ÿWPC”/ …U:V % 0 Ü–4r † 0 • 0Dµ 0Jù D3C 0Tv 0^Ê 0h( 0r 0| 0†~ 0 1u”U,  0d5U,™U *ÅB)ïDC AM[å¨3ÐÀU>GÎ4 v~I$ BÇ%vÓä% 0@·+ AO÷+ÆF, 0ø - 0D/ D/H/ Bw/, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ј€* 3|x](Ð(3Ÿ™$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€|ˆXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÛÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDe…cemberÏ28,Ï1995ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€case€dispositive€question€certified€by€the€trial€court's€order€actuallyÏcontained€three€questions:ÌÌ1.à àShould€Officer€Blackwell€have€obtained€a€search€warrant€beforeÏconducting€a€search€of€the€Defendant€on€December€23,€1993€at€approximatelyÏ3:21€p.m.€at€the€"Preachers"€club€located€in€Henry€County,€Tennessee.ÌÌ2.à àWas€Officer€Blackwell's€search€of€the€Defendant€without€a€warrant€anÏillegal€search€in€violation€of€the€Defendant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights€under€theÏU.S.€Constitution,€andalso€in€violation€of€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution?ÌÌ3.à àShould€all€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€aforementioned€searchÏwithout€a€warrant€be€excluded?ÌÌWe€are€compelled€to€note€that€the€certified€questions€as€framed€are€exceedinglyÏbroad€in€scope,€i.e.€was€the€search€legal,€was€a€warrant€necessary,€and€shouldÏthe€evidence€be€excluded?€€Our€supreme€court,€in€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2dÏ647,€650€(Tenn.€1988),€held€that€questions€of€law€certified€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€37(b)(2)€"must€be€stated€so€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€theÏlimits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved."€€The€certified€questions€presented€in€this€caseÏminimally€satisfy€the€requirements€of€òòPrestonóó.Ì ÆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÒ ½ ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀŠ XXdðdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€warrant€was€issued€after€the€appellant's€arrest,€pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€4,€the€affidavit€indicates,€and€Blackwell€testified,€that€heÏpossessed€this€information€prior€to€the€arrest.Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman =Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7ÀŠ XXdðdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€&ÔIt€would€appear€that€the€basis€for€the€arrest€was€the€discovery€of€the€pill€bottleÏcontaining€cocaine,€rather€than€the€discovery€of€the€knife.€€Ô€ÔAt€the€suppression€hearing,Ïthe€appellant€suggested€that€the€knife€had€been€returned€to€him.€€Moreover,€theÏrecord€does€not€indicate€that€any€prohibited€weapons€offense€was€charged.Ì *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€We€note€that€an€attempt€to€reconcile€the€"immediately€apparent"€andÏ"probable€cause"€language€of€òòDickersonóó€in€our€opinion€in€òòState€v.€Whiteóó,€No.Ï03C01„9408„CR„00277€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€June€7,€1995),€mayÏhave€resulted€in€the€application€of€an€overly€stringent€probable€cause€standard.€ÏIn€òòWhiteóó,€an€officer€conducted€a€òòTerryóó€frisk€on€the€basis€of€information€providedÏby€several€informants€that€the€defendant€was€dealing€drugs.€€While€conductingÏthe€frisk,€the€officer€felt€a€film€canister€hidden€in€the€defendant's€underwear.€€HeÏproceeded€to€seize€the€canister.€€We€concluded€in€òòWhiteóó€that€the€officer€did€notÏhave€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€canister€contained€contraband.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(Ð3[–$¢¢Ý ƒ`!ÝÑÑÒ°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ7€|ˆXXdæXXdæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|&)` O `€€Lßà@ àMAY€SESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9412„CC„00298Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHENRYÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€ò òJulian€P.ÏGuinnó ó,€JudgeÌò òRAY€ANTHONY€BRIDGESó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Possession€ofÏcocaine€with€intent€to€€€€€€Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)à àsell)à àÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€theÏAppelleeóó:ÌÌò òLarry€E.€Fitzgeraldà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonó óÌ22€N.€Second€St.,€Suite€410à àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òMichelle€L.€Lehmannà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àG.€Robert€"Gus"€Radfordà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPost€Office€Box€686Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntingdon,€TN€€38344ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÇÓÓ€à@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Ray€Anthony€Bridges,€appeals€from€a€judgment€ofÏconviction€entered€in€the€Circuit€Court€of€Henry€County.€€The€appellant€pledÏguilty€to€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell.€€Pursuant€toÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37€(b)(2),€the€plea€expressly€reserved€the€appellant's€right€toÏchallenge€whether€the€arresting€officer€should€have€obtained€a€warrant€beforeÏconducting€a€search€of€the€appellant.× ƒ$ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAfter€reviewing€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€affirm€the€appellant's€conviction.ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òI.€€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌÌà àOn€August€18,€1994,€pursuant€to€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress,€theÏtrial€court€conducted€a€hearing€to€determine€whether€the€police€violated€the€ÌÌÌappellant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights€by€conducting€a€warrantless€search€of€hisÏperson€and€seizing€from€him€a€quantity€of€crack€cocaine.€€At€the€suppressionÏhearing,€Officer€O.W.€Blackwell€testified€that€on€December€23,€1993,€heÏreceived€a€phone€call€from€the€dispatcher,€advising€him€that€an€informant€hadÏinformation€concerning€a€person€selling€crack€cocaine.€€Officer€Blackwell€thenÏcalled€the€informant,€who€told€Blackwell€"that€Anthony€Bridges€was€atÏ'Preacher's€Place'€in€the€'Bottom'€dealing€crack€cocaine€right€then."€€TheÏinformant€also€advised€Blackwell€that€Bridges€"had€cash€money€and€drugs€onÏhim€at€that€time."€€Blackwell€added€that€he€received€the€information€at€2:47€p.m.Ïand€arrived€at€Preacher's€Place€at€approximately€3:21€p.m..ÌÌà àAccording€to€Officer€Blackwell,€the€informant€had€provided€him€withÏinformation€eight€years€ago€which€had€led€to€an€arrest€and€a€conviction.€ÍAdditionally,€Blackwell€testified€that€this€informant€"had€always€been€veryÏstraightforward€and€very€honest€and€very€reliable€with€me€and€has€givenÏinformation€in€the€past."ÌÌà àOfficer€Blackwell€added€that€he€"had€been€getting€a€lot€of€information€onÏ[Bridges]€at€that€particular€area€as€far€as€relating€to€drug€dealings."€€BlackwellÏtestified€that€he€had€received€"approximately€a€half€a€dozen€or€so"€anonymousÏtips€to€that€effect.ÌÌÌà àIn€addition€to€the€officer's€testimony,€defense€counsel€introduced€a€copyÏof€the€arrest€warrant€and€accompanying€affidavit€of€complaint.€€The€affidavit€ofÏcomplaint€stated€that€the€affiant,€Blackwell,€"knew€Bridges€was€a€convicted€felonÏand€convicted€drug€offender."