### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 7, 200 6



### STAT E O F T EN NE SSEE v. AN TH ONY DE WAYN E C OT TO N

Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Laud erdale County No. 7871 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2006-00608-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Janu ary 18, 2007

The De fenda nt, Anthony Deway ne Cotton, pled g uilty t o p o ssession of a sche dule I I controlled substance with intent to deliver .5 g rams or more , unlawful possession of a wea pon by a convic ted felon, a nd p o s s es s i o n of drug para pherna lia. Pursuant to Rule of Criminal Procedure 37, the De fe nd a nt r e se rv e d a s a

c e rt if ie d q ue sti on of la w the iss ue of wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d w he n it de nie d h is m oti on to s up pr e ss. F ind ing no re ve rs ibl e e rr or , w e a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH , and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT J R ., J J ., joined.

Kari I . Weber, Somerville, Te nnessee , for the A ppellant, Anthony Deway ne Cotton.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Eliz abeth B. M ar ney , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Eliz abeth T. Rice, District Attorney Gene ral; Trac ey Br ewe r-Walker
, Assist an t Di strict Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION I. F acts

Th is c a se ari se s f

ro m th e De fe nd a nt’ s g uil ty ple a to p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o d e liv e r . 5 g ra ms or more of

a sche dule I I

controlled subst ance , unlawful possession of a weapon by a convic ted fe lon, and possession of drug para pherna lia. The Def

endant’ s appea l is based on a certified question of law

rese rved upon the entry of the Def endant’ s g uiltyplea. Prior to ente ring a g uiltyplea, the D efe ndant fi le d a motio n to supp re ss ev ide nc e , co nte nd ing that it wa s o bta ine d w ith a n in va lidse arc h w arr a nt. The trial court denied the Def endant’ s motion, and the Def endant pled g uilty , rese rving the question of law r eg arding whether the motion to suppress was improper ly denied.

The following evidenc e wa s prese nted at the hearing on the motion to suppress: I nvestig ator Brian Kelly

testified that he f

iled the sea

rch w arr ant in the instant case . The a ffidavit in support of-2-

t h e s ea rc h wa rr an ts t at ed t h e f o l l o wi n g:
Personally appea

red befor e me, I nvestig ator Brian Kelley L auder dale County

Sheriff De pa rt me nt, a ndmake s o a th that he has re a so ns to b e lie ve that th e re is p ro ba ble

cause for be lieving tha t J ohn Doe is/are i n p o ssession of the following described p ro p er t y , t o wi t : C o ca i n e an d al l d ru g p ar ap h er n al i a re l at ed t o t h e s t o ra ge, p ac k agi n g, sale a nd/or distribution of Cocaine contra ry to the laws of the s t ate of Tenne ssee, upon the following described prope rty to wit: .said residence being an apa rtment located in the B rown Villag e Apa rtments on 1 0 5 W at kins St . in Ripl ey Tenne ssee L a ud e rd a le Cou nty . T he B ro wn Vi lla g e apa rt me nts c on sis t of

tw o ma in b uil din g s. Said residenc e being located in the South building on the South side on the rear ne ar the ra ilroad trac ks. The door of said apartment fac es Parkway Street. This apa

rtment complex is tan in c olor with dark brow n trim and his rea sons for such be lief ar e that Affia nt has On F ebrua

ry 4 2005 conducte d an investi g ation into the sale of c ocaine th by Danny Roge rs aka

“Tick” at 212 Parkway

Street i n Ripley

Tenne ssee. Af

fiant

so licit ed th e he lp o f A g e nt C hr is Pay ne of the Wes t T e nn e sse e Judic ia l D ru g Ta sk For ce to a ttempt to purchase c rac k coca ine from Danny Roge rs aka T ick in the Ripley are a. Af fiant provided to Ag ent Pay ne an a udio transmitter and audio/video

re c or din g de vic e

. Af

fi a nt ac c omp a nie d by De t. John Tho mps on of the L a ud e rd a le CountySheriff D epart. and Ag ent Gar rison Tay lor of the West Tenne ssee Judicial Drug Task F orce did follow Ag ent Pay ne to the tar g et area wh i l e monitoring the

a ud io tr a ns mit te r in Ag e nt Pa y ne ’s po sse ssi on

. Ag e nt Pa y ne ma de c on tac t w ith Roge rs shortly

befor e 2:00 p.m. wh er e Agent P ay ne informe d Roge rs he wa nted a “forty ” Rog ers a sked if Ag ent Pay ne if he was t h e p o l i ce

