### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON O ct ober 6, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OFTEN NES SEE v. BRAD LEYHA WKS D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r C ro ck ett C o u n ty N o. 3916 C l ay burn P eepl es , Judge

N o. W 2008- 02657- C C A - R 3- C D - F i l ed F ebruary 19, 2010

T h e D e f e n d a n t-A p p e llan t, B ra d ley H a w k s, p led g u ilty in th e C irc u it C o u rt o f C ro c k e tt C o u n tyto p o sses sion o f less than

. 5 g ram s o f m etha m p h etam ine w ith inten t to sell o r de li v er, a C l as s C fe lon y . H e w as s ent ence d t o ei ghty ear s i n t he Tennes s ee D epart m entof C or r ect i on and fi ned $2, 000. Pur s uantt o T ennes s ee Rul e of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e 37, H aw ks at t em pted t o reserve the foll ow i ng cert i fi ed q uest i on of law : “W hethert he search and arr est of the defenda nt w as uncons t i tut i onal i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 7 of the [Tennes s ee] C ons t i tut i on and the 4th A m endment of the U

. S. C ons t i tut i on. ” B eca us e the ce r t i fi ed ques t i on fai l s t o i dent i fyt he s cope a nd l i m i t s of the l egal i s s ue r es erved, w e co n cl ude that w e ar e w i t houtj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert hi s appea l , and ther efor e i ti s di s m i s s ed.

T enn. R . A pp. P . 3 A ppeal as of R i ght ; A ppeal D i s m i s s ed C AMI L L E R. M C M UL L EN , J

. , del i ver ed the opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. G L ENN and D. K EL L Y T HO MAS , J R
. , J J

. , j oi ned. M . B ra n d o n B a rb e r, A la m o , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t, B ra d le yH a w k s . R ober t E

. C ooper , J r . , A t t or ney G ener al and R epor t er ; C l ar ence E

. L ut z, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; G aryG

. B r ow n, D i s t r i ct A t t or ney G ener al ; and St ephani e H al e, A s s i s t antD i s t r i ct A t t or neyG ener al , fort he A ppel l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee. OP I NI ON Backg r ound . H a w k s w a s in d ic te d f o r p o s s e s s io n o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e o v e r 0 .5 gr ams w i t h i nt ent t o s el l or del i ver , a C l as s B fel ony . H e l at er pl ed gui l t y t o t he re d u ced ch arg e o f p o sses sion o f less than

. 5 g ram s o f m etha m p h etam ine w ith inten t to sell o r de li v er,It is not entirely c lear from th e reco rd w hether the methamph etamine, whic h fo rms the b asis o f the 1 indictment, was recovered fro m the Ig loo c ooler or theou tbuildinglocate d o n H awk s’ pro perty. -2- a C l as s C fel ony . T he met hamphet ami ne w as found on H aw ks ’ p rop erty dur i ng a pol i ce 1 s ear ch. H aw ks fi l ed a mot i on t o s uppr es s al l evi dence s ei zed dur i ng t he s ear ch. T he mot i on t o s uppr es s chal l enged the s ear ch of H aw ks ’ r es i dence on t he fol l ow i ng gr ounds : ( 1) “Law en fo rce m en t of

fice rs ha d n o p rob ab le ca u se to co n d u ct a w arran tl ess sea rch o f d ef en d an t’ s r es i dence ; ”( 2) “The se ar ch w as noti nci dentt o l aw ful arr es t , w i t h cons ent gi ven fr eel yand vo l un t ari l y , probab l e cause w i t h e x ig e n t c i rcum st ances, i n h ot purs uit , or a st op and fri sk si tuati on as prescr i bed by l aw ; ” (3) “T he arr estof the defe nd ant w as an i l l egal, i nv al i d arr est d u e to th e f

ac t th at i t r esu lt ed fro m an il lega l, inv ali d , w arran tl ess sea rch o f th e d ef en d an t’ s hom e and outbui l di ngs l ocat ed on the prop erty , w i t houtpr obabl e ca us e t o do s o; ” and ( 4) “D efe ndant ’ s c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s a g a i n s ti l l e g a l s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e a n d h i s r i g h t s t o due pr oces s of l aw , equal pr ot ect i on of the l aw s and couns el have be en vi ol at ed. ” T h e lim ited f

a c ts p re se n ted in th is c a se a re n o t in d isp u te. P rio r to th e m o tio n to su p p ress h ea ri n g , the pro sec u tor stat ed , “Ju d g e, w e’re arg u ing a p lai n v iew ca se a n d w e’re p re p a re d to g o f

o rw a rd o n th a t.” O n th e d a te a t issu e , C a p tain E ric U se lto n o f th e C ro c k e tt C ount ySher i ff’ s D epart m ent , t es t i fi ed th at h e w as cal l ed t o H aw ks ’ r es i dence byot her off i cers becau se he w as ass i gn e d to t he W estT enn essee V i olentC ri m es and D rug T ask For ce. H e s t at ed thathe had r ece i ved s peci al i zed tr ai ni ng i n t he det ect i o n o f il legal drug ac ti v ityan d w as labo ratory ce rt ifi ed

. C ap tai n U selt o n ex p lai n ed that the o ther o ff icers w ere atH aw ks ’ r es i dence i n r es pons e t o an ea r l i erdom es t i c vi ol ence cal l fr om H aw ks ’ r es i dence

. W hen C apt ai n U s el t on arr i ved, he s t at ed t hat t he ot her offi cer s w er e pos i t i oned aw ayfr om H aw ks ’ r es i dence

. H e ca l l ed fort h e assi s t ance of otherl ab ce r t i fi ed l aw enfor cement offi cer s as w el l as t he Fr i ends hi p Fi r e D epart m ent

. H e t es t i fi ed t hatt he or i gi nal r es pondi ng offi cer s had eva cuat ed H aw ks ’ w i fe and chi l dr en and s ent t hem t o t he emer gencyr oom for tes tin g b e f

o re h e a rriv e d . C a p tain U se lto n sa id th a t h e c o u ld sm e ll th e a n h y d ro u s a m m o n ia and s t ar t erfl u id fr om t he r oad, appr oxi m at el ya hundr ed y ar ds “fr om w her e the s ubs t ance emi t t i ng t he s m el l w as l ocat ed[. ] ” B efor e loca ti ng t he s our ce of t he odor , C apt ai n U s el t on c l e a r e d t h e r e s i d e n c e i n a n e f f o r tt o l o c a t e Ha wk s , b u tc o u l d n o tl o c a t e h i m. W hen s ear chi n g f

o rHawks , Ca p t ai n U s el t on expl ai ned theyus ed the bac k door , w hi ch w as l eftopen, beca us e the fr ontdoorw as lock ed

. C apt ai n U s el t on s ai d t heyfound no e v id e n c e o f

ille g a l n a rc o tic s in s id e th e re s id e n c e . C apt ai n U s el t on det erm i ned t hat t he odor w as comi ng fr om an ar ea ne art he bac k door w her e an I gl oo cool er( “the cool er ”) w as l ocat ed. T he cool erw as j us tout s i de the bac k door nextt o a garbage c an. H e opene d t he cooler a n d im m edi at el ydet erm i ned thati tw as t he so u rc e o f th e o d o r. T h e c o o ler c o n tain e d “ w h ite c h a lk yp o w d e r” th a t w a s s o a k e d in-3-

anhy dr ous amm oni a, s t ar t erfl ui d, and ca m p fuel

. T he cool eral s o cont ai ned Sudafe d, w hi ch i s an i n g red ient for met hamphet ami ne. C apt ai n U s el t on t es t i fi ed thatt he cont ent s of the cool erw er e w r apped i n coff ee f i l t er s . H e s ai d t he cont ent s t es t ed pos i t i ve for ps eudoephe dr i ne, w hi ch i s an i ngr edi entof m ethamphet ami ne. H e des cr i bed w hathe found as a “so m ew h at ac ti v e in itsel f . .

. o n e p o t m etho d o f c o o k ing m etha m p h etam ine.” H o w ev er, att he t i m e of the hear i ng, t he T ennes s ee Bure au of I nves t i gat i on C r i m e Lab had nott es t ed the c o n tents fo r m etha m p h etam ine b ec au se o f it s str o n g o d o r. Ca p t a i n Us e l t o n a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a th e s e a r c h e d o u tb u i l d i n g s o n Ha wk s ’ p r o p e r t y . As a r e s u l to f

t h e s e a r c h , Ca p t a i n Us e l t o n f o u n d t wo j a r s c o n t a i n i n g a s ma l l a mou n to f s t a r t er fl ui d. H e expl ai ned thats t ar t erfl ui d w as a s ol ventus ed t o cook met hamphet ami ne. T her e w as no ar gum ent pr es ent ed byei t hert he St at e orH aw ks att he hea r i ng on t he m o tio n to su p p re ss . T h e trial c o u rt d e n ied H a w k s’ m o tio n to su p p re ss , sta tin g :

I t hi nk undert he ci r cumst ance s t he off i cer s di d onl yw hatt heycoul d be expec t ed t o do. Safetyco n side rat i ons w er e s uch thatt heyw oul d have be en re m is s to h a v e d o n e a n y th in g e ls e , s o I’ m o v e rr u lin g th e M o tio n [ .] H a w k s s u b s e q u e n tlye n ter e d a c o n d iti o n a l g u iltyp lea . T h e ju d g m e n t f o rm re f lec ts t hat H aw ks r es er ved a cert i fi ed quest i on of l aw . T he tr i al cour ti s s ued an or derw hi ch found t hat“the S t at e and t he C our t cons ent ed t o t he re s ervat i on of t hi s i s s ue; and thatal l par t i es and th e C o u rt a re o f

th e o p in io n th a t th is i ss u e is dis p o sitiv e o f th is c a se .” H a w k s f

iled a tim e ly n o tic e o f a p p e a l. A N A L Y S IS I . C ert i f

i ed Q ues t i on . T he gui l t ypl ea s t at es t hatH aw ks r eserved the fol l ow i ng cert i fi ed ques t i on of l aw : “W hethert he s ear ch and arre s tof the def endantw as uncons t i tut i onal i n vi ol at i on of A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 7 of the [Tennes s ee] C ons t i tut i on and the 4 th A m e n d m e n t o f th e U .S . C o n stitu tio n .” H a w k s’ b rie f se ts f o rth th e iss u e in slig h tly n a r r o w e r te rm s: “ W h e th e r th e W a rra n tles s S e a rc h o f th e P re m ise s o f

B ra d ley H a w k s f

e ll un de ron e of t he no t e d e xc e pt i on [s ] t o the W a r r a ntRequ i r e mentde mand e d u nd e rt he U

. S. and Tennes s ee Const i tut i ons ?” U pon r evi ew , w e hol d t hatt he ce r t i fi ed qu esti o n does not cl ear l y i dent i fy t he s cope and l i m i t s of t he l egal i s s ue r es erved, and ther efor e w e ar e w i t hout ju ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h is a p p e a l. T ennes s ee Rul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedure 3 7( b) ( 2) ( A ) al l ow s foran appe al fr om any or derorj udgm enton a pl ea of gui l t y or nol o cont ender e i f t he def endantr es erves t he r i ght t o appea l a ce r t i fi ed ques t i on of l aw t hati s di s pos i t i ve of the ca s e, s o l ong as t he fol l ow i ng f o u r re q u ire m e n ts a re m e t:-4-

( i ) t he j udgm entof convi cti on orot herdocument t o w hi ch s uch j udgm ent r efe r s t hati s fi l ed bef

or e the not i ce o f ap p eal , cont ai ns a s t at ementof the c e rtifie d q u e stio n o f

law th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t re se rv e d f

o r a p p e llate re v iew ; ( i i ) t he ques t i on of l aw i s s t at ed i n t he j udgm ent or document s o as t o i dent i fy c lea rlyth e sc o p e a n d lim its o f th e leg a l issu e re se rv e d ; (iii) the judg m en t o r d o c u m e n t re f lec ts th a t th e c e rtifie d q u e stio n w a s e x p re ss ly r es erved w i t h t he cons entof the s t at e and the tr i al cour t ; and ( i v) t he j udgm entordocument r efl ect s t hat th e defenda nt , t he s t at e, and the t r i al cour tar e of the opi ni on t hatt he ce r t i fi ed qu esti on i s di s pos i t i ve of the c a s e [ .] T enn. R

. C r i m . P. 37( b) ( 2) ( A )

. T he Tennes s ee Supr eme C o u rt clea r l yout l i ned the r equi r ement s forr es ervi ng a ce r t i fi ed ques t i on of l aw i n St at e v. Pr es t on: R egar dl es s of w hathas appea r ed i n pr i orpet i t i ons , or der s , col l oquyi n open c o u rt o r o th e rw ise , the f in a l o rd e r o r j u d g m e n t f ro m w h ich th e tim e b e g in s to run t o pur s ue a T. R

. A

. P. 3 appea l m us tcont ai n a s t at ementof the di s pos i t i ve cert i fi ed ques t i on of l aw r es erved bydefe ndantforappel l ate rev iew and the q u e stio n o f law m u st be sta ted so a s to c lea rly id e n tify th e sc o p e a n d th e lim its of the l egal i s s ue r es er ved. Forexampl e, w her e quest i ons of l aw i nvol ve the v a lid ity o f

s e a rc h e s a n d th e a d m is s ib ility o f s ta te m e n ts a n d c o n f

e s s io n s , e tc ., t he r eas ons rel i ed upon bydefe ndanti n t he tr i al cour tatt he s uppr es s i on hear i ng m us tbe i dent i fi ed i n t he s t at ement of t he cert i fi ed ques t i on of l aw and r evi ew byt he appel l at e cour t s w i l l be l i m i t ed t o t hos e pas s ed upon byt he tr i al j udge and s t at ed i n t he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on, abs enta cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement ot herw i s e. W i t houtan expl i ci ts t at ement of the ce r t i fi ed ques t i on, nei t hert he defe ndant , t he St at e nort he tr i al j udge ca n m ake a m eani ngful det erm i nat i on of w hethert he i s s ue sought t o be re vi ew ed i s di s pos i t i ve of t he cas e. M os tof t he r epor t ed and unr epor t ed ca s es s eeki ng the l i m i t ed appe l l at e r evi ew p ur s uantt o T enn. R

. C r i m . P. 37 have be en di s m i s s ed bec aus e the ce r t i fi ed ques t i on w as notdi s pos i t i ve. A l s o, t he or derm us ts t at e thatt he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on w as expr es s l y r es erved as par t of a pl ea agr eement , t hatt he St at e and t he t r i al j udge conse nt ed t o t he re s ervat i on and thatt he St at e and the tr i al j udge ar e of the opi ni on t hatt he ques t i on i s di s pos i t i ve o f the ca s e. O f cour s e, t he bur den i s on defe ndant t o s ee t hat t hes e pre r equi s i t es ar e i n t he fi nal or derand t hatt he r ecor d br oughtt o t he appe l l at e court s cont ai ns al l of t he pr ocee di ngs bel ow t hatbearupon w hethert he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on of l aw i s di s pos i t i ve and-5-

t he mer i t s of the quest i on cert i fi ed. N o i s s ue bey ond t he s cope of t he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on w i l l be cons i der ed. 7 5 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 4 7 , 6 5 0 (T en n . 1 9 8 8 ) (em p h asis ad d e d ). A s the T en n esse e S u p rem e C o u rt s t r es s ed, “Pr es t on put s t he bur den of r es ervi ng, ar t i cul at i ng, and i dent i fy i ng t he i s s ue upon th e d e f e n d a n t.” S ta te v . P e n d e rg ra s s 9 3 7 S .W .2 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 8 (T e n n . 1 9 9 6 ). T hi s cour thas pr evi ous l y r equi r ed cert i fi ed ques t i ons of l aw t o be narr ow l yfr amed. I n St at e v. N i chol as J

. J ohns on, t hi s cour t concl uded t hat i t di d not have j ur i s di ct i on of the cas e becaus e t he defenda nt fai l ed t o i dent i fy t he scope and l i m i t s of the l egal i s s ue r es erved wi t h i n t h e e x p a n s i v e a r e a o f s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e l a w: I n t he pr es entcas e, t he i s s ue r es erved i s “the val i di t y of t he s ear ch and s ei zur e of th e ” App e l l a n t

. Th i s o v e r l yb r o a d q u e s t i o n v i o l a t e s t h e ma n d a t es ann ou nced i n P res t on . T he qu est i on i s n ot on l y patent l y no n-speci fi c bu tal so does notcl ear l yi d en ti fy t he r eas ons r el i ed upon byt he A ppel l antatt he s uppr es s i on hear i ng. A ddi t i onal l y , r evi ew of the ques t i on as pr es ent l yfr amed w oul d p o t ent i al l yr equi r e a c om pl et e di s s er t at i on of the l aw of s ear ch and se iz u r e o f w h ich th is c o u rt is n o t w ill in g to e n g a g e in a b se n t sp e c if ic boundar i es ci r cumscr i bed byt he A ppel l ant

. T he hol di ng of Pr es t on cr eat ed a br i ght

- l i ne rul e r egar di ng t he pr er equi s i t es for a R ul e 37( b) ( 2) ( i ) appea l fr om w hi ch thi s cour t m aynotdepart

. See gene r al l yPr es t on, 759 S. W

. 2d at650; buts ee St at e v. H arr i s , 919 S. W

. 2d 619, 621 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995) ( i s s ue need n o t be fr amed i n s t andar d “l aw s chool ” form at ; s t at ements at i s fi es Pr es t on i f appe l l at e courtcan as cert ai n fr om t he r ecor d t he s cope of t he i s s ue p re s e n te d ). N o. M 2000- 03162- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2001 W L 1356369, at *2 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atN as hvi l l e, N ov. 6, 2001) ( footnot e omi t t ed) , per m . t o appea l deni ed (Tenn. A pr . 8, 2002)

. I n St at e v. K a le J . S a n d u sk y , this c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’s c e rtifie d q u e stio n w a s o v e rly br oad i n l i ghtof the narr ow eri s s ue ar gued byt he def endanti n hi s appel l at e br i ef: T he i s s ue r es erved i n t he tr i al cour t ’ s j udgm enti s “w hetheror nott he entr i es byl aw enfor cementi nt o [the D efe ndant ’ s ] hom e on O ct ober23, 2006 w er e i n vi ol at i on of cons t itu ti o n al guar ant ees agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches an d seizu res u n d er the stat e a n d fe d era l co n sti tuti o n s. . . . ” T h e D ef en d an t’ s br i ef, how ever , fr ames the i s s ue as fol l ow s : “M us tarr es tw arran ts f ort he o f f e n se o f ‘f a ilu re to a p p e a r’ b e iss u e d b ya n e u tra l an d d e tac h e d m a g istra te u p o n a s wor n a f

f i d a v i ts e t t i n g f

o r t h p r o b a b l e c a u s e ?”-6- T h e D e f e n d a n t’s c e rtifie d q u e stio n is ov e rlyb ro a d a n d f a ils to c lea rly i dent i fyt he s cope and l i m i t s of t he l egal i s s ue r es erved. W e poi ntoutt hatt he c e rtifie d q u e stio n d o e s n o t m e n tio n th e v a lid ityo f a n a rre st w a rra n t. N o. M 2008- 00589- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2009 W L 537526, at*3 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atN as hvi l l e, M a r. 4 , 2 0 0 9 ), p e rm . to a p p e a l d e n ie d (T e n n . A u g . 2 4 , 2 0 0 9 ). W e conc l ude t hatt he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on pr es ent ed byH aw ks fai l s t o pr eci s el yi dent i fy th e s c o p e a n d li m it s o f th e leg al i ssu e re serv ed

. S ee T en n . R

. C ri m . P

. 3 7 (b)(2 )(A )(i i)

. In a ttem p tin g to re se rv e th e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r “ th e s e a r c h a n d a rre st o f th e d e f e n d a n t” vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 7 of t he Tennes s ee Const i tut i on, H aw ks as ks t hi s cour t t o conduct a compl et e over vi ew of s ear ch a n d se izu re law a s a p p lied to th e f a c ts o f th is c a se . T h is c o u rt h a s re p e a ted ly d e c li n e d to engage i n orconduct s uch an over vi ew . See N i chol as J

. J ohns on, 2001 W L 1356369, at*2; St at e v. R andal L

. C heek, N o. M 2000- 00203- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2000 W L 1838584 at*4 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atN as hvi l l e, D ec. 14, 2000) ( di s m i s s i ng ap p ea l b ec aus e ce r t i fi ed ques t i on, “w hethert her e w as a l aw ful or u n law fu l se ar ch of [ defe ndant ’ s ] r es i dence bypol i ce o f f ic e rs ” , w a s o v e rl yb ro a d q u e s tio n in v io la tio n o f P re s to n ). H aw ks ’ cert i fi ed ques t i on i s over l y br oad fors ever al r eas ons . Fi r s t , H aw ks ’ m ot i on t o s uppr es s al l eges fi ve s epar at e gr ounds s uppor t i ng t he suppr es s i on of al l evi dence s ei zed on t he dat e ati s s ue, none of w hi ch w er e ar gued bef or e the tr i al cour t

. N ext , t he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on as ks t hi s cour t t o exami ne “the s ear ch and s ubs equent arr es tof the def endant , ” w hen t he r ecor d s how s t hatH aw ks w as nots ear ched. T he ce r t i fi ed ques t i on is f ur t herfl aw ed b e c a u se it d o e s n o t sp e c if yw h a t p o lice a c tio n re n d e re d th e se a rc h a n d a rre st u n c o n stitu tio n a l. For exampl e, i t i s uncl earw hetherH aw ks i s chal l engi ng t he s ear ch of hi s hom e, t he openi ng o f t h e I g l o o c o o l e r , o rt h e s e a r c h o f t h e o u tb u i l d i n g s a s p a r to f t h e c u r t i l a g e o f

h i s p r o p e r t y. M oreove r, t he cert i fi ed q uest i on do es not a d e q u at el ysetfort h the l egal basi s for H aw ks’ cl ai m . I tgeneral l yr efe r s t o a vi ol at i on of the Four t h A m endmentof the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and A r t i cl e I , Sect i on 7 of t he Tennes s ee Const i tut i on and fa i l s t o s peci fyw hi ch exc e p t i o n t o t h e warr a n t r e q u i r e me n t a p p l i e s . Se e St a t e v . To b i a s To b y Hor t o n , N o. W 2008- 01170- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2009 W L 2486173, at *6 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. , atJ acks on, A ug. 13, 2009) ( “I n l i ghtof the fa ct s of thi s ca se an d the tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng, t he fa i l ur e t o m ent i on t he exi gencyexce pt i on t o t he w arr antreq u ir em enti n t he cert i fi ed ques t i on of l aw i s fat al t o t hi s appea l

. ”)

. I n par t i cul ar , t he ques t i on does notm ent i on pr obabl e ca us e, pl ai n vi ew , orthe exi gentci r cumst ance s exce pt i on t o t he w arr ant r equi r ement , al l of w hi ch pr es um abl yw oul d be ce nt r al t o H aw ks ’ c la i m . A s fr amed, t he ques t i on i s pat ent l ynon- s peci fi c bec aus e i t fai l s t o i dent i fyt he s cope a nd l i m i t s of the l egal i s s ue r ai s ed and the r eas o n s reli ed u p o n byH aw ks att he s uppr es s i on hear i ng. T he br oad ter m s o f th e c e rtifie d q u e stio n a re n o t cu re d b yH a w k s’ re sta tem e n t o f th e iss u e o n a p p e a l, w hi ch i s s etfor t h i n s l i ght l ynarr ow ed t erm s . See i d. ; K al e J

. Sandus ky , 2009 W L 537526,-7-

at*3. B eca us e H aw ks has fai l ed t o pr oper l y i dent i fy t he s cope a nd l i m i t s of the l egal i s s ue re se rv e d , w e a re w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th is a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly , the a p p e a l is d is m is s e d

. CO NC L US I ON U p o n re v iew , w e c o n c lu d e th a t H a w k s d id n o t p ro p e rlyid e n tifyth e sc o p e a n d lim its o f th e iss u e re se rv e d in h is c e rtifi e d q u e s tio n o f law , an d w e a re w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n s id e r t h e a p p e a l. A c c o rd in g ly, th e a p p e a l is d is m is s e d

.

______________________________ CA M I L L E R. M c M UL L E N, J UDGE