ÿWPCc …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H P 0lX 0DÄ b D3 C 0DK 0[ 0Dê 0J. 0Tx 0^Ì 0h* 0r’ 0| 0†€ 0 1u– 0d bo BwU>” 0@ÒU *B)<DCe AM¨õv~)vÓ§ 0Dz AO¾Æ  0DÓ D/ BF˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- úEûüEý[þÿ)UîÓ€ UîÚƒç"¹6 3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-****'ÿÿdxd($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¨à$¥¥Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.6 ÿÿ$Triangleððà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ! ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ- ù- d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òOctober€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òOctober€22,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò6ûb$Triangleððà0 à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€,ŠÔÔ€.ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€5EXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌà0 à€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °†XDp”XÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9701„CR„00037Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)à àCARTER€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€LYNN€W.€BROWN,€JUDGEÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌTERRY€FREEMAN,€à àà à)à à(CERTIFIED€QUESTION€OF€LAWà àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àPOSSESSION€OF€SCHEDULE€VIÏó óà àœà àAppellant.›à àà àà àò ò)à àDRUGS€WITH€INTENT€TOÏSELL)ÌÓ ` °œXÓó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òLAURA€RULE€HENDRICKSà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óAttorney€at€Law€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ606€West€Main€Street,€Suite€350ÌP.O.€Box€84à àà à€à àà àò òSANDY€COPOUS€PATRICKó óÌKnoxville,€TN€37901„0084à àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ(On€Appeal)à àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0943ÌÌò òDAVID€F.€BAUTISTAó óà àà àà àò òDAVID€E.€CROCKETT€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderò òà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òROBERT€Y.€OAKSà àó óà àà àò òKENNETH€C.€BALDWINó óÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌMain€Courthouseà àà àà àà àCarter€County€Courthouse€AnnexÌElizabethton,€TN€37643à àà àà àElizabethton,€TN€37643€Ì(At€Trial)ÌÌ€ÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEò ò€Ìó óÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€.°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€.ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Ó€à àà àPursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement,€the€Defendant,€TerryÏFreeman,€pled€guilty€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€Carter€County€to€the€Class€E€felonyÏoffense€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell.€€The€trial€court€denied€theÏDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence.€€With€the€consent€of€the€State€andÏthe€trial€court,€Defendant€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€lawÏwhich€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(b)(2).€€The€precise€question€ofÏlaw€certified€in€this€appeal€is€as€follows:€ð ðWhether€the€stop€of€the€DefendantððsÏvehicle€was€made€with€reasonable€suspicion€based€on€articulable€facts€underÏthe€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.ðð€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€September€19,€1995,€Detectives€Grayson€Winters€and€RonnieÏMcClure€received€information€from€a€confidential€informant€that€Terry€FreemanÏwould€be€leaving€his€residence€at€227€South€Hills€around€1:00€p.m.€or€2:00€p.m.Ïto€go€to€his€work€at€Red€Lobster.€€The€informant€also€stated€that€DefendantÏwould€be€driving€a€Silver€Toyota€vehicle€and€would€have€marijuana€in€hisÏpossession.€€Further,€the€informant€advised€the€officers€that€Defendant€had€aÏrevoked€driverððs€license.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€officers€went€to€the€area€of€the€address€on€September€19€afterÏchecking€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€history€and€confirming€that€it€was€in€aÏrevoked€status.€€They€observed€the€described€vehicle€at€the€residence€andÏstayed€in€the€area€for€a€brief€period€of€time,€but€did€not€see€the€Defendant€leave.€ÏThe€officers€did€not€know€the€confidential€informant€prior€to€September€19€andÏobviously€had€never€used€information€from€the€person€on€any€prior€occasion.€ÏOn€September€20,€1995,€the€officers€again€went€to€Defendantððs€residenceÏbetween€1:00€and€2:00€p.m.€€They€saw€the€described€silver€Toyota€leave€theÏresidence€at€227€South€Hills,€but€could€not€positively€identify€Defendant€becauseÏall€that€they€could€see€was€the€back€of€the€driver€as€the€vehicle€pulled€out.€€ÌÌà àà àDetective€Winters€testified€that€they€immediately€began€followingÏthe€vehicle,€radioed€to€the€dispatcher€for€a€check€on€the€license€plate€number€ofÏthe€car,€and€were€informed€that€the€vehicle€was€registered€to€Defendant.€€TheÏofficers€then€stopped€the€Defendant.€€This€stop€by€the€officers€is€the€specificÏaction€complained€of€by€Defendant€in€this€appeal.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€court,€the€Defendant€principally€relies€upon€our€courtððsÏdecisions€in€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€504€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€andÏòòState€v.€Norwordóó,€938€S.W.2d€23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€In€òòNorwordóó,€ourÍcourt€€recognized€that€stopping€an€automobile€and€detaining€the€occupants€is€aÏseizure€€within€the€meaning€of€the€4th€and€14th€Amendments€of€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€ð ðeven€though€the€purpose€of€the€stop€is€limited€and€theÏresulting€detention€quite€brief.ðð€€938€S.W.2d€at€24,€quoting€from€òòDelaware€v.ÏProuseóó,€440€U.S.€648,€653€(1979).€€ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€our€court€in€òòNorwordóó€specifically€held:ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àIn€some€circumstances,€an€officer€may€briefly€detain€a€suspectÏwithout€probable€cause€in€order€to€investigate€possible€criminalÏactivity.€€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€51,€99€S.Ct.€2637,€2640„41,Ï61€L.Ed.2d€357€(1979).€€In€these€situations,€an€investigatory€stop€isÏonly€permissible€when€a€police€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,Ïsupported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offenseÏhas€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,Ï21,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1879„80,€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968).€€In€order€toÏdetermine€specific€and€articulable€facts,€this€Court€must€consider€theÏð ðtotality€of€the€circumstances.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cortezóó,€449€U.S.Ï411,€417,€101€S.Ct.€690,€694„95,€66€L.Ed.2d€621€(1981).€€ÌÌÌòòNorwordóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€24„25.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àIn€òòNorwordóó,€the€defendant€was€operating€a€vehicle€which€belongedÏto€the€arresting€officerððs€brother.€€The€officer€knew€that€his€brother€did€not€regularlyÏloan€the€vehicle.€€While€on€routine€patrol,€the€officer€saw€the€car€being€driven€byÏa€stranger€and€based€upon€this€ð ðsuspiciousðð€circumstance,€the€officer€stoppedÏthe€defendant€and€ultimately€found€marijuana,€drug€paraphernalia,€and€that€theÍdefendant€was€driving€the€vehicle€with€a€revoked€license.€€Our€court€ruled€thatÏthe€police€officer€had€no€specific€objective€basis€for€suspecting€criminalÏinvolvement€by€the€defendant€and€that€therefore€the€stop€violated€the€Ïdefendantððs€rights€guaranteed€by€the€Fourth€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution.€€òòNorwordóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€25.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòColemanóó,€our€court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€grantingÏthe€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€evidence€seized€as€a€result€of€anÏinvestigatory€stop€by€a€law€enforcement€officer.€€In€that€case,€the€defendantÏwas€stopped€for€investigation€based€upon€information€received€from€aÏconfidential€informant€who€had€never€before€been€used€as€a€source€ofÏinformation€in€any€police€investigation€and€did€not€reveal€to€the€officer€the€basisÏof€his€or€her€knowledge€concerning€the€information.€€Our€court€specifically€notedÏthat€the€stop€was€not€made€upon€the€officerððs€own€observations.€€In€òòColemanóó,Ïthe€grounds€for€justifying€the€investigatory€stop€were€related€solely€to€theÏinformation€provided€to€law€enforcement€officers€by€the€confidential€informant.€ÏOur€court€held€that€even€though€the€vehicle€was€registered€in€the€name€of€aÏperson€who€had€the€same€first€name€as€provided€by€the€informant,€that€thisÏwas€not€enough€to€provide€reasonable€and€articulable€suspicion€to€justify€theÏstop€and€detention.€€€ÌÌà àà àHowever,€the€facts€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€are€more€similar€to€theÏfacts€involved€in€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.€1992)€than€the€factsÏin€òòNorwordóó€and€òòColemanóó.€€In€òòWatkinsóó,€one€of€the€arresting€officers€had€personalÏknowledge€that€there€was€a€capias€outstanding€for€Watkinsðð€arrest.€€OtherÏpolice€officers€had€informed€the€arresting€officer€that€defendant€drove€a€blackÏCadillac€vehicle€which€had€the€words€ð ðThe€Dukeðð€inscribed€on€the€car.€€On€theÏdate€of€the€arrest,€the€officer€and€his€partner€were€parked€when€they€observedÏthe€particular€black€Cadillac€drive€by€them.€€Due€to€the€outstanding€capias,€theÏofficers€decided€to€stop€the€vehicle€and€ð ðinvestigate€the€identity€of€the€driver.ðð€ÏòòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294.ÌÌà àà àAfter€the€defendant€identified€himself€at€the€request€of€the€arrestingÏofficer,€a€call€was€made€to€the€police€dispatcher€to€verify€the€capias,€andÏdefendant€was€then€placed€under€arrest.€€The€defendant€argued€on€appeal€thatÏthe€seizure€of€his€vehicle€by€way€of€the€investigatory€stop€was€a€violation€of€hisÏrights€guaranteed€by€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€Ìà àà àNoting€that€a€court€must€consider€ð ðrational€inferences€andÏdeductionsðð€that€a€police€officer€may€draw€from€the€facts€and€circumstancesÏknown€to€him,€our€supreme€court€rejected€the€defendantððs€argument€and€held:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àConsidering€the€totality€of€these€circumstances,€we€find€thatÏthe€police€officers€had€the€required€reasonable€suspicion,€supportedÍby€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€the€defendant€was€the€driverÏof€the€vehicle€and€that€he€was€the€person€wanted€on€theÏoutstanding€capias.ÌÌÌòòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€295.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àIn€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€the€officers€knew€from€verified€informationÏthat€the€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€was€in€a€revoked€status.€€They€observed€aÏwhite€male€driving€the€vehicle€registered€in€Defendantððs€name€on€a€public€road.€€ÏUnder€òòWatkinsóó,€there€were€sufficient€specific€and€articulable€facts€to€make€anÏinvestigatory€stop€to€determine€the€identity€of€the€driver.€€Even€if€the€officersÏthought€that€they€had€enough€information€to€base€the€stop€solely€upon€theÏinformation€obtained€from€the€confidential€informant€(which€they€did€not€since€theÏneither€the€basis€of€knowledge€nor€the€veracity€of€the€informant€is€shown€in€theÏrecord),€the€stop€is€still€legal€if€it€is€based€on€reasonable€grounds€other€thanÏthose€relied€upon€by€the€officers.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€787€S.W.2d€34,€35€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÓÓœÇÓ  Ó›à àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌœòò(See€Separate€Concurring€Opinion)óó____ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌ̛̜òò(See€Separate€Concurring€Opinion)____›óóÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€œJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛рÑÑ7€5EXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€120A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à àœ)›à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9701„CR„00037›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœCARTER›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œLYNN€W.€BROWN,€ó ó›Ìœò òTERRY€FREEMAN,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Certified€Question€of€LawÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àPossession€of€Schedule€VIÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àDrugs€with€Intent€to€Sell)›ÌÌœòòÓ  ÓÔ€.îÔCONCURRINGó󛀜òòOPINIONóó›ÌÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÔ€.ŠÔà àI€concur€in€the€œopinion€of€my€colleague,›€Judge€Woodall.€€I€agree€that,Ïunder€our€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.Ï1992),€the€police€officers€in€the€present€case€had€the€required€reasonableÏsuspicion€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts€to€make€an€investigatory€stopÍof€the€Defendant.€€I€write€separately,€however,€to€express€my€concern€about€aÏsignificant€difference€between€òòWatkinsóó€and€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.ÌÌà àAs€Judge€Woodall€points€out,€an€investigatory€detention,€although€lessÏintrusive€than€a€full„blown€arrest,€is€nevertheless€subject€to€the€constitutionalÏprotection€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€against€ð ðunreasonable€searches€andÏseizures.ðð€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€20,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€1879,€20€œL.Ed›.2d€889Ï(1968).€€Interactions€between€the€police€and€the€public€that€constitute€seizuresÏbut€not€arrests€are€judged€by€their€reasonableness€rather€than€by€a€showing€ofÏprobable€cause.€€òòId.óó€€The€reasonableness€of€the€intrusion€is€ð ðjudged€byÏweighing€the€gravity€of€the€public€concern,€the€degree€to€which€the€seizureÏadvances€that€concern,€and€the€severity€of€the€intrusion€into€individual€privacy.ðð€ÏòòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443ÏU.S.€47,€50,€99€S.Ct.€2637,€2640,€61€L.Ed.2d€357€(1979)).ÌÌà àThe€law€is€well€settled€in€Tennessee€that€an€investigative€detentionÏrequires€only€a€showing€of€reasonable€suspicion€rather€than€probable€cause.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294.€€Reasonable€suspicion€must€be€basedÏon€specific€and€articulable€facts€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€toÏbe€committed.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€21,€88€S.Ct.€at€1880;€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€atÏ30;€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294;€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€131€(Tenn.ÍCrim.€App.€1995).€€In€evaluating€whether€reasonable€suspicion€is€based€onÏspecific€and€articulable€facts,€we€must€consider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,Ïincluding€the€personal€observations€of€the€police€officer,€information€obtained€fromÏother€officers€or€agencies,€information€obtained€from€citizens,€and€the€pattern€ofÏoperation€of€certain€offenders.€€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294€(citing€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Cortezóó,€449€U.S.€411,€œ417„18,›€101€S.Ct.€690,€695,€66€L.Ed.2d€621,€629Ï(1981));€òòsee€alsoóó€òòAdams€v.€Williamsóó,€407€U.S.€143,€147,€92€S.Ct.€1921,€1924,Ï32€L.Ed.2d€612€(1972);€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31.€€We€must€also€consider€theÏrational€inferences€and€deductions€that€a€trained€police€officer€may€draw€from€theÏcircumstances.€€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294€(citing€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€21,€88ÏS.Ct.€at€1880,€20€L.Ed.2d€at€906).ÌÌà àIn€òòWatkinsóó,€one€of€the€police€officers€had€personal€knowledge€that€aÏcapias€was€outstanding€for€the€defendantððs€arrest.€€He€had€also€learned€fromÏother€officers€that€the€defendant€frequently€drove€a€black€Cadillac€which€had€theÏwords€ð ðThe€Dukeðð€written€on€the€vehicle.€€The€car€was€registered€to€theÏdefendantððs€mother.€€On€the€day€in€question,€the€officer€and€his€partnerÏobserved€the€black€Cadillac€drive€by€them.€€Because€of€the€outstanding€capias,Ïthe€officers€decided€to€stop€the€vehicle€and€investigate€the€identity€of€the€driver.€ÏAfter€the€stop€of€the€vehicle,€the€defendant€identified€himself€to€the€officers.€€TheyÏconfirmed€with€the€police€dispatcher€that€there€was€an€outstanding€capias€forÍthe€defendantððs€arrest€and€then€placed€the€defendant€under€arrest.€€òòWatkinsóó,Ï827€S.W.2d€at€œ294„95.›ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€our€supreme€court€rejected€the€defendantððs€argument€that€theÏinvestigatory€stop€of€the€black€Cadillac€was€not€supported€by€reasonableÏsuspicion.€€In€so€doing,€the€court€held€as€follows:ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ ` ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓà àConsidering€the€totality€of€these€circumstances,€we€find€thatÏthe€police€òòofficers€had€the€required€reasonable€suspicion,€supportedÏby€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€the€defendant€was€the€driverÏof€the€vehicleóó€and€that€he€was€the€person€wanted€on€theÏoutstanding€capias.ÌÌÓÓÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒòòId.óó€at€295€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€hadÏnot€been€subjected€to€an€unconstitutional€stop.ÌÌà àI€agree€with€Judge€Woodall€that€the€òòWatkinsóó€holding€controls€the€case€atÏbar.€€In€the€present€case,€the€officers€knew€that€the€Defendantððs€driverððs€licenseÏwas€in€a€revoked€status.€€One€of€the€officers€had€arrested€the€Defendant€inÏ1987€and€apparently€knew€that€he€was€a€white€male.€€The€officers€observed€aÏwhite€male€driving€a€vehicle€registered€to€the€Defendant.€€Prior€to€stopping€theÏvehicle,€however,€the€officers€did€not€know€the€identity€of€the€driver.ÌÌà àFrom€these€facts,€I€believe€that€the€constitutionality€of€the€stop€in€the€caseÏòòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€turns€on€the€question€of€whether€the€officers€had€a€reasonableÍsuspicion€that€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€was€the€Defendant.€€Under€similarÏcircumstances,€the€òòWatkinsóó€court€stated€that€the€officers€in€that€case€hadÏsufficient€reasonable€suspicion€ð ðthat€the€defendant€was€the€driver€of€the€vehicle.ðð€ÏòòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€295.€€Given€that€language€from€òòWatkinsóó,€I€can€onlyÏconclude€that€the€officers€in€the€case€at€bar€had€a€reasonable€suspicionÏsupported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts€that€the€Defendant€was€the€driver€ofÏthe€vehicle€that€they€stopped.€€Accordingly,€I€agree€with€Judge€Woodall€that€theÏstop€of€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€was€a€œconstitutionally€permissible›€investigatoryÏstop.ÌÌà àI€believe,€however,€that€the€existence€of€a€capias€for€the€defendant€inÏòòWatkinsóó€is€highly€significant.€€In€my€judgment,€the€existence€of€a€capias€for€theÏdefendant€in€òòWatkinsóó€heightens€the€gravity€of€the€public€concern,€one€of€theÏfactors€courts€must€weigh€to€evaluate€the€reasonableness€of€an€investigatoryÏstop.€€òòSeeóó€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€30.€€The€heightened€gravity€of€the€publicÏconcern€involved€in€òòWatkinsóó€tips€the€balance€more€in€favor€of€the€stop€beingÏreasonable€than€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€where€there€was€no€capias€for€theÏDefendant.€€Furthermore,€I€believe€that€the€actions€of€the€officers€in€òòWatkinsóó,€whoÏstopped€the€defendant€because€of€the€outstanding€capias,€were€not€solelyÏinvestigatory€but€œwere›€also€aimed€at€ensuring€the€efficient€administration€of€theÏcriminal€justice€system€by€taking€the€defendant€into€custody.€€In€contrast,€theÍactions€of€the€officers€in€the€present€case€were€purely€investigatory,€seeking€toÏconfirm€information€about€possible€traffic€and€drug€offenses.ÌÌà àThe€òòWatkinsóó€court€did€not,€however,€note€any€special€significance€for€theÏoutstanding€capias€in€the€analysis€of€the€reasonableness€of€the€stop.€€Instead,Ïthe€plain€language€of€the€opinion€clearly€and€simply€states€that€the€officers€hadÏreasonable€suspicion€that€the€defendant€was€the€driver€of€the€vehicle.€€GivenÏthat€language,€I€feel€constrained€by€the€holding€in€òòWatkinsóó€to€conclude€that€theÏinvestigatory€stop€of€the€Defendant€in€the€case€at€bar€was€supported€byÏreasonable€suspicion.€€I€therefore€concur€in€the€œopinion€of€Judge›€Woodall.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ̛р$ÑÑ7€5EXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓœßJ€13;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJßIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌœJULY€1997›€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€€œ03C01„9701„CR„00037›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àœAppellee›à àà àà àà àœ)à àCARTER€COUNTY›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)›Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àHON.€LYNN€W.€BROWN,›à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ)à àJUDGE›ÌœTERRY€FREEMAN,›à àà àœà à)›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ(Certified€Question€of€LawÏà àDefendant/Appellantà àà à)à àPossession€of€Schedule€VIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDrugs€with€Intent€to€Sell)›Ì€à àœà àà àà à€ÌòòÓ  ÓÌÌCONCURRING€OPINIONóóÌÓ  ÓÌà àI€concur€in€the€Concurring€Opinion€written€by€Judge€Welles.ÌÌÌòòÌà àà àà àà àà àà à›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€JudgeÌÌÌ