. Ag ent Pay ne re lied no, Roge rs told him to m ake the block. Ag ent Pay ne re turned a n d R o ger s told Age nt Pa y n e t o p u l l o v er a nd park. Rog ers sa id make the block if it makes y ou more
com fo rt ab l e. Ag ent Pay ne re turned a nd Roge rs g ot into the car w ith Age nt Pay ne and stated tha t he had to g o g et it. Affia nt obse rved Ag ent Pay ne with Rog ers in the

car with him pull into the Brow n Villag e Apts. on Watkins St . and Roge rs knocking

on the do or of the abo ve de sc ri be d Apt . Af fi a nt p ull e d to a

mor e se c ur e loc a tio n to

mon ito r the a ud io t

ra ns mit te r. Ag e nt Pa y ne ph on e d Ag e nt T a y lor (w ho m w a s w ith the af fiant) a nd stated that t he deal was done and he was inst ructe d to g o back to the prede termined mee ting spot. Aff iant returne d and took possession of two piec es of off white c hunky s u b s tance that Danny Roge rs aka

“Tick” sold to Age nt Pay ne. Danny Roge rs aka “Tick” did obta in the coca ine base from th e a b o v e described Apartment and was w itness ed by Ag ent Chris Pay ne. Af fiant field teste d the

su bs ta nc e a ndit d id t e st pr e su mpt ive po sit ive fo r c oc a ine . H e the re fo re a sk s th a t a

war rant issue to sea

rch the perso n and pre mises of the said John Doe as above de sc ri be d in sa id C ou nty , w he re he be lie ve s sa id c oc a ine a nda ll d ru g pa ra ph e rn a lia rela ted to the storag e, pac kag ing, sa le, and/or d i s tribution of coca ine is/are now possessed contr ary

to the L aws of T ennesse e.-3-

I nvestig ator Ke lly

testified that he obtaine d the sear ch war rant and we nt to ex ecute it around 5:00 p.m. Police office rs went to the Def endant’ s apartment a nd “knocke d and an n o u nced.” I nve s ti g a to r

K e ll y s a w th e D e f

e n d a n t a n d a n o th e r

in d iv id u a l s ta n d in g in s id e th e d o o r w a y

. Police office rs enter ed, sec ured the are a to be se arc hed, and f ound that the Defenda nt possessed a ha ndg un,
mon e y , a ndthr e e ba g s o f c oc a ine ba se . T he De fe nd a nt a c kn ow le dg e d th a t he ow ne d th e se ite ms. The De fenda nt reque sted a copy of t he search warr ant, and one was left at his residenc e. I nvestig ator Kelly explained how the af

fidavit was incor

porate d with the sear ch wa rra nt.

On cr oss-examination, I nvestig ator Ke lly acknow ledg ed that Ag ent Pay ne did not pat down Roge rs and did not know if Rog ers h ad drugs on his per son befor e he w ent into the Def endant’ s apartment. I nvestig ator Kelly ag ree d that the s ide of the apartment building in question containe d tw o s e pa rate apa rt me nts

. He a c kn ow le dg e d tha t a fe nc e la y be tw e e n the se tw o a pa rt me nts a ndhis vantag e point. Consequently , I nvestig ator Ke lly could not see Roger ’s and Age nt Pay ne’s leg s. He acknow ledg ed that he did not witness a drug transac tion. I nvestig ator Ke lly further testified that he didno t kn ow wh o re nte d the apa rt me nt wh e n he ma de the wa rr a nt, a ndthe apa

rt me nt b uil din g un its d i d n o th av e s p ec i fi ed n u m b er s

. He ac k n o wl ed ged t h at t h e wa rr an tl ac k ed a s i gn at u re fr o mt h e j u d ge who re ceive d it after the war rant’s e x ecution.

II. Ana lys is

Be cause this appeal c omes befor e us as a certified question of law, pur suant to Rule 37(b)(2) of t h e T e n n e s s e e Ru le s o f Crim in a l P r o c e d u r e , w e mu s t f ir s t d e te r mi n e w h e th e r

th e question pr e se nte d is dis po sit ive

. Te nn e sse e Rul e of Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re 37 (b )( 2) pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art , that a def endant may

appea l from any

judgme nt of conviction on a ple a of g uiltyif:

(A ) the de fe nd a nt e nte re d in to a ple a a g re e me nt u nd e r R ule 11 (a)(3) b ut e xplic itl y
rese rved- -with the consent of the state and of the court-- the rig ht to appeal a certified qu e sti on of

la w tha t is dis po s iti ve of

the c a se , a ndthe fo llo wi ng re qu ir e me nts are me t: (i) the judg ment of convic tion or other docume nt to which such judgment re fer s that is filed befor e the notice of appea l, c ontains a statement of the ce rtified question of law that the de fenda nt reser ved for appellate revie w; (i i) the qu e sti on of

la w is state d in the jud g me nt or do c ume nt so a s to i de nti fy c le arl y the scope and limits of the leg al issue re serve d; (i ii) the jud g me nt o r d oc ume nt r e fl e c ts tha t th e c e rt if ie d q uest ion wa s e xpre ssl y
rese rved w ith the consent of the sta te and the trial court; and (iv) the judgment or document reflec ts that the defendant, the state, and the trial cour t

are of the opinion that the ce rtified question is dispositi ve of the case

. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2). The certified question of law so rese rved is whether the sea rch w arr ant issued and ex ecute d in this case and the resulting sear ch and se izure of the De fenda nt’s person a nd residenc e we re in violation of his rig hts ag ainst unrea sonable s ea rc h an d seizure as provide d by Article 1, Section 7 of t he C onstitut ion of t he S tate of Tenne ssee and the Fourth Amendment to the Constit ution of the United States. B eca use al l o f t he evide nce indicating that the D efe ndant had-4-

possession of a sche dule I I controlled substanc e with intent to deliver .5 g rams or more, a wea pon, and possession drug para

pherna lia was obtaine d throug h the sea rch tha t he i s challeng ing, w ere we t o co n cl u de that the se arc h was unc onstitut ional there would be no evide nce to support the Def endant’ s convictions. Acc ording ly , we a g ree with the trial court, a nd the parties, that the ce rtified question of law is dispositive in thi s case

. The prer equisites for the consideration of the merits of

a ce rtified question of l aw have been m et, and, there fore
, we beg in our analy sis of whe ther the se arc h in the instant case w as valid.

B. M ot ion to Suppr e ss

Th e De fe nd a nt c on te nd s th a t th e a ff ida vit in s up po rt

of the se arc h wa rran t was inv a lid beca use it failed to desc ribe the loc ation to be sear ched with sufficient c erta inty . He a rg ues that the

wa rr a nt w a s d ir e c te d a g a ins t a mul ti- un it dwe ll ing a ndfa ile d to su ff ic ie ntl y de sc ri be the su b- un it in t e n d e d t o b e s e ar c h e d

. T h e D e f e n d a n t a l s o a s s e r t s t h a t t h e w arr a n t f a i l e d t o e s t abli sh pr ob a ble

cause to justi fy

the sea rch be cause the war

rant failed to e stablish a sufficie nt c onnection betwe en the location and the a lleg ed criminal activity . Finally , the Def endan t arg ues that the wa rra nt violates Tenne ssee Rule of Criminal Proce dure Rule 41( c) be cause it lacks a sig nature from the judg e who

re c e ive d th e wa

rr a nt a ft e r i ts e xec uti on

. Th e tr ia l c ou rt fo un d that the a ff ida vit state d p ro ba

ble c a us e for the issuanc e of the sear ch wa rra nt and provided a

sufficie nt description of the locat ion to be

sear ched. T he trial court also found t hat t he re turn of the se arc h war rant wa s adequate and that e ven if the re turn was inade quate, a faulty return doe s not invalidate an other wise leg al war rant.

The standa

rd of r eview f

or a tria l court’s finding s of fa ct and co n cl usions of law in a suppression hea

ring was e stablished in State v. Odom, 928 S.W .2d 18 (Tenn. 1996) . This standard mandates tha t “a trial court’ s findings of fac t in a suppression hea ring will be upheld unless the

e vid e nc e pr e po nd e rate s o the rw ise .” I d. a t 23 . T he pr e va ili ng pa rt y in the tr ia l c ou rt

is “ e nti tle d to t h e s t r o n g e s t l e g i t i m a t e v i e w o f t h e e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e ar i n g a s w e l l a s a ll

rea sonable a nd leg itimate infere nces tha t may be dra wn from that evidenc e.” I d. Furthermore
, “[q] uestions of cre dibilit y of the witnesse s, the weig ht and value of the evidenc e, and r esolution of conflicts in the evide nce a re matters entrusted to the trial judg e as the trier of fac t.” I d. Howeve r, this Court reviews the trial c ourt’s application of the law to the f acts de novo, without any

defe renc e to the deter minations of the trial court. State v. Walton, 41 S.W .3d 75, 81 (Tenn. 2001)