€€Blackwell€also€was€aware€that€Bridges€"had€beenÏarrested€on€weapons€charges€recently€in€Paris€and€at€that€time€he€had€run€fromÏthe€police."× ƒ% ××  ×ÌÌà àUpon€his€arrival€at€Preacher's,€Officer€Blackwell€found€the€appellantÏsitting€at€a€table.€€Based€on€his€knowledge€of€the€appellant's€recent€arrest€onÍweapons€charges,€Blackwell€believed€that€the€appellant€might€be€armed.€ÏTherefore,€he€conducted€a€"frisk"€of€the€appellant€for€weapons.€€The€record€isÏsomewhat€unclear€with€respect€to€the€order€of€events€once€BlackwellÏcommenced€his€frisk€of€the€appellant.€€The€affidavit€of€complaint,€attached€to€theÏarrest€warrant,€contains€the€clearest€description€of€events.€€In€the€affidavit,ÏBlackwell€stated€that,€while€frisking€the€appellant,€he€touched€the€appellant'sÏright€jacket€pocket€and€"immediately€recognized€a€pill€bottle€...€that€is€used€byÏthe€majority€of€crack€dealers€to€hold€their€crack€cocaine."€€The€frisk€alsoÏuncovered€a€knife€in€the€appellant's€back€pocket.€€Officer€Blackwell€thenÏarrested€the€appellant.× ƒ' ××  ×€€After€the€arrest,€Blackwell€apparently€conducted€aÏfurther€search€of€the€appellant€and€found€a€small€bag€of€crack€cocaine€in€hisÏright€jacket€pocket.€€At€the€suppression€hearing,€Blackwell€also€testified€that€aÏsearch€of€the€appellant€at€the€Henry€County€Jail€uncovered€two€hundred€andÏforty„eight€dollars€hidden€in€the€appellant's€underwear.ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€testimony,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress.€€The€trial€court€ruled€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓAll€right,€the€Court€finds€that€the€arresting€officer€hadÏinformation€from€a€reliable€confidential€informant,€that€aÏfelony€and€perhaps€felonies,€more€than€one,€had€beenÍcommitted,€that€is€the€sale€of€a€schedule€two€controlledÏsubstance,€that€another€felony€was€in€the€progress€or€wasÏactually€in€effect€at€that€time,€that€is€that€he€possessed€aÏschedule€two€controlled€substance,€and€that€acting€uponÏthat€he€had€articulable€facts€that€justified€the€action€that€heÏtook€in€making€an€arrest€and€frisk.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÌà@ àòòò òII.€€Warrantless€Search€of€Appellantóóó óÌÌà àOrdinarily,€the€search€of€a€person€and€the€seizure€of€any€items€on€theÏperson€require€a€warrant.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Placeóó,€462€U.S.€696,€701,€103€S.Ct.Ï2637,€2641€(1983).€€However,€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€United€States€hasÏcontinually€carved€out€exceptions€to€this€rule€based€on€the€level€of€intrusivenessÏinvolved€in€the€search,€the€expectation€of€privacy€of€the€individual,€and€theÏcircumstances€surrounding€the€search.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€hasÏlargely€followed€the€United€States€Supreme€Court's€lead€in€this€area.ÌÌà àThe€appellant€contends€that€the€police,€in€this€case,€should€haveÏprocured€a€search€warrant€before€searching€him,€as€none€of€the€exceptions€toÏthe€warrant€requirement€are€applicable.€€The€state€argues€that€the€briefÏdetention€of€the€appellant€and€the€ensuing€search€fall€within€the€ambit€of€theÏ"stop€and€frisk"€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement,€as€established€in€òòTerry€v.ÏOhioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€20„22,€30,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1879„1880,€1884„1885€(1968).ÌÌòòà àóóA€search€conducted€without€a€warrant€is€presumptively€unreasonable.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€McClanahanóó,€806€S.W.2d€219,€220€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€TheÏstate,€at€a€suppression€hearing,€has€the€burden€of€showing€that€the€search€wasÏconducted€within€a€recognized€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòId.óó€€TheÏfindings€of€a€trial€court€at€the€conclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing€are€affordedÏthe€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872€S.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2dÏ228,€233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€This€court€will€not€set€aside€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderatesÏagainst€its€findings.€€òòId.ÌÌò òà@ àA.€€Terry€"Stop€and€Frisk"óóó óÌÌà àIn€òòTerryóó,€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€where€a€police€officer€hasÏòòreasonable€suspicion€óóto€conclude€that€criminal€activity€may€be€afoot€and€that€theÏpersons€with€whom€the€officer€is€dealing€may€be€armed€and€dangerous,€theÏofficer€is€"entitled€for€the€protection€of€himself€and€others€in€the€area€to€conduct€aÏcarefully€limited€search€of€the€outer€clothing€of€such€persons€in€an€attempt€toÏdiscover€weapons€which€might€be€used€to€assault€him."€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€30,Ï88€S.Ct.€at€1884„85.€€The€holding€in€òòTerryóó€has€been€explained€and€expanded€inÏseveral€subsequent€Supreme€Court€decisions.€€We€review€these€cases€andÍrelevant€Tennessee€case€law€to€determine€whether€the€police€officer€hadÏreasonable€suspicion€to€believe€that€the€appellant€was€involved€in€criminalÏactivity€and€was€armed;€and€if€so,€whether€the€seizure€of€the€pill€bottle€from€theÏappellant's€jacket€exceeded€the€permissible€scope€of€a€òòTerryóó€search.ÌÌà@ àòòò ò1.€€Reasonable€Suspicionóóó óÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.€1992),€the€Supreme€Court€ofÏTennessee€held€that€"a€police€officer€may€make€an€investigatory€stop€when€theÏofficer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,Ïthat€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed."€€òòId.óó€at€294.€€WhenÏa€stop€is€based€solely€on€an€informant's€tip,€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test€is€helpful€inÏdetermining€whether€the€police€had€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863ÏS.W.2d€29,€31€(Tenn.€1993);€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€504,€505€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989).ÌÌà àUsually,€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test€is€applied€to€determine€whether€or€notÏinformation€supplied€by€an€informant€established€probable€cause€to€issue€aÏsearch€warrant€or€to€make€an€arrest.€€òòColemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€at€505.€€Under€theÏòòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€when€an€officer€relies€on€an€informant's€tip,€and€not€on€hisÏown€observations,€the€officer€must€show€(1)€the€basis€for€the€informant'sÏknowledge€and€(2)€the€informant's€credibility.€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2dÍ430,€432,€436€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€rejected€theÏ"totality€of€circumstances€test"€adopted€in€òòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,€103ÏS.Ct.€2317€(1983),€in€favor€of€this€two„pronged€standard,€originally€set€forth€inÏòòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€84€S.Ct.€1509€(1964),€and€òòSpinelli€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€89€S.Ct.€584€(1969).€€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€436.ÌÌà àWhen€applying€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€the€courts€will€look€to€the€affidavitÏused€to€obtain€the€search€warrant€to€determine€whether€its€contents€support€aÏfinding€of€probable€cause.€€However,€when€the€test€is€applied€to€a€warrantlessÏsearch€conducted€pursuant€to€òòTerryóó,€there€is€no€affidavit€to€examine.€€Instead,Ïthe€courts€must€examine€the€testimony€of€law€enforcement€officers€concerningÏthe€information€supplied€by€the€informant.€€Thus,€we€must€review€the€testimonyÏof€Officer€Blackwell€to€determine€whether€the€information€supplied€to€him€by€theÏinformant€established€reasonable€suspicion.€€Moreover,€because€we€areÏapplying€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test€in€a€reasonable€suspicion€analysis,€we€remainÏcognizant€of€the€fact€that:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓreasonable€suspicion€is€a€less€demanding€standard€thanÏprobable€cause€not€only€in€the€sense€that€reasonableÏsuspicion€can€be€established€with€information€that€isÏdifferent€in€quantity€or€content€than€that€required€to€establishÏprobable€cause,€but€also€in€the€sense€that€reasonableÏsuspicion€can€arise€from€information€that€is€less€reliableÏthan€that€required€to€show€probable€cause.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓòòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€32€(quoting€òòAlabama€v.€Whiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110ÍS.Ct.€2412,€2416€(1990)).ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€credibility€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€OfficerÏBlackwell€testified€that,€although€the€informant€had€not€been€used€by€him€inÏeight€years,€he€was€confident€that€the€informant€was€reliable.€€Moreover,€theÏinformant's€tip€was€corroborated€by€"approximately€a€half€a€dozen€or€so"Ïanonymous€tips€that€the€appellant€had€been€selling€crack€cocaine€in€that€area.€ÏWe€conclude€that€this€additional€information€established€the€reliability€of€theÏinformant's€information€and€thereby€satisfied€the€credibility€prong.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏBallardóó,€836€S.W.2d€560,€561€(Tenn.€1992).ÌÌà àAs€to€the€basis€of€knowledge€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test,€theÏtestimony€of€Officer€Blackwell€failed€to€explicitly€reveal€òòhow€the€informant€knewóóÏthat€the€appellant€was€selling€cocaine.€€In€the€context€of€a€probable€causeÏanalysis,€the€Supreme€Court€in€òòSpinellióó€held€that:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓ[i]n€the€absence€of€a€statement€detailing€the€manner€inÏwhich€the€information€was€gathered,€it€is€especiallyÏimportant€that€the€tip€describe€the€accused's€criminal€activityÏin€sufficient€detail€that€the€magistrate€may€know€that€he€isÏrelying€on€something€more€substantial€than€a€casual€rumorÏcirculating€in€the€underworld€or€an€accusation€based€merelyÏon€an€individual's€general€reputation.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓ393€U.S.€at€416,€89€S.Ct.€at€589.€€Relevant€Tennessee€case€law€also€makes€itÏclear€that,€in€order€to€establish€probable€cause,€the€informant€must€describe€theÍmanner€in€which€he€gathered€the€information,€or€the€informant€must€describeÏthe€criminal€activity€of€the€suspects€with€great€detail.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€€òòEarls€v.€Stateóó,Ï496€ÌÌS.W.2d€464€(Tenn.€1973);€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€477€S.W.2d€6€(Tenn.€1972);€€òòState€v.ÏVelaóó,€645€S.W.2d€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).ÌÌà àHowever,€under€a€reasonable€suspicion€analysis,€"[w]hen€an€informantÏreports€an€incident€at€or€near€the€time€of€its€occurrence,€a€court€can€oftenÏassume€that€the€report€is€first€hand,€and€hence€reliable."€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€atÏ32;€€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Greenóó,€No.€02C01„9209„CC„00201€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏJackson,€Oct.€27,€1993).€€The€informant€in€the€present€case€told€OfficerÏBlackwell€that€the€appellant€was€at€"Preacher's"€selling€"crack€cocaine€rightÏthen".€€€€€€ÌÌà àMoreover,€we€may€look€to€the€corroboration€of€several€of€the€details€of€theÏreport,€such€as€the€identity€of€the€accused€and€the€general€location€of€theÏincident.€€òòPulleyóó,€€863€S.W.2d€at€32.€€The€informant€identified€the€appellant€byÏname,€"Anthony€Bridges".€€Also,€soon€after€he€received€the€tip,€Officer€BlackwellÏlocated€the€appellant€at€Preacher's€Place,€the€exact€location€that€the€informantÏprovided.€€Thus,€in€the€context€of€a€reasonable€suspicion€analysis,€theÏinformation€available€to€Blackwell€is€constitutionally€sufficient€to€establish€theÍremaining€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€test.ÌÌà àFinally,€Officer€Blackwell€stated€in€his€affidavit€that€he€was€aware€that€theÏappellant€"was€a€convicted€felon€and€convicted€drug€dealer."€€Blackwell€wasÏalso€aware€€of€the€appellant's€recent€weapons€charge,€during€which€he€had€runÏfrom€the€police.€€We€conclude€that,€given€the€information€provided€by€theÏinformant,€numerous€anonymous€tips,€Blackwell's€observations,€and€Blackwell'sÏknowledge€of€the€appellant's€prior€criminal€history,€Officer€Blackwell€hadÏreasonable€suspicion€that€the€appellant€was€armed€and€involved€in€criminalÏactivity.€€Therefore,€a€òòTerryóó€"stop€and€frisk"€of€the€appellant€was€justified.ÌÌà@ àòòò ò2.€€Seizure€of€the€Pill€Bottleóóó óÌÌà àThe€more€difficult€question€is€whether€Officer€Blackwell€could€seize€theÏpill€bottle,€felt€during€the€frisk€of€the€appellant.€€The€rationale€underlying€theÏòòTerryóó€frisk€is€the€protection€of€the€officer.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€23,€88€S.Ct.€at€1881.€ÏTherefore,€a€òòTerryóó€frisk€"must€be€limited€to€that€which€is€necessary€for€theÏdiscovery€of€weapons.€€òòId.óó€at€26,€1882.€€However,€this€does€not€mean€that€onlyÏweapons€may€be€seized€pursuant€to€a€òòTerryóó€frisk.€€In€òòMinnesota€v.€Dickersonóó,Ïthe€Supreme€Court€held€that€if,€within€the€confines€of€a€valid€òòTerryóó€frisk,€anÏofficer€detects€contraband€through€the€sense€of€touch,€the€officer€may€seize€theÏcontraband.€€òò€€€óó€U.S.€òò€€€óó,€113€S.Ct.€2130,€2137€(1993).€€This€has€become€knownÍas€the€Plain€Feel€Doctrine.ÌÌà àIn€òòDickersonóó,€the€Court€stated€that€an€officer€detects€contraband€when€heÏ"feels€an€object€whose€contour€or€mass€makes€its€identity€òòimmediatelyÏapparentóó."€€òòId.óó€at€2137€(emphasis€added).€The€phrase€"immediately€apparent"€isÏsomewhat€misleading,€as€the€Supreme€Court€treats€"immediately€apparent"€andÏ"probable€cause"€as€synonymous€terms.× ƒ( ××  ×€€In€other€words,€"immediatelyÏapparent"€simply€means€that€the€officer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€theÏobject€felt€is€contraband.€€òòDickersonóó,€113€S.Ct.€at€2136„2137.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòTexas€v.ÏBrownóó,€460€U.S.€739,€741„742,€103€S.Ct.€1535,€1543€(1983).€€Moreover,€theÏofficer€must€develop€probable€cause€within€the€context€of€a€òòTerryóó€search€forÏweapons,€or€before€the€justification€for€the€initial€intrusion€is€at€an€end.€€òòSeeóóÏòòBrownóó,€460€U.S.€at€738„739,€103€S.Ct.€at€1541;€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€653€A.2d€1040,Ï1050€(Md.€App.€1995)(Moylan,€J.),€òòcert.€grantedóó,€661€A.2d€733€(Md.€1995).€ÏProbable€cause€developed€after€the€justification€ceases€will€not€support€aÏseizure€of€evidence€under€the€Plain€Feel€Doctrine.€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€as€one€judge€hasÍobserved,ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓThe€data€to€be€gathered€...€must€come€to€light€incidentally€inÏthe€course€of€a€prior€intrusion€justified€for€some€otherÏpurpose€...€[Moreover,]€[t]he€time€constraint€on€the€officer'sÏthinking€process€is€that€he€must€have€concluded€thatÏprobable€cause€exists€before€presuming€to€seize€evidenceÏunder€the€[Plain€Feel€Doctrine].€€The€officer€may€not€seize,Ïor€further€search,€in€order€to€confirm€suspicion.€€The€officerÏmay€not€seize,€or€further€search,€otherwise€to€developÏprobable€cause.€€The€officer€may€only€seize€after€he€alreadyÏhas€probable€cause.€€That€is€all€the€phrase€"immediatelyÏapparent"€connotes.ÌÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒòòJonesóó,€653€A.2d€at€1050€(Moylan,€J.).€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Blackwell€was€engaged€in€a€valid€òòTerryóó€frisk€when€he€felt€the€pillÏbottle€in€the€appellant's€jacket€pocket.€€Unlike€the€officer€in€òòDickersonóó,€BlackwellÏdid€not€squeeze,€slide€or€otherwise€manipulate€the€object€in€the€appellant'sÏpocket.€€òòDickersonóó,€113€S.Ct.€at€2138.€€Rather,€Blackwell€immediatelyÏrecognized€the€object.€€Thus,€our€inquiry€must€focus€on€whether€the€tactileÏdiscovery€of€the€pill€bottle€in€this€case€gave€Blackwell,€at€that€moment€andÏwithout€further€searching,€probable€cause€to€believe€that€it€was€contraband.€ÏProbable€cause€has€been€defined€as€"'a€reasonable€ground€of€suspicion,Ïsupported€by€circumstances€sufficiently€strong€in€themselves€to€warrant€aÏcautious€man€in€the€belief€that€...€the€evidence€is€in€the€place€to€be€searched.'"€ÏòòState€v.€Meeksóó,€876€S.W.2d€121,€124€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.1993)(citation€omitted).€ÏProbable€cause€"does€not€demand€any€showing€that€such€a€belief€be€correct€orÍmore€likely€true€than€false."€€òòBrownóó,€460€U.S.€at€742,€103€S.Ct.€at€1543.ÌÌÌà àIn€òòTexas€v.€Brownóó,€an€officer€stopped€the€defendant's€vehicle€at€a€routineÏdriver's€license€checkpoint.€€460€U.S.€at€733„734,€103€S.Ct.€at€1539.€€StandingÏalongside€the€driver's€window€of€the€defendant's€car,€the€officer€asked€theÏdefendant€for€his€driver's€license.€€òòId.óó€€Simultaneously,€the€officer€shined€hisÏflashlight€into€the€car.€€òòId.óó€€He€thereby€observed€the€defendant€remove€a€greenÏopaque€party€balloon,€knotted€about€one„half€inch€from€the€tip,€from€theÏdefendant's€pocket.€òòId.óó€€The€defendant€then€dropped€the€balloon€onto€the€seat,Ïnext€to€his€leg,€and€proceeded€to€open€the€glove€compartment.€€òòId.óó€€The€officerÏslightly€shifted€his€position€in€order€to€obtain€a€better€view€of€the€gloveÏcompartment.€€òòId.óó€€He€observed€several€small€plastic€vials,€quantities€of€looseÏwhite€powder,€and€an€open€bag€of€party€balloons.€€òòId.óó€€The€officer€was€awareÏthat€narcotics€are€frequently€packaged€in€balloons€similar€to€those€found€in€theÏdefendant's€possession.€€òòId.óó€€The€officer€seized€the€balloon€dropped€by€theÏdefendant.€€òòId.óó€€After€concluding€that€the€officer€was€lawfully€in€a€position€toÏobserve€both€the€balloon€and€the€contents€of€the€glove€compartment,€the€CourtÏfurther€determined€that,€pursuant€to€the€Plain€View€Doctrine,€the€officerÏpossessed€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€balloon€contained€contraband.€ÏòòBrownóó,€460€U.S.€at€742„743,€103€S.Ct.€at€1543.€€The€Court€observed€that€"[t]heÏfact€that€[the€officer]€could€not€see€through€the€opaque€fabric€of€the€balloon€is€allÍbut€irrelevant:€the€distinctive€character€of€the€balloon€itself€spoke€volumes€as€toÏits€contents€„€particularly€to€the€trained€eye€of€the€officer."