ÿWPC Ï”u/#ϊé–†ÀƒÞÆ:¥6ýŠâôVdú¯Í9,¬ ØnüµZT‚¿fD‹Šl­ñGTžò–p`Z,`Á‹kÑ!N’ÜG¶^_¾mŠŠöïg¶ù ëúxò@ ¢Ã%N!v$žk——µ&Öª@µ <„¢û<Ž2üQÆ{%̉/.*jx53` `€€@OßñW ññW ññW ñSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àHonorable€Whit€Lafon,€JudgeÐ Ú®  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àà @ àÐ À”  Ðà Ø àAppellant.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ð ¦z  ÐñW ñßO€*>.*jx#` `€€@OßñW ñà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ Œ` Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ rF Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€02S01„9505„CC„00044à  # àÐ > ÐñW ñÐ > ÐÐ > ÐÐ > ÐÐ > ÐñW ñà Ø àÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àòòFor€Appelleeóó:Ð ðÄ ÐÌCharles€W.€Bursonà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àDavid€C.€StebbinsÐ ¼ ÐAttorney€General€&€Reporterà 8 àà  àColumbus,€OhioÐ ¢ v ÐÌMichael€E.€Mooreà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àJohn€G.€OlivaÐ n"B ÐSolicitor€Generalà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àNashville,€TennesseeÐ T#( ÐÌGlenn€R.€PrudenÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌJames€W.€ThompsonÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌTwenty„Sixth€Judicial€DistrictÌÌà@ÌÌ.ÌàÔ‡„Ä_„XXÔˆÌà@VV(ÌàO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XƒX„„Ä_ù #ԈРª-~#' ÐÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌREVERSED.à ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àDROWOTA,€J.Ð  46,0 ÐÓÓà Ø àThe€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€orderÏreversing€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€Richard€Caldwell's€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€The€issue€for€our€determination€is€whether€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erredÏin€reversing€the€trial€court's€judgment€and€remanding€the€case€for€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€to€determine€if€the€petitioner€should€be€relieved,€pursuant€to€our€decisions€inÏòòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(1992)€and€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.Ð (ü  Ð1995),€of€the€consequences€of€the€expiration€of€the€three„year€limitations€periodÏapplicable€to€post„conviction€petitions.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€we€conclude€thatÐ À”  Ðthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€err,€and€therefore€reverse€its€judgment€and€dismissÏthe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓ  Óà @Ø àòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÐ ðÄ ÐÓ¼Óà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àÌà Ø àIn€October€1982€Richard€Caldwell€was€convicted€of€the€murder€of€Larry€ClimerÏand€sentenced€to€death.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€conviction€and€sentence€on€directÏappeal.€€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€459€(Tenn.€1984).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Over€the€next€severalÐ ,% Ðyears,€Caldwell€filed€two€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,€both€of€which€wereÏeventually€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€These€petitions€were€consolidated€forÏpurposes€of€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€and€that€court€denied€relief€inÐ *d  ÐMarch€1990.€€We€denied€Caldwell's€application€for€permission€to€appeal€from€thatÏjudgment.€Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àCaldwell€filed€the€petition€that€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal€in€January€1993.