. We beg an our analy sis with the Fourth A mendment to the United States Constit ution, made applica b le to th e s tate s th r o u g h th e F o u r te e n th A me n d me n t, M ap p v

. O h io
, 3 6 7 U

. S. 6 4 3
, 655 (1 96 1) , w hic h p ro vid e s a s f oll ow s:

Th e ri g ht o f the peo ple t o b e se c ur e in the ir pe rs on s, ho us e s, pa

pe rs , a nde ff

e c ts,

a g a ins t un re a so na

ble se arc he s and se izur e s, wi ll not be vio la te d, a ndno wa

rr a nts wi ll iss ue , b ut u po n p ro ba

ble c a us e , s up po rt e d b y

oath or a ff ir ma tio n, a ndpa

rt ic ula rl y describing the pla ce to be sear ched, a nd the per sons or things to be se ized.-5-

U. S. Co ns t. a me nd . I V. Simi larl y , A rt ic le I , Se c tio n 7 of the Te nn e sse e Con sti tut ion pr ov ide s:
people sha ll be secur e in their pe rsons, houses, pape rs and possessions, fr om
unrea sonable sea

rche s and seizures; and that g ener al war rants, whe reby

an off icer may be commande d to sear ch suspec ted place s, without evidence of the fa ct

co mmitt ed, or to seize any person or

persons not name d, whose off ence s are not pa rt ic ula rl y de sc ri be d a ndsu pp orte d b y e vid e nc e , a

re da ng e ro us to lib e rt y a ndno t to be g rante d.

Tenn. Const. art. I , § 7. “[A] s ear ch wa rra nt shall be issued only on the basis of an aff idavit, sworn be fo re a ‘n e utr a l and de ta c he d’ ma g ist rate , whi c h est abli sh e s pro ba ble c a us e of

its iss ua nc e .” Sta te v. Stevens, 989 S

. W

. 2 d 2 9 0, 293 (Tenn. 1999) . To establish probable cause to issue a sea rch

wa rr an t , an af

fi d av i t m u s t s u p p l y re as o n ab l e gro u n d s fo r su s p i ci o n t h at an i l l ega l ac ti s o cc u rr i n g. I d. Thus, the nee d for the mag istrate to ma ke a ne utral and de tache d decision re g arding the exist ence of proba ble cause require s that the aff idavit contain more tha n mere conclusory alleg ations by

the

a ff ia nt. Sta te v. Mo on , 8 41 S .W .2 d 33 6, 33 8 (T e nn . Crim. Ap p. 19 92 ). A s e arc h w arr a nt m us t particula rly describe the place to be sear ched. State v. Stinnett, 629 S.W .2d 1
, 3 (T en n

. 1982). “[G]enerally

a search warr ant di rec ted aga inst a mul ti[ -]unit dwelling is invalid unless it describes the subunit int ended to be sear ched w ith sufficient def initeness to exclude the sear ch of a n unintended subunit.” I d.

I n this case, the e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the finding s of the trial court. Ba sed on the fa cts that I nvestig ator Ke lly put in his affidavit, the trial court correct l y co ncluded that the aff idavit’s description of the l o ca t i o n t o b e sea rche d was a dequate and that the a ffidavit stated sufficie nt probable cause to just ify the issuance of the sea

rch w arr ant. The a ffidavit desc ribed the location with sufficie nt certainty and desig nated a specific apartment “locate d in the south buildi ng on the south side on the re ar ne ar the railroa d trac ks.” This de scription distinguishes the a partment to be sea rche d from all other near by apartments. The af

fidavit also established a sufficie nt

connec tion between the location and the a lleg ed criminal activity . The a ffidavit esta blish ed that Roge rs went into the apa

rtment listed in the affidavit to g et drugs, and then Ag ent Pay ne purc hased drug s from Rog ers.

The trial c ourt did not err w hen it found that the wa rra nt’s return w as satisfac tory and that even if the re turn was inadequate, a faulty return doe s not invalidate an other wise leg al war rant. The failure of the judg e to sig n the war rant upon its return w as mere ly a fa ilure to ca

rry out a ministerial duty . “Any

defe ct in the ministeri al fu n ct i o n s involved in the return of a sea rch w arr ant and the handling of seized items c an not vitiate the validity of a lawf ul searc h.” Smith v. S tate, 566 S.W.2d 533, 557 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1978) . The De fenda nt is not entit led to relief on this iss ue.

III. Conclusi on-6-

I n acc ordanc e with the foreg oing rea soning and authorities, we aff irm the judg ment of the tr ia l c ou rt

.

________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE