State v. Coffee, 98-00472
| Decision Date | 16 December 1999 |
| Docket Number | 98-00472 |
| Parties | STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appellant, v. EDWARD D. COFFEE, Appellee. C.C.A. M199800472CCAR3CD IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE AUGUST 1999 SESSION Opinion Filed |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wilson County
(Indictment Dismissed)
The State has appealed, as of right pursuant to Rule 3(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, from an order of the Wilson County Criminal Court, dismissing an indictment at the conclusion of a suppression of evidence hearing. The Wilson County Grand Jury returned a three count indictment against the defendant, Edward D. Coffee, for the unlawful possession of one half ounce or more of marijuana with intent to sell, for the unlawful possession of less than one half gram of cocaine with the intent to sell, and the unlawful and knowing possession of drug paraphernalia, to wit a crack pipe, all occurring on December 6, 1997.
The State presents one appellate issue:
Whether the trial court erred in suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a lawfully issued search warrant and dismissing the indictment against the defendant?
After a review of the entire record, briefs of the parties and applicable law, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment.
PAUL G. SUMMERS, Attorney General & Reporter, LUCIAN D. GEISE, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, Tennessee 37243
AFFIRMED
The search warrant was executed by Steven N. Lowery, a Lebanon City Police Officer, on December 6, 1997. Law enforcement officers seized one baggie containing cocaine powder, one gold jewelry box, several baggies containing a schedule VI controlled substance (marijuana), $125.00 in food stamps, one crack pipe, $2,423.00 in U.S. currency, a tin can containing a schedule VI controlled substance, and one Advil bottle containing blue pills from the defendant's residence.
The pertinent part of the affidavit is set out as follows:
On December 5, 1997, your affiant received information from a confidential informant introduced to Detective Lowery by Detective King of Mt. Juliet Police Department. The informant advised that he had in the past purchased schedule VI from Dayle Coffee at 1008 Center Street. The CI further advised that it had in the past cost $70.00 of U.S. currency for a quarter ounce of schedule VI. To corroborate this information, the CI was wired with a listening/monitoring device and issued $70.00 of U.S. currency of which the serial numbers had been copied. The CI then proceeded to 1008 Center Street where he purchased $70.00 worth of schedule VI. This transaction was monitored by Detectives Lowery and Nokes. By past experience and training, I, Detective Lowery believe that the $70.00 of marked U.S. currency, records of narcotic sales, schedule VI and paraphernalia will be found at 1008 Center Street, Lebanon.
The search warrant was issued by James R. Hankins, Wilson County Judicial Magistrate on December 5, 1997, at 12:42 p.m. to Steven N. Lowery, Lebanon Police Department.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence alleging that the articles seized from his residence were done so in violation of Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure 41(c), Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-104, the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. The defendant set out thirteen (13) grounds as to why the search warrant was faulty. More specifically in ground 12(f), the defendant alleges that the Judicial Commissioner issuing the warrant failed to keep an exact copy of the original of said search warrant as part of his official records.
At the evidentiary hearing, which consisted of arguments of counsel, the State conceded that the judicial commissioner failed to keep an exact copy of the search warrant as required by Rule 41(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The trial court granted the defendant's request for an order suppressing the evidence seized at this residence and dismissed the indictment.
The State asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing the indictment in that the defendant failed to establish prejudice by the issuing magistrate's failure to perform a ministerial duty. The defendant contends that the trial court was correct in its ruling.
The standard of appellate review regarding the issue of suppression of evidence is as follows:
The party prevailing in the trial court is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence adduced at the suppression hearing as well as all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn from that evidence. So long as the greater weight of the evidence supports the trial court's findings, those findings shall be upheld.
State v. Odom, 928 S.W.2d 18, 23 (Tenn. 1996).
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41(c) provides in pertinent part:
The search warrant shall command the peace officer to search forthwith the person or place named for the property specified. The magistrate shall prepare an original and two exact copies of the search warrant, one of which shall be kept by the magistrate as a part of his or her official records, and one of which shall be left with person or persons on whom the search warrant is served. The magistrate shall endorse upon the search warrant the hour, date, and name of the officer to whom the warrant was delivered for execution; and the exact copy of the search warrant and the endorsement thereon shall be admissible evidence. Failure of the magistrate to make said original and two copies of the search...
To continue reading
Request your trial