€ÏIn€that€petition€Caldwell€alleged€that€his€initial€arrest€„„€which€occurred€in€the€earlyÏmorning€of€March€28,€1981,€for€public€drunkenness€„„€was€a€pretext,€beingÏundertaken€for€the€sole€purpose€of€questioning€him€and€gathering€evidence€againstÏhim€concerning€the€disappearance€of€Carl€Lipford.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Caldwell€argued€that€this€illegalÐ À”  Ðarrest€violated€his€rights€under€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€to€be€free€fromÏunreasonable€seizures,€and€that€all€evidence€obtained€against€him€as€a€result€of€thisÏpretextual€arrest,€including€his€confession,€should€have€been€suppressed.€€In€theÏpetition,€Caldwell€conceded€that€the€illegal€arrest€claim€was€filed€well€beyond€theÏlimitations€period€applicable€to€post„convictions€claims,€which€expired€in€July€1989.€ÏHowever,€he€argued€that€he€was€not€aware€of€this€claim€until€reviewing€certain€radioÏlogs€from€law€enforcement€officials€which€indicated€that€police€had€been€looking€forÏhim€during€the€afternoon€and€evening€of€March€27,€1981,€in€connection€with€Lipford'sÏdisappearance.€€Furthermore,€Caldwell€asserted€that€these€logs€had€not€beenÏavailable€to€him€until€the€Court€of€Appeals,€in€an€unpublished€1992€decision,€held€thatÏpolice€files€concerning€cases€under€collateral€attack€were€"public€records"€pursuantÏto€the€Tennessee€Public€Records€Act,€thus€ending€the€authorities'€refusal€to€allow€himÏto€inspect€the€logs.€€Because€these€facts€denied€him€a€reasonable€opportunity€toÏlitigate€his€pretextual€arrest€claim,€Caldwell€contended,€€he€was€entitled€to€be€relievedÏof€the€expiration€of€the€limitations€period€pursuant€to€òòBurfordóó.Ð ´1ˆ'* Ѐ€Ìà Ø àIn€response€to€this€petition,€the€State€filed€a€one„page€motion€to€dismiss,Ïarguing€that€the€petition€was€time„barred.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€on€theÏfollowing€day.€€Caldwell€then€appealed€from€this€judgment€to€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals.Ìà Ø àÌà Ø àThat€Court€reversed€the€trial€court's€judgment€as€to€the€pretextual€arrest€claimÏand€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€that€claim.€€TheÏCourt€reasoned€as€follows:€ÌÌÓÓà8 Ø àBecause€there€was€no€evidentiary€hearing,€we€cannot€determineÏwhether€the€state€withheld€any€evidence€of€an€unlawful€arrest.€€And,Ïeven€if€so,€whether€the€evidence€would€have€affected€the€admissibilityÏof€the€confession.€€Finally,€òòBurfordóó€supports€the€application€of€theÐ Öª Ðthree„year€statute€of€limitations€only€when€the€petitioner€had€a€priorÏopportunity€to€legitimately€litigate€the€issue.€€Thus€the€trial€court€mustÏalso€determine€whether€the€information€released€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€Public€Records€Act€qualifies€as€an€exception€to€the€statuteÏof€limitations.€€That€is,€whether€the€information€released€sheds€any€newÏlight€on€the€subject€of€the€admissibility€of€the€confession.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àFinally,€even€if€a€confession€is€found€to€be€inadmissible€as€the€fruit€ofÏan€illegal€arrest,€any€error€by€its€introduction€into€evidence€might€beÏharmless€in€light€œof€the›€other€evidence.€€On€direct€appeal,€our€supremeÏcourt€described€the€evidence€as€'overwhelming.'€€Thus€the€trial€courtÏmay€consider€the€admission€of€the€confession€or€any€other€evidenceÏtainted€by€any€pretextual€arrest€as€harmless€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€€€à ˆ àà à àÐj+>! Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø àÐ Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌÌÓÓà Ø àAfter€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€judgment€was€handed€down,€both€partiesÏfiled€petitions€to€rehear,€which€were€denied.