a

se arc h w arr a nt o n th e pr op e rt y du ri ng wh ic h both c oc a ine a nd mari juana we re fo un d in the home. His af

fidavit in support of the sea rch w arr ant states in pertinent part
that . . . on 09/28/03 at 14:42 hrs the Dy er County Sheriff’ s De pt. Deputies we re dispatched to 440 B ean Mill [R ]d. i n ref ere nce to a d o m estic disturbanc e. Upon deputies[’] arrival to the sce n e De puty Kenny Gibbons and De puty

Ly nn Waller made c ontact with b/f [V] ivial T ay lor and b/m Dela wre nce Williams. After de puties interviewe d both subjects investigation revea led that Viv[i] al Tay lor was the g ir lf riend of b/m De la wr e nc e Willi a ms a ndthe re wa s e vid e nc e of [sic ] dom e sti c violence ha d occur

red at the residenc e. De puties arr ested Delaw renc e Willi ams and Vi via l Taylor fo r Do me sti c e [sic ] Vi ole nc e As s[a ]ult . B/f V iv[i ]al Tay lor state d to deputies that there was Coca ine and Ma rijuana in s i d e o f t he re sidence . Viv[i ]al Tay lor state d s he stay e d ov e rn ig ht on 09 /27 /03 a t the re sid e nc e a ndsa w c oc a ine in the c los e t of De la wr e nc e Willi a ms[’ ] r e sid e nc e

. Vi v[i]a l T a y lor state d th a t sh e a lso

sa w mari juana in the re sid e nc e

. B /m D e la wr e nc e Willi a ms r e c e ntl y ple a d [si c ] g uil ty in Circuit Court of Dy er County to a Cocaine char g e.

At the suppression hearing, I nvestig ator McCreig ht te stified that when he arrived at the sce ne Ms. Tay lor told h im that if sh e we re g oin g to j a il the de fe nd a nt “ wa s g oin g to j a il f or a lon g tim e beca use there was [si c] dr

ug s in the house.” She then provided the information about the dr ug s that he re ported in hi s aff

idavit. I nvestig ator McCre ight testified he was familiar with the defe ndant and

wa s aw are of his ha vin g re c e ntl y ple d g uil ty

to the po sse ssi on or

sa le of c oc a ine . H e sa id tha t Ms

. Tay lor, with whom he wa s also familiar, wa s not an underc over informant and, to his knowle dg e, didno t ha ve a

c ri min a l r e c or d, wa s n ot a dr ug us e r, a ndwa s n ot i nv olv e d in the sa le of dr ug s o r i n
a ny oth e r s ort of

c ri min a l a c tiv ity . F urthe rm or e , n oth ing in the inf orm ati on sh e pr ov ide d to him about the def

endant’ s drug s indicated that she was involved in the ir sale or use. He a cknowledg ed, ho we ve r, that sh e ha d ju st b e e n in vo lve d in a do me sti c dis tur

ba nc e wi th the de fe nd a nt at th e tim e she supplied the information, had made a domestic violence complaint ag ainst the defendant, and was he rself a

rre sted for dome stic violence a s a re sult of the disturbance

.
The de fenda nt cited the timing of Ms. Tay lor’s statement to the of fice rs, her prese nce in the environment whe re the drug s were located, and her a rre st for domestic violence to assert at the suppression hea

ring that the information she provided should be judg ed by the more string ent twoprong J acumin test for

a criminal informant’s information, as oppose d to the more lenie nt standard by wh ic h in fo rm a tio n f

ro m a c iti zen inf

orma nt i s ju dg e d. Th e defend a nt a rg ue d th a t, u nd e r this sta nd ard , Inv e sti g a tor

Mc Cr e ig ht’ s a ff

ida vit faile d to e sta

bli sh pr ob able c a us e be c a us e a lth ou g h it showed the ba sis for Ms. Tay lor’s informa tion, it did not alleg e sufficient fac ts to show that she wa s
a cr edible sourc e or that the information she provide d was re liable.-3-

I n deny ing the motion to suppress, the trial court found there was no evidenc e that Ms. Tay lor

was p ar t of the “ criminal milieu dealing with the drug s in question,” but she did not meet the definition of a c itiz en informant because she wa s appar ently motivated to inform on the def endant out of reveng e. Apply ing, theref ore, the criminal i nformant standard, the court conc luded that the aff idavit sufficiently demonstrated both the basis for Ms. Tay lor’s knowledge and the reliabilityof the information she pr ovided and, thus, proba ble cause for the sea

rch. A ccor dingly , the trial court denied the de fenda nt’s motion to s uppress the e vid en ce

. There afte r, the de fenda nt sought a nd

rec eived pe rmission to file an interlocutory appea l to this court of the trial court’ s ruling.

