WPC /# UN % 0(b)w@14q 0J 0T 0^2 0h 0r 0|j 0 0l 1u 0dqU>U* 0@= D3} B B) DC AM9 1 v~ v5 AQY 0D 0Dc D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - (D)*E+,-E./0Ӏ<a""|x<2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial("$    """"'dxd d% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd* $C << G ' !  #d#  +"     YYY FILEDX July28,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva *+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd ! .   `       \RA'\\RA'\7XXdd7      INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜*R%&$A1-j|o`  `@RߛATJACKSON̜JUNESESSION,1997  STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.02C019702CC00085     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) HENRYCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.C.CREEDMCGINLEY WILLIAMD.BUCY,II,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellant.   ) (CertifiedQuestionStopandSearch)        ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHECIRCUITCOURTOFHENRYCOUNTY   FORTHEAPPELLANT:   FORTHEAPPELLEE:MATTHEWM.MADDOX  JOHNKNOXWALKUP105EastMainStreet   AttorneyGeneralandReporterP.O.Box430Huntingdon,TN38344   KENNETHW.RUCKER      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN37243      ROBERT GUSRADFORD      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      P.O.Box686      Huntingdon,TN38344OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE   OPINION    ThisappealpresentsacertifiedquestionoflawpursuanttoRuleϜ37(b)(2)(iv)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.TheDefendantpleadedguiltytomisdemeanorpossessionofdrugsandpossessionofaprohibitedweapon.Withtheconsentofthetrialcourt,hereservedacertifiedquestionoflawthatisdispositiveofthecase.ThecertifiedquestionarosefromthetrialcourtsdenialofamotiontosuppressevidenceobtainedfromtheDefendantduringasearchconductedbyapoliceofficer.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. Mostoftherelevantfactsarenotinseriousdispute.IntheearlyafternoononJanuary31,1996,theParis,TennesseePoliceDepartmentreceivedananonymouscallreportingthattherewasapossibleburglaryinprogressatahouselocatedonthecornerofCarterRoadandBettyStreetwithinthecitylimitsofParis.Thecallerreportedthattwoindividualswereseenusingachairtoclimbinawindowoftheresidence.Atleastthreepolicemenpromptlyarrivedatthatgenerallocationinresponsetothecall.Oneoftheofficerssawachairunderawindowofoneofthehousesatorneartheintersection.Asanotherofficerapproachedtherearofthehouse,theDefendantranoutthebackdoorofthehouseand,accordingtotheofficer, holleredbacktothebackdoortocomeon,thecopsareouthere.TheDefendantenteredthepassengersidedoorofapickuptruckandreachedoverandstartedthetruck.Thepoliceofficeropenedthedriverssidedoorofthetruck,reachedinandturnedtheignitionoff,andwithhisweapondrawn,orderedtheDefendantoutofthetruck.TheofficerdirectedboththeDefendantandanotherindividualwhoϜalsohadexitedthehousetoplacetheirhandsonanearbypicnictable.Theofficertestifiedthathethen friskedtheDefendantandfoundinhisjacketpocketaswitchbladeknife,apillbottleandabagofmarijuana. Afterinvestigatingfurther,thepolicemandeterminedthattherehadnotinfactbeenaburglary.Apparentlyateenageoccupantofthehomehadforgottenherhousekeyandsheandafriendhadthereforeenteredthehousethroughabedroomwindow.TheDefendantandhiscompanionwereapparentlyatthehousetovisittheteenagegirls. TheDefendantwassubsequentlychargedwithpossessionofdrugsandpossessionofanillegalswitchbladeknife.Hefiledamotiontosuppresstheevidencewhichwasobtainedfromhispocketbasedonhisargumentthattheywereobtainedasaresultofanunlawfulsearch.Afterconductinganevidentiaryhearing,thetrialcourtoverruledhismotion.TheDefendantsubsequentlyenteredpleasofguiltybutreservedasacertifiedquestionforappealtheissueofthelegalityofthesearch. TheDefendantarguesthattheevidenceshouldhavebeensuppressedbecause(1)Theofficerhadnorighttostopandfriskhimasheranfromthehouse;(2)thattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingthatthe friskoccurredbeforetheofficersdeterminedthatnoburglaryhadinfacttakenplace;and(3)thatthesearchconductedbytheofficerexceededthetypeofsearchpermissibleinconjunctionwithaTerrystop. Thetrialcourtfoundthatbasedonthesefactsandcircumstances,thestopoftheDefendantwasnotonlywarrantedorjustified,butthatthepoliceofficerswouldhavebeenderelictintheirdutyiftheyhadnotrespondedastheydid.ThecourtfurtherfoundthatthesearchtookplaceassoonastheofficergottheDefendantoutofthetruckandthatthesearchwasclearlyreasonableandjustifiedbytheconcernforthesafetyoftheofficers. TheDefendantarguesthattheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourtbecausethetrialcourtshouldhavecreditedthetestimonyoftheDefendants disinterestedwitnessesratherthanthepoliceofficers. Onsuppressionissues,questionsofcredibilityofthewitnesses,alongwiththeweightandvalueoftheevidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrialjudgeastrieroffact.Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).Thepartyprevailinginthetrialcourtisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthesuppressionhearingaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.Id.Atrialcourtsfindingsoffactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Id.Asnotedbythetrialjudge,therewereconflictsinthetestimonyatthesuppressionhearing.ThetrialjudgeresolvedtheseconflictsinfavoroftheState.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialcourt. ThelawiswellsettledinTennesseethataninvestigativedetentionrequiresonlyashowingofreasonablesuspicionratherthanprobablecause.ϜSee,e.g.,Statev.Watkins,827S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.1992).Reasonablesuspicionmustbebasedonspecificandarticulablefactsindicatingthatacriminaloffensehasbeenorisabouttobecommitted.Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,21,88S.Ct.1868,1880,20L.Ed2d889,906(1968).Inevaluatingwhetherreasonablesuspicionisbasedonspecificandarticulablefacts,wemustconsiderthetotalityofthecircumstances,includingthepersonalobservationsofthepoliceofficer,informationobtainedfromotherofficersoragencies,informationobtainedfromcitizensandthepatternofoperationofcertainoffenders.Watkins,827S.W.2dat294(citationsomitted).Wemustalsoconsidertherationalinferencesanddeductionsthatatrainedpoliceofficermaydrawfromthecircumstances.Id.InTerry,theSupremeCourtstatedthatafriskbasedonreasonablesuspicion mustbelimitedtothatwhichisnecessaryforthediscoveryofweaponswhichmightbeusedtoharmtheofficerorothersnearby.392U.S.at26,88S.Ct.at1862,20L.Ed2dat908. Inthecasesubjudice,weagreewiththetrialcourtsconclusionthatnotonlywasthedetentionoftheDefendantjustified,butalsothattheofficerwouldhavebeenderelictinhisdutiesnottorespondashedidunderthesefacts.Eventhoughitwasananonymousphonecallwhichdirectedthepoliceofficerstothearea,thedetentionoftheDefendantwasfullyjustifiedbywhattheofficersobservedandheardoncetheygotthere.SeeStatev.Hullum,664S.W.2d314,317(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Moreover,thetrialcourtresolvedconflictingtestimonyregardingthetimingofthepatdownsearchinfavoroftheState.Thus,theofficerclearlypossessedreasonablesuspicionwhenheconductedthesearch.̜ Thetrialcourtfoundthatonthesefactstheofficerwasjustifiedinconductingthe patdownor friskwithintheTerrylimits.Thejudgestated, thisisaclassiccase,notonlywherethesearchispermissible,butitabsolutelymusttakeplaceunderthistypeofcircumstances.Withthefindingofcontrabandinthecourseofthispatdown,certainlytheresnounreasonablesearchhere.Thereisnoviolation.Thecourtfindsthatthesearchwillstand.Weagree. Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________PAULG.SUMMERS,JUDGE___________________________________JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE