ÿWPCµ! …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñb  w@ 0ªP 0Dú 0J> 0Tˆ U:Ü 0^ 0ht 0rÜ 0|N 0†Ê 0P 1uà 0dUU>¹U*÷B)!DCJ AMéÚ D3Ã’öĈ 0@LŒ B¢v~¿vÓ= AO Æ_ 0D%! D/i! B˜!˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡Úƒç" @ d3|xœ- ù- €+†+Š‹DŒDŽDe‘Ó€(Z(2f¬$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€X&£XXXÔòòà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ßÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJuly€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó////'ÿÿdxd ˆÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝDuring€oral€argument€the€appellant€relied€heavily€on€the€fact€that€he€was€parked€upon€aÏprivate€road.€€He,€therefore,€argued€that€he€had€a€greater€expectation€of€privacy.€€We€find€thisÏargument€misguided.€€The€4th€Amendment€protects€people€not€places.€€The€record€reveals€thatÏthe€property€the€appellant€parked€on€was€not€his€property.€€A€person€should€have€no€greaterÏexpectation€of€privacy€on€another's€property€than€he€or€she€would€on€a€public€road.€€Ì ºÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€argues€that€without€the€aid€of€a€flashlight€Officer€Hamilton€would€not€haveÏbeen€able€to€observe€a€white€powdery€substance€on€his€console.€€This€argument€is€misguided.€ÏThe€fact€that€the€contents€of€a€vehicle€may€not€have€been€visible€without€the€use€of€artificialÏillumination€does€not€preclude€such€observation€from€application€of€the€plain€view€doctrine.€ÏòòUnited€States€v.€Johnsonóó,€506€F.2d€674€(8th€Cir.€1974).€€The€plain€view€doctrine€does€notÏdisappear€when€the€sun€goes€down.€€Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%Ôòòà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOfficer€Hamilton€testified€that€the€female€drinking€beer€caught€his€attention.€€He€couldÏhave€rationally,€and€reasonably,€concluded€that€the€female€might€be€intoxicated.€€Moreover,€heÏcould€have€reasonably€concluded€that€the€appellant€might€be€intoxicated€and€preparing€to€driveÏhis€vehicle€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€Ì dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÝ  Ý›Ò 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÞ ÞÌà àò ò€€€€€€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€()'A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌÓ  ÓAT€KNOXVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓNOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9606„CC„00239€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellee,à à)Ìà àà à)€Loudon€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Honorable€E.€Eugene€Eblen,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌRODNEY€PERNELL€HAWKINS,€ó óà à)€(Rule€37€Appeal€„€Felonious€PossessionÌ€€€€€à àà à)€€€€€of€Cocaine)Ìà àAppellant.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌMary€Katherine€Longworth€€€€€à àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Lawà àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌSuite€One,€410€Wharf€StreetÌP.O.€Box€501à àRobin€L.€Harris€€€ÌLoudon,€TN€37774à àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ìà àà àCharles€HawkÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àÌà àFrank€A.€HarveyÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àP.O.€Box€703Ìà àKingston,€TN€37763„0703ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÑ  ÑÑ7€qXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ€ Ñò òÓ ` pÓÔ  Ôà ààQ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó ó€ÌÌÌÓÓÓ` ¸ <pÓà àThe€appellant,€Rodney€Pernell€Hawkins,€was€indicted€on€one€count€ofÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell,€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaineÏwith€intent€to€deliver,€and€one€count€of€possession€of€an€open€container€ofÏalcohol€in€a€motor€vehicle.€€The€appellant€made€a€motion€to€suppress€theÏpackage€of€cocaine€seized€from€his€vehicle€and€his€statements€given€to€theÏpolice.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€appellant's€motion€toÏsuppress€finding€that€the€search€and€seizure€was€conducted€as€a€result€of€theÏplain€view€sighting€of€the€contraband.€€The€appellant€pled€guilty€to€the€charge€ofÏpossession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€sell,€reserving€the€right€under€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€37(b)(2)(I)€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law,€dispositive€of€his€case.€ÏThe€€two€remaining€counts€against€the€appellant€were€dismissed.€€In€essence,Ïthe€appellant€asks€this€Court€to€determine€whether€the€search€and€seizure€ofÏcontraband€from€his€vehicle€was€unconstitutional.€€We€find€the€actionsÏconstitutional€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓFACTSÌÌÓ  Óà àOn€September€20,€1994,€at€approximately€11:00€p.m.,€Officer€Hamilton,€aÏLoudon€County€deputy€sheriff,€observed€the€appellant€awkwardly€parked€on€aÏneighborhood€road€in€Lenoir€City,€Tennessee.€€The€appellant€was€having€aÏconversation€with€a€female€companion€who€was€standing€outside€of€his€vehicle.€ÏThe€female€was€drinking€a€beer.€€This€caught€the€officer's€attention.€€He€pulledÏup€behind€the€appellant's€vehicle.€€He€got€out€and€walked€up€to€the€female.€€AsÏthe€officer€did€this,€he€noticed€an€open€beer€sitting€between€appellantððs€legs.€ÏHe€also€observed€a€white€powdery€substance€near€the€vehicle's€console€and€aÏplastic€bag€hanging€from€the€console.€€ÌÌà àThe€officer€asked€the€appellant€to€step€out€of€the€vehicle.€€HeÏadministered€a€number€of€sobriety€tests.€€The€appellant€passed€these€tests.€€ÏThe€officer€then€asked€the€appellant€whether€the€plastic€bag€belonged€to€him.€ÏThe€appellant€responded€affirmatively.€€The€officer€then€searched€the€vehicleÏremoving€the€plastic€bag€from€the€console€containing€10.4€grams€of€cocaine.€ÏHe€then€placed€the€appellant€under€arrest.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€the€trial€court€after€anÏevidentiary€hearing€are€afforded€the€weight€of€a€jury€verdict.€òòState€v.€Dickóó,€872ÏS.W.2d€938,€943€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€Court€will€not€set€aside€theÍjudgment€of€the€trial€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÏpreponderates€against€its€findings.€€òòIdóó.€€ÌÌà àThe€appellant€makes€several€arguments€related€to€Officer€Hamilton'sÏsearch€of€his€vehicle.€€First,€he€argues€that€he€was€parked€on€private€propertyÏand€the€police€had€no€legitimate€reason€to€approach€his€vehicle.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Second,€heÏargues€that€the€warrantless€search€of€the€vehicle€does€not€fall€within€anyÏrecognized€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€and€was,€therefore,Ïunconstitutional.ÌÌà àThe€state€argues€that€the€warrantless€search€and€seizure€of€theÏappellant's€property€was€justified€under€the€plain€view€doctrine.€€The€plain€viewÏdoctrine€requires€proof€that:€(1)€the€objects€seized€were€in€plain€view;€(2)€theÏviewer€had€a€right€to€be€in€position€for€the€view;€(3)€the€seized€object€wasÏdiscovered€inadvertently;€and€(4)€the€incriminating€nature€of€the€object€wasÏimmediately€apparent.€€òòState€v.€Horneróó,€605€S.W.2d€835,€836€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1980);€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€91€S.Ct.€2022,€29€L.Ed.2dÏ564€(1971).ÌÌà àOfficer€Hamilton€testified€as€he€approached€the€vehicle€he€noticed€a€beerÏbetween€the€appellant's€legs.€€He€also€testified€that€he€noticed€a€white€powderyÏsubstance,€which€he€believed€to€be€contraband,€€and€a€plastic€bag€in€theÏvehicle.× ƒ, ××  ×€€This€Court€finds€that€these€facts€establish€3€of€the€4€requirementsÏmandated€by€òòHorneróó€to€allow€a€warrantless€seizure€under€the€plain€viewÏdoctrine.€€The€pivotal€question€that€must€be€resolved€by€this€Court€is€whether€theÏofficer€had€a€right€to€be€in€a€position€to€view€the€seized€contraband.€€€Therefore,Ïwhether€or€not€the€search€and€the€subsequent€seizure€were€valid€depends€onÏwhether€the€initial€approach€of€the€vehicle€was€constitutionally€permissible.ÌÌà àThe€standards€for€reviewing€police€conduct€become€more€stringent€asÏthe€degree€of€invasion€of€the€citizen's€privacy€increases.€€òòRobertson€v.€Stateóó,Ï596€A.2d€1345,€1350€(Del.€1991).€€€For€the€purpose€of€determining€whichÏstandard€is€appropriate,€many€courts€now€recognize€a€three„tier€analytical€modeÏfirst€formulated€by€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Fifth€Circuit€inÏòòUnited€States€v.€Berryóó,€670€F.2d€583,€591€(5th€Cir.€1982).€€The€first€tier€of€police„citizen€encounters€includes€full€scale€arrests€that€must€be€supported€byÏprobable€cause.€€òòIdóó.€€The€second€includes€brief€investigatory€stops€that€must€beÏsupported€by€a€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21,€88€S.Ct.Í1868,€20€L.Ed.€889€(1968);€€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€504,€505€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1989).€€The€third€tier€includes€community€caretaking€or€public€safetyÏfunctions€that€involve€no€coercion€or€detention.€€òòBerryóó,€670€F.2d€at€591.€€WithÏregard€to€the€community€caretaking€function,€it€is€now€generally€held€that€theÏpolice€may€engage€a€citizen€and€ask€questions€as€long€as€the€citizen€is€willingÏto€carry€on€the€conversation.€€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€Since€these€encounters€are€consensual,€they€do€not€require€pre„existing€probable€cause€or€even€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòIdóó.€€These€principlesÏhave€been€applied€to€police€encounters€with€persons€sitting€in€parked€vehicles.€Ï3€Wayne€R.€LaFave,€Search€and€Seizure€ðð€9.2(h)€at€415€(2d€ed.€1987).€ÏFurthermore,€the€propriety€of€the€police€conduct€depends€on€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances€existing€at€the€time€of€the€encounter.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cortezóó,Ï449€U.S.€411,€417,€101€S.Ct.€690,€695,€66€L.Ed.€621€(1981).€€Therefore,€theÏofficerððs€conduct€in€this€case€must€be€considered€in€light€of€the€time€and€place€ofÏthe€encounter€and€the€conduct€of€the€parties€involved.ÌÌà àThis€encounter€began€when€the€officer€saw€a€female€drinking€beer€nextÏto€a€vehicle€parked€awkwardly€in€the€middle€of€a€road.€€Given€the€lateness€of€theÏhour,€the€nature€of€the€location,€and€the€placement€of€the€car,€the€officer€couldÏhave€reasonably€concluded€that€he€should€investigate€the€situation€further.€€ThisÏencounter€could€be€classified€as€a€community€caretaking€or€public€safteyÏfunction€which€would€not€even€require€a€showing€of€reasonable€suspicion.€ÏHowever,€based€upon€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€OfficerÍHamilton€possessed€reasonable€suspicion€and€was€entirely€justified€inÏapproaching€the€appellant's€vehicle.× ƒ. ××  ×€€ÌÌà àOnce€lawfully€in€a€position€to€see€the€open€container€and€the€whiteÏpowdery€substance,€Officer€Hamilton€came€within€the€purview€of€the€plain€viewÏdoctrine.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderateÏagainst€the€findings€of€the€trial€court.€€The€judgment€overruling€the€appellant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€is€affirmed.€€€ÌÌÓÓÓ` <pÓà àà àà ààQ àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà ààQ àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