€€Both€parties€then€filed€applications€forÏpermission€to€appeal€with€this€Court.€€We€granted€the€State's€application€in€order€toÏaddress€the€parameters€of€our€òòBurfordóó€decision.€€Ð f4:** ЇÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISó óóóÐ ,  ÐÓm#Óà Ø àÌà Ø àOur€analysis€in€this€case€obviously€must€begin€with€an€examination€of€€òòBurfordóó.€Ð Ð ¤ ÐIn€that€case,€in€1976€the€defendant€Burford€pleaded€guilty€to€and€was€convicted€ofÏfive€counts€of€armed€robbery€in€Wilson€County.€€In€November€1984€Burford€wasÏconvicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€in€Wilson€County;€and€the€State€used€thisÏconviction€and€the€five€1976€convictions€to€establish€Burford€as€a€habitual€criminal.€ÏAs€a€result,€he€was€sentenced€to€life.ÌÌà Ø àIn€1985,€Burford€was€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€in€TrousdaleÏCounty;€and€the€State€used€this€conviction€along€with€the€five€1976€convictions€toÏhave€him€sentenced€as€a€persistent€offender.€€The€conviction€and€sentence€wereÏaffirmed€on€appeal,€and€we€denied€Burford's€application€for€permission€to€appeal€inÏAugust€1986.€€ÌÌà Ø àIn€1988€Burford€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€Wilson€County,Ïalleging€that€his€1976€convictions€were€invalid€because€he€had€not€been€advised€ofÏhis€right€against€self„incrimination€before€pleading€guilty.€€In€October€1988€the€WilsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court€agreed,€vacating€four€of€the€1976€convictions.€€ÌÌà Ø àBurford€then€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€in€Trousdale€County€in€May€1990,Ïalleging€that€because€four€of€the€underlying€convictions€were€invalid,€his€currentÏsentence,€based€on€the€1985€persistent€offender€designation,€was€also€erroneous.€ÏThe€State€responded€by€alleging€that€the€limitations€period€had€expired€in€AugustÏ1989€„„€three€years€after€the€action€of€the€highest€court€to€which€an€appeal€was€taken.Ð X5,+( ÐThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€statute€of€limitations€grounds,€and€the€CourtÏof€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.ÌÌà Ø àOn€appeal€to€this€Court,€Burford€argued€that€the€three€year€limitations€periodÏwas€facially€unconstitutional€in€that€it€violated€due€process€by€barring€otherwiseÏmeritorious€claims€with€an€arbitrary€time€limitation.€€We€rejected€this€contention,Ïholding€that€although€the€petitioner€has€a€liberty€interest€in€collaterally€attackingÏconstitutional€violations€occurring€during€trial,€the€State€has€a€legitimate€interest€inÏenacting€procedural€rules€in€the€post„conviction€context€€to€prevent€"the€litigation€ofÏstale€and€fraudulent€claims,"€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208,€quoting€òòJimenez€v.Ð X, ÐWeinbergeróó,€417€U.S.€628,€636,€94€S.Ct.€2496,€2501,€41€L.Ed.2d€363€(1974),€and€toÐ $ø Ðcurtail€"the€cost€to€the€state€of€continually€allowing€prisoners€to€file€usually€fruitlessÏpost„conviction€petitions."€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207.€Ð ¼ ÐÌà Ø àAlthough€we€held€that€the€post„conviction€limitations€period€was€not€faciallyÏunconstitutional,€we€also€stated€that€the€time€bar€could€cause€due€process€problemsÏin€certain€factual€situations.€€€After€consulting€relevant€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏand€Tennessee€law,€we€concluded€that€the€limitations€period€would€only€violate€theÏdue€process€clauses€in€a€particular€case€if€it€denied€to€the€defendant€"a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€have€the€claimed€issue€heard€and€decided."€€òòIdóó.€at€208.Ð P,$"" ÐÌà Ø àHaving€set€forth€the€appropriate€constitutional€test,€we€proceeded€to€apply€itÏto€that€case,€first€addressing€the€State's€and€then€the€petitioner's€interest:€€Ìà8 Ø àÓÓÐ Ø À!Ø À! Ðà8 Ø àThere€is€nothing€stale€or€fraudulent€about€the€petitioner's€claim.€ÏAlthough€he€filed€his€petition€outside€the€time€limits€provided€by€theÐ L5 +) Ðstatute€of€limitations,€there€is€no€difficulty€here€with€the€availability€ofÏwitnesses€or€the€memories€of€witnesses.€€Nor€is€there€a€problem€withÏrespect€to€a€groundless€claim€generating€excessive€costs.€€It€isÏabundantly€clear€that€the€petitioner€has€a€valid€claim€to€have€hisÏsentence€reduced,€and€all€the€Trousdale€County€court€will€have€to€doÏis€examine€the€record€of€the€Wilson€County€proceedings.€€TheÏTrousdale€County€court€can€then€resentence€Burford€using€theÏappropriate€considerations€set€forth€in€the€Criminal€Sentencing€ReformÏAct.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€governmental€interest€representedÏby€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€is€not€served€by€applying€the€statuteÏto€bar€Burford's€petition.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àMoreover,€although€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€only€providesÏan€opportunity€to€litigate€constitutional€attacks€upon€prior€convictions,Ïwhich€we€have€already€determined€is€not€a€fundamental€right,Ïapplication€of€the€statute€to€bar€Burford's€petition€in€this€case€will€denyÏhim€of€a€fundamental€right.€€If€consideration€of€the€petition€is€barred,ÏBurford€will€be€forced€to€serve€a€persistent€offender€sentence€that€wasÏenhanced€by€previous€convictions€that€no€longer€stand.€€As€a€result,ÏBurford€will€be€forced€to€serve€an€excessive€sentence€in€violation€of€hisÏrights€under€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€and€articleÏI,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which,€by€definition,€areÏfundamental€rights€entitled€to€heightened€protection.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòÓÓÌIdóó.€(citations€omitted.)€€Thus,€we€concluded€that€the€limitations€period€wasÐ ˆ!\ Ðunconstitutional€as€applied€to€Burford.ÌÌà Ø àWe€recently€had€the€occasion€to€revisit€òòBurfordóó€in€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2dÐ ì&À Ð297€(Tenn.€1995).€€€In€that€case,€we€attempted€to€summarize€òòBurfordóó€and€toÐ ¸(Œ Ðenunciate€a€clear€procedure€for€its€application€by€the€trial€courts:ÌÌÓÓà8 Ø àIt€will€be€helpful€to€summarize€the€basic€rule€to€be€derived€from€òòBurfordóó:Ð .ð## Ðthat,€in€certain€circumstances,€due€process€prohibits€the€strictÏapplication€of€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€aÏpetitioner's€claim€when€the€grounds€for€relief,€whether€legal€or€factual,Ïarise€after€the€'final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€whichÏan€appeal€is€taken'€„„€or,€in€other€words,€when€the€grounds€arise€afterÏthe€point€at€which€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begun€toÏrun.€€In€applying€€the€òòBurfordóó€rule€to€specific€factual€situations,€courtsÐ f4:** Ðshould€utilize€a€three„step€process:€(1)€determine€when€the€limitationsÐ L5 ++ Ðperiod€would€normally€have€begun€to€run;€(2)€determine€whether€theÏgrounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€the€limitations€period€wouldÏnormally€have€commenced;€and€(3)€if€the€grounds€are€'later„arising,'Ïdetermine€if,€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€a€strict€application€of€theÏlimitations€period€would€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€present€the€claim.€€In€making€this€final€determination,Ïcourts€should€carefully€weigh€the€petitioner's€liberty€interest€inÏ'collaterally€attacking€constitutional€violations€occurring€during€theÏconviction€process,'€against€the€State's€interest€in€preventing€theÏlitigation€of€'stale€and€fraudulent€claims.'Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301(citations€omitted.)€Ð â  ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àWith€òòBurfordóó€and€òòSandsóó€clearly€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€contentions€of€theÐ ¦z  Ðparties€in€this€case.€€€The€State€first€argues€that€òòBurfordóó€should€not€apply€hereÐ rF Ðbecause€the€claim€was€not€"later„arising"€under€the€second€prong€of€the€òòSandsóóÐ > Ðformulation.€€The€State€argues€that€the€claim€was€not€"later„arising"€because€theÏpetitioner€had€sufficient€information€in€1981€and€1982€„„€at€the€time€of€his€trials€for€theÏmurders€of€Carl€Lipford€and€Larry€Climer€„„€to€put€him€on€notice€that€he€could€bringÏa€claim€for€pretextual€arrest.€€The€State€advanced€this€argument€for€the€first€time€inÏits€petition€to€rehear€filed€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€In€that€petition,€itÏattached€excerpts€from€the€transcripts€of€the€Lipford€and€Climer€murder€trials€whichÏcontain,€it€says,€testimony€from€law€enforcement€officials€clearly€indicating€that€theÏarrest€was€pretextual.€€ÌÌà Ø àWe€cannot€accept€this€argument.€€First,€while€it€is€true€that€a€post„convictionÏcourt€can€take€judicial€notice€of€prior€proceedings€in€the€same€case,€òòDelbridge€v.Ð /Ö$' ÐStateóó,€742€S.W.2d€267€(Tenn.€1987),€the€State's€method€of€presenting€this€evidenceÐ Î0¢&) Ðwas€inappropriate€in€that€it€did€not€afford€the€defendant€any€œmeans€of›€œresponding›€toÏthat€evidence.€€Furthermore,€and€more€importantly,€the€material€submitted€by€theÐ f4:*- ÐState€is€essentially€ambiguous€as€to€the€nature€of€the€arrest.€€While€some€of€theÏmaterial€might€be€read€to€support€the€notion€that€the€arrest€was€pretextual,€all€theÏofficers€testified€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€public€drunkenness,€and€that€heÏwas€indeed€intoxicated€at€the€time.€€Therefore,€we€cannot€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€should€have€known€that€he€had€a€claim€for€a€pretextual€arrest€in€1981€orÏ1982.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð (ü  ÐÌà Ø àThe€State€alternatively€argues€that€òòBurfordóó€should€not€apply€because€theÐ À”  Ðpetitioner's€interest€in€attacking€any€constitutional€error€occurring€during€his€trial€isÏoutweighed€by€the€legitimate€State€interests€in€a€strict€enforcement€of€the€limitationsÏperiod.€€As€we€did€in€òòBurfordóó,€we€must€carefully€weigh€the€interests€of€both€parties€toÐ $ø Ðdetermine€if€due€process€requires€the€suspension€of€the€limitations€period€so€as€toÏafford€the€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€litigate€the€claim.€ÌÌà Ø àFirst,€it€is€beyond€question€that€the€State€interests€here€are€much€stronger€thanÏin€òòBurfordóó.€€With€respect€to€the€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€stale€claims,€weÐ  %ô Ðnote€that€the€events€at€issue€here€occurred€almost€fifteen€years€ago.€€Because€theÐ ì&À Ðofficers€involved€will€likely€be€called€to€testify€regarding€the€arrest€and€the€ensuingÏevents,€there€is€a€real€danger€that€their€memories€will€have€faded€to€such€a€degreeÏas€to€make€reconstructing€the€events€difficult€or€impossible.