ÿWPCD …#†VUNÜ %* 0(0bX4`t 0Jƒ 0TÍ 0^! 0h 0rç 0|Y 0†Õ 0[ 1uë U,` 0dŒ U,ð U> U*Z B)„ DC­ AMð ==v~z BøvÓ D3è 0@ AO[ƪ 0Dp 0D´ D/ø B'˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ÙP 4æ w9·^:·à: (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-o„p3|x 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌMarch€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€æXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßL€"#!;+'h|` ç `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OFÏTENNESSEEÌÌAT€NASHVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9502„CC„00040Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àROBERTSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYERó óÌò òJAMES€E.€JOHNSON,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Search€of€Automobile)ÌÌÌÓ  Óò òON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCIRCUIT€COURT€OF€ROBERTSON€COUNTYó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌMICHAEL€R.€JONESà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ19th€District€Public€Defenderà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ113€Sixth€AvenueÌSpringfield,€TN€€37172à àà àà àMICHELLE€L.€LEHMANNÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€CARNEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDENT€MORRISSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMain€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSpringfield,€TN€€37172ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€XÔÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCriminal€Procedure€from€a€plea€of€nolo€contendere.€€In€the€Defendant's€pleaÏagreement,€all€charges€were€dropped€except€for€one€count€of€possession€of€aÏschedule€II€drug€with€intent€to€sell.€€He€was€sentenced€to€six€years€as€a€Range€IÏoffender.€€In€his€plea€of€nolo€contendere,€the€Defendant€expressly€reserved€aÏcertified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€The€certified€question€of€lawÏstems€from€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress.€€We€affirmÏthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€pulled€over€for€speeding.€€He€was€driving€a€rental€car.€ÏThe€officer€discovered€that€the€Defendant's€name€was€not€included€on€the€rentalÏagreement€as€the€primary€driver€or€as€an€additional€driver.€€The€Defendant'sÏdriver's€€license€was€from€Michigan,€and€the€officer€checked€on€the€status€of€hisÏlicense.€€The€dispatcher€related€to€the€officer€that€the€Defendant's€license€wasÏsuspended€for€a€Michigan€offense.€€The€officer€became€suspicious.€€The€officerÏasked€the€Defendant€to€come€back€to€the€patrol€car€so€that€he€could€explain€theÏcitation€and€the€license€suspension€to€the€Defendant.€€The€officer€stated€that€theÏDefendant€had€been€acting€nervous€throughout€the€stop.€€The€officer€asked€theÍDefendant€if€he€could€look€in€the€Defendant's€car.€€The€Defendant€consented€to€theÏsearch.€€The€officer€found€a€paper€bag€under€the€driver's€seat€containing€cocaine.€ÏThe€Defendant€ran€away€while€the€officer€was€searching€the€car.ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€has€set€out€prerequisites€to€the€consideration€of€aÏcertified€question€of€law.€€These€requirements€are€as€follows:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌRegardless€of€what€has€appeared€in€prior€petitions,€orders,Ïcolloquy€in€open€court€or€otherwise,€the€final€order€or€judgmentÏfrom€which€the€time€begins€to€run€to€pursue€a€T.R.A.P.€3€appealÏmust€contain€a€statement€of€the€dispositive€certified€question€of€lawÏreserved€by€defendant€for€appellate€review€and€òòthe€question€ofÏlaw€must€be€stated€so€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limitsÏof€the€legal€issue€reservedóó.€€For€example,€where€questions€of€lawÏinvolve€the€validity€of€searches€and€the€admissibility€of€statementsÏand€confessions,€etc.,€òòthe€reasons€relied€on€by€defendant€in€theÏtrial€court€at€the€suppression€hearing€must€be€identified€in€theÏstatement€of€the€certified€question€of€lawóó€and€review€by€theÏappellate€courts€will€be€limited€to€those€passed€upon€by€the€trialÏjudge€and€stated€in€the€certified€question,€absent€a€constitutionalÏrequirement€otherwise.