 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith9/6/2001
Assigned on Briefs July 11, 2001
The Appellant, Randall Keith Smith, appeals from the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized in his residence during the execution of a search warrant. A written "motion to suppress" was filed with the clerk on the day prior to Smith's scheduled trial for drug charges. On the date of trial, following the close of all proof in the case, Smith's trial counsel orally moved to suppress the evidence seized as a result of the search, based upon the grounds recited in the written motion. The trial court denied the motion, finding that (1) there was no factual basis to support suppression; and (2) the motion was untimely. The jury found Smith guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, a class C felony, and he received a three-year community corrections sentence. After review, we find the Appellant's suppression motion untimely. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Affirmed.
David G. Hayes, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jerry L. Smith and Alan E. Glenn, JJ., joined.
OPINION
Factual Background
On January 19, 2000, Henry County Deputies William David Archie and Adam Killion drove to the Appellant's residence for the purpose of obtaining the Appellant's signature on a forfeiture receipt. Officer Archie explained that the purpose for his presence at the Appellant's residence was because
I had arrested a Jeffrey Neese two or three days prior to this. And I was seizing a vehicle that belonged to Mr. Smith for Mr. Neese being revoked in Tennessee for DUI and, also, for a drug seizure. And I had to obtain a signature for receipt.
I had to have a statement from Mr. Smith that he knew what was going on with the vehicle.
Officer Archie related that, on this occasion, Neese was arrested on charges of driving on a revoked license, felony evading arrest and possession of methamphetamine.
Upon arrival at the Appellant's residence, the door was answered by Neese. The officers asked to speak with the Appellant. Neese closed the door and proceeded to get the Appellant, who was also inside the residence. At this time, the officers smelled ammonia. When the Appellant appeared at the door, the officers requested permission to enter the residence in order to fill out the paperwork concerning the forfeiture receipt. The Appellant agreed and allowed the officers inside. Once inside, the odor of ammonia was even stronger. Also, Officer Archie testified that he observed an empty jar in the kitchen. Officer Archie suspected that the individuals were involved in illegality, based upon the ammonia odor, the empty jar, and the prior arrest of Neese for methamphetamine possession two days previously. Additionally, Officer Killion observed a jar with white residue and a smoking bong in one of the bedrooms. This information was relayed by Officer Archie to another deputy and, based upon these facts and other known information concerning the Appellant and Neese's involvement in drug activity, a warrant was obtained to search the Appellant's residence. Officers Archie and Killion remained at the residence while the search warrant was being obtained.
Officers arrived on the scene with a search warrant approximately three hours later and a search of the Appellant's residence was conducted. The officers found, in addition to 7.06 grams of methamphetamine, numerous articles used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine.
Procedural History
On March 6, 2000, the Appellant and Jeffrey Neese were indicted by a Henry County Grand Jury for manufacturing methamphetamine. The App
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|