WPC ZmT0,uN;\d5egмe*%ҁ ?`%TY2I 8K.1 q$'ϔh,u}^o"KSictQET/9SU')f ޙ흏|VcQ?z(儠> 83"B-^@WiUjiD筊/j7 W9R>ިN97$%Kg kq.N&g,g l8Ľp/Ά8;54sqh(񐨶۟_LkEۗ8[-`9U3DRG=ҍv>adr3h,K6a9ZBR"sUBF % U.  nX 0P$ 4t  0n 0c@ w@ U: U:U:W`UNU:?????yyyyyyyyyyyyyy B D3 0D AOdd 0D* D/n B<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|XZ <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM% X6*XXX XX6*   Ad FILEDX6*X   April16,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ((2G$ !D   XXt   0  ("$ X<=XXX  0   H DI J K EL M N O DP UQ Ӏg"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular V  6$D  MXX2M   1    Whendescribinghisstrugglewiththepetitionerafterchasinghim,OfficerBucktestified, But `  hecontinuedtostruggle,untilhegotasockoff;andthenheapparentlyIdidntseehimslingthesockbut,apparently,he....Atthispoint,OfficerBuckstestimonywasinterruptedbyadefenseobjectionbecauseOfficerBuckwasbeginningto testifytosomethinghehasnopersonalknowledgeof.Beforethetrialjudgecouldrule,theprosecutorvoluntarilyabandonedthislineofquestioning,butitwasneverestablished,eitherbytheStateorthedefense,exactlyhowthedrugswerediscoveredinthepetitionerssocks.&d9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   Q Q ` XPD  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  X9XXX7 9 XXdd7Q r*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP"`  rߛQ   INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @uu:MATNASHVILLE  @;;6MDECEMBER1998SESSION CARLOSL.ACEVEDO,     ` )  p     X      ` )   C.C.A.NO.01C019711CR00541  `    Appellant,  򀀀   ` ) P     X      ` )  DAVIDSONCOUNTY  @  VS.   X      ` ) 0     X      ` )  HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER,   STATEOFTENNESSEE,     ` )  JUDGE p    X      ` )   `   Appellee.      ` )  (PostConviction)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     `   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   GREGORYD.SMITH     `   JOHNKNOXWALKUP   OnePublicSquare,Suite321   `   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  p Clarksville,TN37040   X      `   TIMOTHYBEHAN  "P    X      `   Asst.AttorneyGeneral    X      `   JohnSevierBldg. $0    X      `   425FifthAve.,North !  p#  %     X      `   Nashville,TN372430493    X      `   VICTORS.JOHNSON,III  P(!    X      `   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   X      `   JONSEABORG   +!$    X      `   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral p#  ,"%    X      `   222SecondAve.,North,Suite500   X      `   Nashville,TN37201   X      `      X   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED  p5,/  JOHNH.PEAY,  @8.2 Judge   :04 XM   M @:M 2XX9OPINION#X9X2#Ԉ `     InApril1994,thepetitionerwaschargedbyindictmentwithpossessionofcocaineandpossessionofmarijuanaafterasearchofhispersonrevealeddrugsandmoney.Hefiledamotiontosuppressthedrugsandmoney,whichwasdenied.Hethenenteredapleaofnolocontendereandattemptedtopreservehisrighttoappealthesuppressionissue.Onappeal,however,thisCourtdeterminedthatbecausethepetitionersjudgmentdidnotrefertoacertifiedquestionoflawforappeal,thepetitionerhadwaivedhisrighttoappeal.SeeStatev.CarlosL.Acevedo,01C019602CR00061, & DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedNovember22,1996,atNashville).ThisCourtdidnotaddressthemeritsofthesuppressionissue.Seeid. F   Thepetitionerfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,askingforadelayedappealbecausecounselserrorinfailingtopreservehisrighttoappealprejudiciallypreventedhimfromappealingthemeritsofthesuppressionissue.Inanagreedordersignedbythepostconvictionjudge,thepetitionerandtheStatestipulatedthatpetitionerwasentitledtoadelayedappealbecausehewasprejudicedbyhiscounselserror.ThiscaseisnowbeforethisCourtbydelayedappeal,thesoleissuebeingwhetherthetrialcourtproperlydeniedthepetitionersmotiontosuppress.  Initsbrief,theStatearguesthatthiscaseshouldbedismissedbecauseadelayedappealisinappropriateandcannotresurrectanissuepreviouslywaived.TheStatealsoarguesthatthiscaseshouldbedismissedbecausethepetitionerscounselwasnotineffectiveforfailingtoproperlypreservethesuppressionissueforappeal.TheStatesargumentsmustfailbecausebyagreedorder,theStatestipulated that 6&-0 Petitionerspetitionforpostconvictionrelief,whichrequestsadelayedappealonareservedissueofappellatereview,shouldbegranted.  