AN AL YSI S

The de fenda nt arg ues bef ore this court, as h e ar g ued at the suppr ession hearing, that I nvestig ator McCre ight’ s aff idavit failed to conta in sufficient fa cts to meet the re liabilityprong of the J acumin test and, thus, f ailed to establish probable c ause f or the sea rch. The State arg ues that the affida vit

ne e d n ot h a ve sa tis fi e d th e tw o- pr on g e d Jac umi n te st b e c a us e Ms. Tay lor wa s n ot a

c ri min a l in fo rm a nt, bu t th e tr ia l c ou rt , n on e the le ss, c or re c tly c on c lud e d th a t th e a ff

ida vit su ff ic ie ntl y demonstrated the reliability of Ms

. Tay lor’s i nformation under the m ore stringe nt standard by which hear say information from a

criminal informa nt is judged.

When this court review s a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evide nce, “ [q] uestions of c re dib ili ty of the wi tne sse s, the we ig ht andva lue of the e vid e nc e , a ndre so lut ion of c on fl ic ts i n the evidence are matters entrusted to the t rial j udg e as the trier of fac t.” State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18 , 2 3 ( Te nn . 1 99 6) . T he pa rt y pr e va ili ng a t th e su pp re ssi on he ari ng is a ff or de d th e “ str on g e st leg itimate view of the e vidence and all re asonable and leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn from that e vid e nc e .” Sta te v. Ke ith , 9 78 S.W. 2d86 1, 86 4 ( Te nn . 1 99 8) . T he fi nd ing s o f a tr ia l c ou rt

in a suppre ssion hearing are upheld unless the evidenc e preponde rate s ag ainst those finding s. See id. Ho we ve r, the app lic a tio n of the la w t o th e fa c ts f ou ndby the tr ia l c ou rt

is a qu e sti on of

la w a ndis revie wed de novo . See State v. Ye arg an, 958 S.W.2d 626, 629 (Tenn. 1997).

Under both the Tenne ssee a nd United States Constit utions, no sear ch warra nt may be issued except upon probable cause , wh i ch h as been de fined a s “a r easona ble g round for

suspicion, supported by

circ umstances indicative of an illeg al ac t.” State v. Henning , 975 S.W .2d 290, 294 (Tenn. 1998). Tenne ssee require s a written a nd sworn af fidavit, “c ontaining a lleg ations from which the ma g ist

rate c a n d e te rm ine wh e the r p ro ba ble c aus e ex is ts ,” a s “ a n in dis pe ns able pr e re qu isi te to the i ssuance of a sear ch warra nt.” I d. The standa rd to be e mploy ed in re viewing the issuance of a

sear ch wa rra nt is “whether
, i n light of all the evidence available , the mag istrate had a substantial basis for f

inding pr obable c ause.” State v. Meeks, 876 S.W .2d 121, 124 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (citing J acumin, 778 S.W.2d at 431-32.

I nformation in an a ffida v i t in support of a sea rch w arr ant that is supplied by a “c itiz en inf orma nt” is p re su me d to be re lia ble , a nd , a s su c h, the affida vit ne e d n ot e sta

bli sh the c re dib ili ty of the informant or the re liabilityof the information. State v. Stevens, 989 S.W .2d 290, 293 (Tenn. 1999) (c iting State v. Melson, 638 S.W.2d 342, 354 (Tenn. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1137, 103See A gui l ar v. T exas, 37 8 U

. S. 10 8
, 11 4
, 84 S. C t

. 15 0 9
, 15 1 4
, 12 L. E d

. 2d 72 3 (19 6 4 ), and Sp i nel l i v. 1

U n ited S ta te s, 3 9 3 U .S . 4 1 0 , 4 1 2 -1 3 , 8 9 S . C t. 5 8 4 , 5 8 7 , 2 1 L . E d . 2 d 6 3 7 (1 9 6 9 ).

-4- S. Ct . 770, 74 L . Ed. 2d 983 (1983) ). I n fo rmation supplied by a criminal informant, on the other hand, must meet the two-pr o n g e d A g u il a r

- Sp ine lli test adopted by

the J acumin court, which re quires 1 a showing of “‘ both (1) the b as i s fo r t he informa nt’s knowledg e, and e ither (2) (a) a basis for establishing the informant’s c redibility or (2) (b) a basis establishing that the informant’s information is reliable.’ ” I d. at 293-94 (quoting State v. Cauley , 863 S.W .2d 411, 417 (Tenn. 1993) ).

As the Stevens court observed, the rationale for the dif fer ent t e sts is t hat information supplied by the tr a dit ion a l c ri min a l in fo rm a nt c arrie s w ith it a “ c e rt a in i mpr e ssi on of

unrel iab ili ty ” a s it

is often “ g iven in exchang e for some conc ession, pay ment, o r s i mply out of reve ng e ag ainst the

su bje c t,” wh e re a s the or din ary c iti zen inf orma nt w ho ha s w itn e sse d a c ri me “ a c ts w ith a n in te nt t o aid the police in law enfor ceme nt beca use of his conce rn for

society or for his own safe ty ” and “ does not expect any g ain or conce ssion in exchang e for his information.” I d. at 294 (interna l quotation and citations omitted). Mere conclusionary alleg ations that the informant wa s a conc erne d citizen,

so ug ht n o p a y me nt fo r the inf orma tio n, or

a c te d o ut o f a

se ns e of c ivi c du ty , a

re ins uf fi c ie nt t o
e sta bli sh that th e inf

orma nt qu a lif

ie s a s a c iti zen inf

orma nt. I d. I ns te a d, the a ff ida vit mus t c on ta in particula rized information as to how the c itiz en “‘ happene d to co me upon’” the information, particula rly when the information provided, such a s the location of na rcotics, is more likely

to be gai n ed b y s o m eo n e f

ro mt h e c ri m i n al m i l i e u t h an b y “‘ a l aw -a b i d i n g i n d i v i d u al

. ’” I d

. (q u o t i n g 2 Way ne R. L aF ave, Sea

rch a nd Seizure § 3.4(a) (3d ed. 1996) ).

I n this case, Ms. Ta y lor was a lmost certainly motivated by

something othe r than a

sense of civic duty

or a c oncern for soc iety . Neve rtheless, we agr ee wi t h the State that I nvestig ator Mc Cr e ig ht’ s a ff

ida vit wa s su ff ic ie nt t o s ho w that sh e wa s a c iti zen inf

orma nt. The a ff

ida vit specific ally

identified her

by name. Furthermore
, it pr ovided a particularized explanation for why she wa s in the residenc e and how she happe ned upon her information about the dr

ug s, stating that she wa s the defen d an t ’s g irlfriend a nd had spent the pr evious eve ning in the de fenda nt’s home, wher e she ha d seen the drug s. I n addition, it contained the corr oborating information by I nvestig ator McCreig ht that he was awa re of the defe ndant’s having rec ently pled g uilty to the sale or possession of cocaine. The fac t that Ms. Tay lor may have been motivated by ang er at the def endant or a desire for r eveng e du e to her a

rre st for domestic assault is not , in our view, e noug h to place he r in the cate g ory of the ty pical criminal informant, whose unre liable nature require s the app lication of the more string ent J acumin test. See, e.g , State v. Yeomans, 10 S. W.3d 293, 295-96 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (c oncl u d i n g t hat runa way g irl who informed on he r tee nag e boy friend’ s mother af ter the mother stated she was g oing to make her r eturn home qua lified as a c itiz en informa nt).

We c on c lud e , th e re fo re , th a t th e a ff ida vit wa s suf fi c ie nt to es ta

bli sh that Ms. Ta y lor wa s a citizen informant and, thus, that the informa tion she provided wa s presu m p t i v el y reliable. That information, combined with the c orrobor ating info rm ation about the def endant’ s past criminal his tory of wh ic h Inv e sti g a tor Mc Cr e ig ht wa s pe rs on a lly a wa re , p ro vid e d s uf

fi c ie nt p ro ba

ble c a us e-5-

for the issuanc e of the sear ch wa rra nt. Accord i n gl y , we affirm the trial court’s denial of the defe ndant’s motion to suppress the re sults of the sear ch.

CO NC LU SION

Ba sed on the for eg oing a

uthorities and re asoning
, we affirm the trial court’s order de ny ing the motion to suppress.

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE