 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Henderson3/7/2001
ither of these circumstances was present and rather, the statements in the affidavit were merely reasonable conclusions based on information that Officer Widener possessed at the time. We agree with the trial court.
During the hearing on this issue, Widener testified that he had not seen the altercation between Appellants and Griffin and that none of the witnesses who had seen the altercation could identify Appellants. However, Widener testified that he had received statements from the bartenders at Howie's Hideaway in which they stated that Appellants and Griffin had left the bar in a dark Camaro at approximately 7:00 p.m. Widener also testified that he had statements from Mr. and Mrs. Walker in which they stated that they had seen a fight while they were on the Alcoa Highway at 7:10 p.m. in which they saw two men attempting to pull a third man out of a dark-colored Camaro. Widener further testified that he had statements from Mr. and Mrs. Davis in which they related how they had seen a shirtless man staggering around by the Alcoa Highway sometime after 7:00 p.m. and they had subsequently seen a dark-colored Camaro and a man who appeared to looking for something in the same area. Widener also testified that he had received statements from Alcoa police officers in which they related that they had found Griffin in this area at approximately 7:15 p.m. and that Griffin was bruised and he told them that he had been in a fight with some friends.
We agree with the trial court that Widener's statement in the affidavit that he had received information that Griffin was involved in a fight with Appellants at approximately 7:11 p.m., on February 21, 1992, was not a false statement that was made with intent to deceive the court or a false statement that was made recklessly. Rather, as the trial court stated, it was merely a reasonable conclusion based on the information that Widener had at the time. This issue has no merit.
C. Compliance with Rule 41(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure
Dellinger contends that the search warrant is invalid because execution of the warrant failed to comply with Rule 41(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. We disagree.
Rule 41(c) provides:
A warrant shall issue only on an affidavit or affidavits sworn to before the magistrate and establishing the grounds of issuing the warrant. . . . 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. . . . Failure . . . of the serving officer where possible to leave a copy with the person or persons on whom the search warrant is being served, shall make any search conducted under said search warrant an illegal search and any seizure thereunder an illegal seizure. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 41(c).
First, Dellinger contends that the search of his property was invalid because Widener failed to leave a copy of the warrant with the person on whom it was served. Although Linda Dellinger, who was at home during the execution of the warrant, denied that Widener had left a copy of the warrant with her, Widener expressly testified that he did leave a copy of the warrant with her. Although the trial court made no express finding on this issue, the trial court's ruling upholding the validity of the search necessarily implies that the court found that Widener did leave a copy of the warrant with Linda Dellinger. The record does not preponderate against that finding.
Second, Dellinger contends that the search of his property was invalid because Widen
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|