AsstatedinthisCourtspreviousopinion,thefactsofthiscaseareasfollows:8  OnJuly9,1993,AgentGaryLutheroftheTwenty-FirstJudicialTaskForcetelephonedOfficerPerryBuck,whowasassignedtotheFederalDrugTaskForceattheNashvilleInternationalAirport.LutherinformedBuckthathewas"working"theDefendant,adrugcourierwhowasabouttoflyfromNashvilletoTexas.LutherstatedthathewasattemptingtoarriveattheairportbeforetheDefendant'splanedepartedbutwasunsureastowhetherhewouldbeabletodoso.Asaresult,LutheraskedBuckto"surveil"and"interview"theDefendant.HegaveBuckthenameoftheDefendantandaphysicaldescription.  " " 8  BuckandthreeotherofficersbeganlookingfortheDefendant.AstheywalkedtowardthegateoftheDefendant'sdepartingflight,theyidentifiedamanfittingthedescriptiongivenbyAgentLuthersittingatarestaurantintheconcourse.Theyapproachedhim,identifiedthemselves,andaskediftheycouldspeakwithhim,towhichtheDefendantrespondedaffirmatively.TheofficersaskedtheDefendantwherehewasgoingandother"preliminary"matters,andthenrequestedhisplaneticket.TheyinformedtheDefendantthattheysuspectedhimofcarryingdrugsandaskedhimforconsenttosearchhisperson.AccordingtoBuck,theDefendantwillfullyconsented.TheysubsequentlyaskedtheDefendantifhewantedtogotoamoreprivatelocationforthesearch.AccordingtoBuck,theDefendantrespondedaffirmatively,andtheyallwenttoamen'srestroomadjacenttotherestaurant.  " " 8  Theofficersconductedapat-downsearchoftheDefendantwhichrevealednocontraband.TheythenaskedtheDefendanttoremovehisboots.AstheDefendantremovedoneofhisboots,aquantityofUnitedStatescurrencyfellontothefloor.TheDefendantfledthescenebutwasapprehendedintheconcourseafterashortchase.TheofficersdiscoveredaquantityofbothcocaineandmarijuanaintheDefendant'ssocks.  " " 8  Thedefendantwassubsequentlyindictedforpossessionofcocainewithintenttodeliverandforpossessionofmarijuanawithintenttodeliver.OnJune8,1994,hefiledamotiontosuppressthedrugsandcurrencydiscoveredduringthesearchattheairport.HearguedthatthelawenforcementofficershadnothadareasonablesuspiciontodetainhimundertheAguilarSpinelliprinciplessetforthinStatev.Jacumin,778 4 +. S.W.2d430(Tenn.1989).Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotiontosuppress,rulingthatthediscoveryofthedrugsandcurrencyoccurredpursuanttoalawfulconsentsearch."P7-1 " " CarlosL.Acevedo,01C019602CR00061. `   XIXXXI  ThepetitionercitestheunpublishedcaseofStatev.D NormanL.D Wilson,No.   01C019207CR00219,DavidsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedOctober14,1993,atNashville),inhisissuestatement,apparentlyrelyinguponWilsonasauthorityforhis  propositionthatthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotiontosuppressshouldbereversed.In `  Wilson,thedefendantwasstoppedinanairportbyapoliceofficerE whoE actF edF G ingG upon @  informationreceivedfromatelephonedispatcher.Thedefendantwasaskedtoproducehisplaneticket,buthedidnot.Whenaskedtoconsenttoasearch,heagreed,H afterwhichH I andI acontrolledsubstancewasfoundinhispocket.ApanelofthisCourtdecidedthatbecause neithertheinformantsreliabilitynorhis/herbasisforknowledgewassufficientlydemonstrated,thepolicewerenotjustifiedinseizingthedefendant.TousetheWilson  courtsterminology,theinitialencounterbetweenthedefendantandthepolicewastainted.TheWilsoncourtfurtherdeterminedthatsincetheinitialencounterbetweenthe !` defendantandthepolicewastainted,thedefendantspurportedconsenttobesearchedwasirrelevant.Thus,theWilsoncourtsdecisiontoaffirmthetrialcourtssuppressionof %  evidenceturnedonwhethertheStatehadestablishedthereliabilityoftheinformantandhisorherbasisforknowledgeinaccordancewithAguilarv.Texas,378U.S.108(1964), @)" Spinelliv.UnitedStates,393U.S.410(1969),andStatev.Jacumin,778S.W.2d430  +!$ (Tenn.1989)(adoptingtheAguilarSpinellirequirementsinTennessee). -#&   Intheinstantcase,thepetitionerdoesnotchallengethereliabilityorthebasisoftheinformationgiventoOfficerBuckandtheotherpoliceofficers.Thus,thepetitionersrelianceonWilsonismisplaced.#XIXX XIV## XIXXXI 4 +. #XIXX XI#,# XIXXXI `6-0   #XIXX XIz,# XIXXXIThepetitionerarguesthathisconsenttobesearchedwasnotvoluntarily `  givenbecauseitresultedfrom officialintimidationorharassment.#XIXX XI,# XIXXXIThepetitionerclaims @  hewas coercedand intimidatedintosubmissionbecausefourpoliceofficersapproachedhim,identifiedthemselves,and surroundedhiminabathroomwhiletheysearchedhim.Accordingtothepetitioner,theofficersretainedhisplaneticketthroughouttheinterviewandsearch,eventhoughhisplanewas readytofly.Hecharacterizeshisencounterwiththepoliceofficersasoneinwhich anyattempttodeclinethesearchwaswastedeffortandforthisreason,contendsthattheconsentsearchwasnotvalid.  Therecorddoesnotsupportthepetitionersversionofthefacts.Accordingtotherecord,OfficerBuckandtheotherofficersapproachedthepetitioner,identifiedthemselves,andaskediftheycouldspeakwithhim.Afterdiscussingseveral preliminarymatters,theyaskedthepetitionerifhewouldconsenttoasearch.Thepetitionersaidyes.Theofficersthenaskedhimifhewouldprefertoconductthesearchinthebathroomforprivacyssake.Again,thepetitioneragreed.Accordingtotherecord,onlytwoofficersaccompaniedthepetitionerintothebathroomwherehewassearched,socontrarytothepetitionersassertion,hewasnot surroundedby severalofficerswhenhewassearched.Moreover,whiletherecordindicatesthatatsomepoint(therecorddoesnotspecifywhen)thepoliceofficersaskedtolookatthepetitionersplaneticket,thereisnoindicationthattheofficersretainedtheplaneticket.Thereisalsonoevidencethattheinterviewandinitialsearchofthepetitionerdetainedhimwhilehisflightwasboarding.  Giventhesecircumstancesdelineatedanduncontrovertedintherecord, `6-0 nothingsupportsthepetitionersconclusionthathisconsentwasobtainedbycoercion.Rather,therecordrevealsaconsensualencounterbetweenpoliceofficersandthepetitioner,andeventhoughthepetitionerwasnotobligedtoeventalktotheofficers,letaloneconsenttothesearch,see#XIXX XI-# XIXXXIFloridav.Royer,460U.S.491,49798(1983),#XIXX XIt6# XIXXXIhedid  sovoluntarily.Becauseaseizuredoesnotoccurandthus,theFourthAmendmentisnotimplicatedbyapoliceofficermerelytalkingtoorquestioninganindividualinapublicplace,thepetitionersargumentmustfail.See#XIXX XI6# XIXXXIRoyer,460U.S.at497;Statev.Moore, @  776S.W.2d933,938(Tenn.1989).#XIXX XI88# XIXXXI     Werecognizethatthereisaninterestingtwisttothefactsintheinstantcase.Althoughtherecordshowsthatthepetitionervalidlyconsentedtothesearchwhenasked,itisnotsoclearwhetherthepetitionersactinfleeingfromtheofficersafterthesearchhadalreadycommencedsomehowvitiatedtheconsentgiven.#XIXX XI8# XIXXXIUnfortunately,  neitherpartyaddressesthisissue.Infact,itisquestionablethattherecord,sparseasitis,wouldevensupportsuchanargument.Therecordreflectsthatoncethepetitionerfled,thepoliceofficerschasedhim,wrestledhimtotheground,andsomehowsubsequentlydiscovereddrugsinhissocks,butitisunclearwhetherthepoliceofficersdiscoveredthedrugsbycontinuingtheirsearchorwhethertheydiscovereditbecausethepetitionerremovedhissocksinanattempttoabandonthecontraband.   XIXX XI  1      ׀Atanyrate,  +!$ sincethepetitionerdoesnotarguethathewithdrewconsentandrightfullyterminatedthesearchoncehefledfromthebathroomL ,L andthattheofficersdidnothaveeitherarticulablesuspicion#XIXX XI:# XIXXXIԀorprobablecausetofurtherdetainJ orarrestJ himletalonecite 0`'* casesforthisargumentwedeemanyargumentinthisveintobewaived.RuleoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsofTennessee10(b).#XIXX XIb># XIXXXI @  #XIXX XI?# XIXXXI#XIXX XI?#X XXXI  #XIX XX&@# XIXXXIThepetitioneralsobrieflyproposesthatthesearch shouldhaveended  afteraTerryTaprevealednoreasontocontinueorexpandthesearch.BecausethepetitionerdoesnotdirectanyargumentorcitationstoauthorityonthispointK ,howeverK ,ittooisdeemedwaived.RuleoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsofTennessee10(b).#XIXX XI@# @    Thetrialcourtsorderdenyingthepetitionersmotiontosuppressisaffirmed. XIXXXIN ӜN O O N N    X      `   _______________________________     X      `   JOHNH.PEAY,Judge̜P P CONCUR:#XIXX XIB# XIXXXI______________________________JOSEPHM.#XIXX XIRD# XIXXXITIPTON,Judge `'  ______________________________NORMAMcGEE#XIXX XID# XIXXXIOGLE,Judge#XIXX XIQE#