STATE OF TENNESSEE V. CLIFFORD CLAVEN

The Record in the Trial Court below shows as follows:

The Defendant, Clifford Claven, and his brother-in-law, Norm Peterson, were indicted for the first degree murders of Woody Boyd and Frazier Krane. Claven was 36 years of age at the time of the offenses, and his trial was severed from that of Peterson.

Clifford Claven and Norm Peterson sold stolen cattle to one of the victims, Woody Boyd, in May, 1998, at which time, Boyd paid cash from a large roll of money in his pants pocket. Another cattle sale was set up for June 16, 1998, at the Sam Malone Farm, but this meeting never occurred because Boyd could not find the farm where the cows were supposed to be located. Sometime thereafter, Claven took a 30.06 rifle from his bedroom at his mother’s home and stored it at Peterson’s apartment. Claven and Peterson called Boyd several times during the week prior to the killings to set up another bogus cattle sale and arranged to meet Boyd at a 4-way-stop in Triune, Tennessee, at about 10:00 a.m. on the day of the murders. At 9:15 a.m. on the morning of these murders, Claven and Peterson left Peterson’s apartment in Peterson’s Ford Escort with the 30.06 rifle and drove to Carla Tortelli’s market, a few miles from the scene of the murders. They were then observed driving south immediately north of the entrance of the Sam Malone Farm. This location is in an extremely desolate part of Williamson County, and there is usually very little, if any, traffic on the roads surrounding the Sam Malone Farm. At approximately 9:45 a.m. Rebecca Howe heard a vehicle with a loud muffler go past her home on an old logging road, which is the back entrance to the Sam Malone Farm and with which Claven and Peterson were very familiar. Claven was left with the rifle at the farm; and, at about 10:00 a.m., Peterson drove alone to Ma Claven’s home, retrieved her .32 caliber pistol and immediately left in the direction from which he had come, toward the Sam Malone Farm. He had scheduled a meeting with Boyd and Krane at the 4-way-stop in Triune at 10:00 a.m.

At approximately 9:30 a.m. that morning, Boyd and Krane met at another location and both proceeded in Boyd’s truck to Triune and then on to the Sam Malone Farm, parking Boyd’s truck at the gate near the barn where it was later found. Upon arriving, Boyd and Peterson waited outside while Krane entered the barn where Claven was waiting. Claven shot Krane first in the back and then in the head with the 30.06 rifle, killing him. Peterson than shot Boyd in the back with the .32 caliber pistol, but Boyd began running. The pistol was emptied into Boyd, striking him with at least four bullets and killing him. The two victims were then robbed of their wallets and any money they may have been carrying.

The rifle shots were heard by Sam Malone 1 1/2 miles away a little after 10:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter, Claven and Peterson were seen driving in the red Escort at a high rate of speed from the scene of the murders toward Franklin. The Defendants were seen in Franklin, Tennessee, a short distance from the scene sometime between 9:30 and 10:00 a.m. that morning. Claven had changed his clothes from the postal uniform he had started the day with, and Peterson had removed his shirt.

The bullets in Boyd were identified as having been fired from a .32 caliber pistol and the shell casing later found at the site of Krane’s body was identified as having been fired from a 30.06 rifle.

Officer Diane Chambers was the officer assigned to this case. During her investigation she requested that a search warrant be issued to search Ma Claven’s home. The probable cause allegations in the search warrant are as follows:

1. Affiant, Diane Chambers, states that there is probable and reasonable cause to believe, and that the Affiant does believe, that the aforementioned weapons constitute evidence which tends to show that a crime has been committed by the use of said weapons and that a particular person or persons has committed the crime of murder by the use of those weapons.
2. Affiant has been an officer in the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation for a period of four years and the information and observations contained herein were received and made in her capacity as an officer thereof.
3. On June 28, 1998, Frazier Krane and Woody Boyd were murdered by gun shot wounds from a 30.06 rifle and a .32 caliber pistol. Pursuant to a continuing investigation, Krane advised others that he and Boyd were scheduled to meet with Claven and Peterson at a designated location in Triune, Tennessee. Krane was last seen alive at 9:30 a.m. on June 28, 1998. Krane and Boyd were found murdered in Triune, Tennessee, at approximately 5:30 p.m. on June 28, 1998. A confidential informant whose identity is unknown to this affiant saw an automobile belonging to Norm Peterson at the residence of Ma Claven between 9:45 and 10:15 a.m. on June 28, 1998. An occupant of the vehicle left the vehicle, entered the residence of Ma Claven, remained approximately 1 to 5 minutes and returned to the vehicle, which then departed. The affiant has on this date interviewed Ma Claven, who admitted owning a 30.06 rifle and a .32 caliber pistol. Ma Claven’s residence is located a short distance from the scene where the bodies of Krane and Boyd were discovered.

Based on this affidavit, the Magistrate issued a warrant to Officer Chambers to search the residence of Ma Claven. Officer Chambers properly executed the warrant and searched only those places and for those objects that it is reasonable to believe were covered by the warrant. Upon conducting the search, Officer Chambers located a 30.06 rifle and a .32 caliber pistol in Claven’s bedroom at his mother’s house. Ballistic tests revealed that these two weapons were used to kill Boyd and Krane.

On October 27, 1999, the Defendant, Clifford Claven, was found guilty of first degree murder of both Boyd and Krane. He was sentenced to serve two consecutive life sentences, from which he appeals as a matter of right.

In this appeal, Claven attacks the affidavit in the search warrant which formed the basis of the search of Claven’s mother’s home as an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution. Claven states that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress the evidence seized from his mother’s home where he resided. He claims the warrant is fundamentally flawed because there was no information in the affidavit from which the officer concluded that the confidential informant was credible or that the information was reliable.

The issues presented in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court should apply the two-pronged test in Aguilar-Spinelli or the totality of circumstances test in Gates to determine if the search warrant was a violation of Claven’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
2. Whether the Tennessee Supreme Court should recognize a good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule to determine whether the search warrant is a violation of the Defendant’s rights under Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

For Appellant (Clifford Claven), write a brief in which you argue that the Tennessee Supreme Court should adhere to the two-pronged test in Aguilar-Spinelli and maintain its position as stated in Jacumin. Also argue that the Tennessee Supreme Court should not adopt a good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule. Your goal is for the Court to rule that the search warrant is invalid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and to overturn Appellant’s convictions.

For Appellee (State of Tennessee), write a brief in which you argue that the Tennessee Supreme Court should adopt the totality of circumstances test in Gates and that it should review its determination in Jacumin. Also argue that the Tennessee Supreme Court should adopt a good faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule. Your goal is for the Court to rule that the search warrant is valid under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution and to uphold Appellant’s convictions.

In writing your briefs, you may consider the following authority:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution.

Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964).

Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 589, 29 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969).

United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984).

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).

State v. Jacumin, 778 S.W.2d 430 (Tenn. 1989).

State v. Sircy, 383 S.W.2d 37 (Tenn. 1964).

State v. Vassar, 10 TAM 34-25 (July 25, 1985).

Remember that you will be arguing before the Tennessee Supreme Court and that the Court is not bound by its previous decisions. Therefore, even if a Tennessee Supreme Court opinion rules adversely to your position, you are still permitted to argue that the Court should rule in your favor. Additionally, the Court is not bound by rulings of other jurisdictions. Of course, if previous Tennessee Supreme Court decisions and decisions from other states support your position, you should argue that the Court ruled correctly and should adhere to that ruling.