€€òòId.óó€at€743,€1544.€€€Ìà àÌà à"The€Plain€Feel€Doctrine€is€an€analogue€of€or€variation€on€the€Plain€ViewÏDoctrine€...€The€Plain€Feel€Doctrine€[therefore]€shares€all€of€the€requirementsÏand€all€of€the€characteristics€of€the€Plain€View€Doctrine,€save€only€for€theÏsubstitution€of€fingers€for€eyes."€€òòJonesóó,€653€A.2d€at€1044.€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòDickersonóó,Ï113€S.Ct.€at€2137.€€Thus,€the€District€of€Columbia€Circuit€Court€of€AppealsÏsuggested€that€police€could€have€seized€a€"hard,"€"flat,"€"angular"€object,€feltÏduring€a€consensual€search€of€a€suspect,€if€the€officer€could€have€relatedÏsomething€"from€his€experience€to€correlate€objects€of€this€sort€with€criminalÏactivity."€€òòUnited€States€v.€Gibsonóó,€19€F.3d€1449,€1451€(D.C.€Cir.€1994).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€instant€case,€Officer€Blackwell€received€information€from€anÏinformant€that€the€appellant€was€selling€crack€cocaine€at€Preacher's€Place€andÏwas€carrying€cocaine€on€his€person.€€Blackwell€was€also€aware€that€theÏappellant€had€previously€been€convicted€of€a€drug„related€offense.€€WhileÏBlackwell€was€conducting€a€lawful€frisk€of€the€appellant,€he€encountered€anÏobject€which€he€"immediately€recognized"€to€be€a€pill€bottle.€€Blackwell€testifiedÏthat,€based€on€his€experience,€he€immediately€"knew€that€it€was€the€kind€that€aÏlot€of€other€crack€dealers€will€use€to€keep€their€crack€in."€€We€conclude€thatÏBlackwell€possessed€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€pill€bottle€containedÍcrack€cocaine.€€Therefore,€the€seizure€of€the€pill€bottle€from€the€appellant'sÏperson€was€valid.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€constitutionality€of€a€container€seizure€does€notÏautomatically€determine€the€constitutionality€of€a€container€search.€€òòBrownóó,€103ÏS.W.2d€at€1547€(Stevens,€J.,€concurring).€€In€other€words,€although€OfficerÏBlackwell€could€seize€the€pill€bottle€pursuant€to€the€Plain€Feel€Doctrine,€it€is€notÏentirely€clear€that,€absent€a€warrant,€€he€could€also€open€the€bottle€and€examineÏthe€contents.€€Nevertheless,€Justice€Stevens,€concurring€in€the€judgment€ofÏòòTexas€v.€Brownóó,€suggested€that€a€warrant€would€not€be€required€if€a€containerÏpossessed€a€single€purpose,€and€"'by€[its]€very€nature€[could€not]€support€anyÏreasonable€expectation€of€privacy€because€[its]€contents€[could]€be€inferred€fromÏ[its]€outward€appearance."€€òòId.óó€at€1548.€€He€further€suggested€that€the€balloon€inÏòòBrownóó€was€such€a€container.€€òòId.óó€€Again,€Officer€Blackwell€testified€that€heÏimmediately€recognized€the€pill€bottle€to€be€the€"kind€that€a€lot€of€other€crackÏdealers€will€use€to€keep€their€crack€in."€€We€conclude€that€feeling€the€pill€bottleÏunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case€gave€the€officer€a€degree€of€certaintyÏequivalent€to€the€"plain€feel"€of€the€crack€cocaine€itself.€€òòId.óó€€Therefore,€theÏofficer,€having€seized€the€bottle,€could€lawfully€open€the€bottle€and€look€inside.€ÏThus,€the€subsequent€arrest€and€the€search€incident€to€the€arrest,€resulting€inÏthe€discovery€of€the€small€bag€of€crack€cocaine,€were€valid.ÌÌà@ àòòò òIII.€Conclusionóóó óÌ€Ìà àHaving€determined€that€the€seizure€of€the€cocaine€was€valid,€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judgeó óÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìò òJohn€H.€Peay,€Judgeó óÌÌÌ__________________________________Ìò òWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judgeó ó