€€Moreover,€there€is€theÏpossibility€that€the€officers€may€not€even€be€available€to€testify,€another€concernÏvoiced€in€òòBurfordóó.€€Thus,€all€the€dangers€inherent€in€the€litigation€of€stale€claims€„„Ð \0 Ðwhich€the€State€has€a€legitimate€interest€in€preventing€„„€appear€to€be€present€here.€ÏÌà Ø àThe€other€State€interest€enunciated€in€òòBurfordó󀄄€that€of€preventing€excessiveÐ À”  Ðcosts€„„€is€also€implicated€here.€€In€stark€contrast€to€òòBurfordóó,€where€the€petitioner€wasÐ Œ` Ðmerely€required€to€present€the€Wilson€County€judgment€to€ensure€success€on€hisÏclaim,€the€petitioner€here€must€successfully€litigate€several€issues€relating€to€theÏallegedly€pretextual€arrest€before€he€receives€any€benefit€at€all€from€the€claim.€€TheÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€ably€summarized€the€substantial€litigative€hurdles€facingÏthe€petitioner:€ÌÌÓÓà8 Ø àThese€conclusions,€however,€do€not€necessarily€require€any€grant€ofÏrelief.€€First,€even€if€the€arrest€was€illegal,€that€alone€is€of€no€help€to€thisÏpetitioner.€€There€is€no€constitutional€immunity€from€an€unlawful€arrest.€ÏThe€fact€that€an€accused€has€been€unlawfully€arrested€only€becomesÏrelevant€when€evidence€tainted€by€the€unlawful€arrest€is€sought€to€beÏintroduced€by€the€state.€€[For€example,]€an€illegal€warrantless€arrest€orÏan€arrest€made€under€the€color€of€an€invalid€warrant€has€no€adverseÏeffect€upon€an€indictment€or€a€presentment€returned€by€a€grand€juryÏsubsequent€to€the€arrest.€€Even€if€an€arrest€is€illegal,€a€confessionÏwhich€follows€might€often€be€purged€of€the€primary€taint.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø à...Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àFinally,€even€if€a€confession€is€found€to€be€inadmissible€as€the€fruit€ofÏan€illegal€arrest,€any€error€by€its€introduction€into€evidence€might€beÏharmless€in€light€of€the€other€evidence.Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌ(citations€omitted.)ÌÐ L5 +- ЇÌÓÓTherefore,€on€remand€the€petitioner€would€first€have€to€establish€that€the€arrest€wasÏin€fact€pretextual;€if€this€is€established,€he€would€then€have€to€litigate€the€suppressionÏissue;€and€finally,€if€this€is€successful,€he€would€have€to€litigate€the€harmless€errorÏissue.€€This€hearing€will€thus€require€the€litigation€of€several€possibly€complex€legalÏissues,€all€at€substantial€costs€to€the€State.€ÌÌà Ø àOn€the€other€œhand,›€we€acknowledge€that€the€petitioner€has€an€interest€inÏchallenging€the€constitutional€error€allegedly€made€during€his€trial.€€Furthermore,€weÏacknowledge€that€the€right€to€be€free€from€unreasonable€seizures€is€in€a€senseÏ"fundamental"€in€that€it€is€included€in€the€text€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€Art.€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€Ronald€D.Ð  Þ ÐRotunda€&€John€E.€Nowak,€Treatise€on€Constitutional€Law:€Substance€andÏProcedure,€ðð€15.7€(2d€ed.€1992).€€However,€it€is€important€to€recognize€that€theÏprecise€claim€at€issue€here€„„€the€"right"€to€suppress€evidence€garnered€as€a€resultÏof€an€unreasonable€seizure€„„€is€very€different€in€kind€from€the€"fundamental"€right€atÏissue€in€òòBurfordó󀄄€the€right€to€be€free€from€an€excessive€sentence.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€right€at€issueÐ &Ú Ðin€òòBurfordóó€is€a€òòpersonal€trialóó€right€of€a€defendant€which€goes€directly€to€the€òòjustice€orÐ Ò'¦ Ðintegrityóó€of€the€conviction€or€sentence.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€"right"€to€excludeÐ ž)r! Ðevidence€gathered€as€a€result€of€an€unreasonable€seizure,€based€as€it€is€on€theÏrationale€of€deterring€police€misconduct,€is€not€a€personal€trial€right.€€And€a€violationÏof€the€constitutional€guarantees,€if€proven,€does€not€necessarilyœ€result€in€a€reversalÏof€the€conviction.Ð Î0¢&) Їà Ø àTwo€United€States€Supreme€Court€cases€will€serve€to€illustrate€this€point.€€InÏòòStone€v.€Powellóó,€428€U.S.€465,€96€S.Ct.3037,€49€L.Ed.2d€(1976),€the€Court€held€thatÐ ø Ì Ða€prisoner€is€not€entitled€to€raise€a€Fourth€Amendment€claim€in€a€habeas€corpusÏproceeding€where€the€State€has€afforded€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€to€litigate€theÏclaim€in€state€court.€€This€holding€was€based,€in€part,€on€the€nature€of€a€FourthÏAmendment€claim.€€The€òòStoneóó€court€explained:€Ð (ü  ÐÌÓÓà8 Ø àThe€primary€justification€for€the€exclusionary€rule€then€is€the€deterrenceÏof€police€conduct€that€violates€Fourth€Amendment€rights.€€Post„òòMappóóÐ ¦z  Ðdecisions€have€established€that€the€rule€is€not€a€personal€constitutionalÏright.€€It€is€not€calculated€to€redress€the€injury€to€the€privacy€of€the€victimÏof€the€search€or€seizure,€for€any€'reparation€comes€too€late.'Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòÌÌStoneóó,€428€U.S.€at€486,€96€S.Ct.€at€3048.€€The€Court€also€reasoned€that:Ð ðÄ ÐÌÌÌ€à8 Ø à'A€claim€of€illegal€search€and€seizure€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€isÐ ˆ!\ Ðcrucially€different€from€many€other€constitutional€rights;€ordinarily€theÏevidence€seized€can€in€no€way€have€been€rendered€untrustworthy€byÏthe€means€of€its€seizure€and€indeed€often€this€evidence€aloneÏestablishes€beyond€virtually€any€shadow€of€a€doubt€that€the€defendantÏis€guilty.'€€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àApplication€of€the€rule€thus€deflects€the€truthfinding€process€and€oftenÏfrees€the€guilty.€€The€disparity€in€particular€cases€between€the€errorÏcommitted€by€the€police€officer€and€the€windfall€afforded€a€guiltyÏdefendant€by€application€of€the€rule€is€contrary€to€the€idea€ofÏproportionality€that€is€essential€to€the€concept€of€justice.€€Thus,Ïalthough€the€rule€is€thought€to€deter€unlawful€police€activity€in€partÏthrough€the€nurturing€of€respect€for€Fourth€Amendment€values,€ifÏapplied€indiscriminately€it€may€well€have€the€opposite€effect€ofÏgenerating€disrespect€for€the€law€and€administration€of€justice.€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòStoneóó,€428€U.S.€at€490„91,€96€S.Ct.€at€3050„51€(citations€omitted).€€Ð Î0¢&) ÐÌÌÌÓÓà Ø àIn€contrast,€in€òòWithrow€v.€Williamsóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.Ct.€1745,€123€L.Ed.Ð f4:*- Ð2d€407€(1993),€the€Court€considered€the€Government's€argument€that€òòStoneóó€shouldÐ ,  Ðbe€extended€to€bar€petitioners€from€raising€claims€in€habeas€corpus€proceedingsÏbased€on€violations€of€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€In€rejecting€this€argument,€the€Court€reasoned:€Ð Ä ˜ ÐÌÓÓà8 Ø àAs€we€explained€in€òòStoneóó,€the€òòMappóó€rule€is€'not€a€personalÐ \0 Ðconstitutional€right,'€but€serves€to€deter€future€constitutional€violations;Ïalthough€it€mitigates€the€juridical€consequences€of€invading€theÏdefendant's€privacy,€the€exclusion€of€evidence€at€trial€can€do€nothing€toÏremedy€the€completed€and€wholly€extrajudicial€Fourth€AmendmentÏviolation.€Nor€can€the€òòMappóó€rule€be€thought€to€enhance€the€soundnessÐ Ú®  Ðof€the€criminal€process€by€improving€the€reliability€of€evidenceÏintroduced€at€trial.€€Quite€the€contrary,€as€we€explained€in€òòStoneóó,€theÐ ¦z  Ðevidence€excluded€under€òòMappóó€'is€typically€reliable€and€often€the€mostÐ Œ` Ðprobative€information€bearing€on€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€theÏdefendant.'Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àòòMirandaóó€differs€from€òòMappóó€in€both€respects.€€'Prophylactic'€€though€itÐ $ø Ðmay€be,€in€protecting€a€defendant's€Fifth€Amendment€privilege€againstÏself„incrimination€òòMirandaóó€safeguards€a€'fundamental€òòtrialóó€right.'€€TheÐ ðÄ Ðprivilege€embodies€'principles€of€humanity€and€civil€liberty,€which€hadÏbeen€secured€in€the€mother€country€only€after€years€of€struggle,'€andÏreflects€'many€of€our€fundamental€values€and€most€noble€aspirations'Ï...€Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌà8 Ø àNor€does€the€Fifth€Amendment€'trial€right'€protected€by€òòMirandaóó€serveÐ T#( Ðsome€value€necessarily€divorced€from€the€correct€ascertainment€ofÏguilt.€€'A€system€of€criminal€law€enforcement€which€comes€to€rely€on€theÏconfession€will,€in€the€long€run,€be€less€reliable€and€more€subject€toÏabuses€than€a€system€relying€upon€independent€investigation.'€€ByÏbracing€against€'the€possibility€of€unreliable€statements€in€everyÏinstance€of€in„custody€interrogation,'€òòMirandaóó€serves€to€guard€againstÐ ¸(Œ  Ð'the€use€of€unreliable€statements€at€trial.'Ð Ø À!Ø À! ÐÌòòÌÌÓÓWithrowóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.Ct.€at€1753€(citations€omitted)(emphasis€in€original).€Ð 6- #% ÐòòSee€alsoóó€òòKimmelman€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€365,€374,€106€S.Ct.€2574,€2582,€91€L.Ed.Ð /Ö$' Ð305€(1986)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€certain€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ Î0¢&) Ðcounsel,€a€Sixth€Amendment€"fundamental"€right€that€"assures€the€fairness,€and€thusÏthe€legitimacy,€of€our€adversary€process");€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€323,€99Ð f4:*- ÐS.Ct.€2781,€2791,€61€L.Ed.2d€560€(1979)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€bar€habeasÐ ,  Ðconsideration€of€a€Fourteenth€Amendment€due€process€claim€of€insufficient€evidenceÏto€support€the€conviction,€reasoning€that€such€a€claim€was€"central€to€the€basic€issueÏof€guilt€or€innocence");€and€òòRose€v.€Mitchellóó,€443€U.S.€545,€563,€99€S.Ct.€2993,€3003,Ð d Ð61€L.Ed.2d€739€(1979)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€preclude€habeas€review€of€anÐ \0 Ðequal€protection€claim€of€racial€discrimination€in€selecting€a€state€grand„jury€foreman,Ïreasoning€that€such€a€claim€implicated€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€process).€ÏTherefore,€it€is€abundantly€clear€that€a€Fourth€Amendment€claim€is€not€substantivelyÏon€par€with€other€constitutional€guarantees€afforded€to€criminal€defendants;€and€theÏpetitioner's€interest€is€litigating€the€unreasonable€seizure€claim€is€accordingly€lesser.€ÌÌà Ø àIn€summation,€after€carefully€balancing€the€legitimate€State€interests€ofÏprecluding€stale€claims€and€limiting€excessive€costs€with€the€petitioner's€interest€inÏlitigating€this€particular€constitutional€claim,€we€conclude€that€the€State's€interests€areÏweightier.€€Because€the€strict€enforcement€of€the€limitations€period€does€not€serve€toÏdeprive€the€petitioner€of€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€litigate€his€claim€under€òòBurfordóó,€Ð  %ô Ðthe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€hereby€reversed,€and€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€dismissed.€€ÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è à_____________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àJUSTICEÌÌÌConcur:€€€€ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€Birch,€and€White,€JJ.