€€Without€an€explicit€statement€of€theÏcertified€question,€neither€the€defendant,€the€State€nor€the€trialÏjudge€can€make€a€meaningful€determination€of€whether€the€issueÏsought€to€be€reviewed€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€.€.€.€òòAlso,€the€orderÏmust€state€that€the€certified€question€was€expressly€reserved€asÏpart€of€a€plea€agreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judgeÏconsented€to€the€reservation€and€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judgeÏare€of€the€opinion€that€the€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€.€.€.ÏNo€issue€beyond€that€scope€of€the€certified€question€will€beÏconsidered.€€óóÌÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1988)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌà àThe€burden€is€on€the€Defendant€to€make€sure€that€the€certified€question€isÏpreserved€properly.€€òòIdóó.€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€there€is€an€"Order€Reserving€theÏRight€to€Appeal"€included€in€the€technical€record.€€This€order€states€that€the€certifiedÏquestion€is€"Was€there€a€valid€search€after€the€traffic€stop?"€€A€defendant€must€stateÏhis€reasons€relied€on€in€the€trial€court€as€to€why€his€certified€question€should€beÏdecided€in€his€favor.€€The€certified€question€herein€does€not€meet€the€requirementsÏof€òòPrestonóó.€€However,€because€the€precise€issue€was€readily€ascertained,€weÏchose€to€address€this€issue€on€the€merits.€€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€valid€consent€was€not€given€to€search€the€car.€ÏThe€standard€to€measure€valid€consent€was€articulated€by€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€in€òòFlorida€v.€Jimenoóó,€500€U.S.€248€(1991):ÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓÌ[W]e€have€long€approved€consensual€searches€because€it€is€noÏdoubt€reasonable€for€the€police€to€conduct€a€search€once€theyÏhave€been€permitted€to€do€so.€.€.€.€€The€standard€for€measuring€theÏscope€of€a€suspect's€consent€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€is€thatÏof€"objective"€reasonableness„what€would€the€typical€reasonableÏperson€have€understood€by€the€exhange€between€the€officer€andÏthe€suspect?ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓòòIdóó.€at€250„51.ÌÌà àIn€òòJimenoóó€the€officer€pulled€the€defendant€over€for€a€routine€traffic€stop.€€TheÏofficer€suspected€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€in€a€drug€transaction.€€òòIdóó.€at€249.€ÏHe€stated€this€to€the€Defendant€and€asked€if€he€could€search€the€car.€€TheÏDefendant€said€he€had€nothing€to€hide€and€consented€to€the€search.€€òòIdóó.€€The€officerÏfound€a€paper€bag€in€the€floor€board€of€the€car€which€contained€cocaine.€€òòIdóó.€at€250.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€defendant€gave€valid€consent€to€search€both€theÏcar€and€the€paper€bag.€€òòIdóó.€at€251„52.ÌÌà àWe€have€reviewed€the€record,€which€consists€of€a€transcript€of€the€hearingÏon€the€Defendant's€motion€to€suppress€and€a€videotape€of€the€stop.€€The€facts€in€theÏcase€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€are€similar€to€those€in€òòJimenoóó.€€The€officer€said€to€the€Defendant€inÏthe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€"while€I€have€you€stopped,€I€would€like€to€go€ahead€and€take€aÏlook€in€the€car.€€Is€that€all€right?"€€The€Defendant€said€"yes,€sir."€€This€exchange€tookÏplace€when€both€the€officer€and€the€Defendant€were€standing€in€front€of€the€officer'sÏcar.€€The€officer€then€said,€"it's€in€the€car,€ain't€it."€€The€Defendant€then€indicated€thatÏthere€was€nothing€in€the€car.€€The€officer€then€asked€the€Defendant,"€you€gotÏanything€in€here€that€you€need€to€tell€me€about?"€€The€Defendant€responded,€"Ah,Ïno,€I€ain't€got€nothing€in€there€I€need€to€tell€you€about.€€Go€ahead€and€look€all€youÏwant."€€The€officer€said,€"ain't€got€no€guns€or€anything?"€€The€Defendant€responded,Í"No,€sir."€€The€officer€then€found€a€paper€bag€that€contained€cocaine€on€the€floorÏunder€the€driver's€seat.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€a€reasonable€person€would€understand€from€thatÏexchange€that€the€officer€had€something€in€mind€that€he€was€looking€for€and€that€heÏintended€to€search€the€car.€€A€defendant€can€limit€the€boundaries€of€a€search.€€òòIdóó.€atÏ252.€€If€consent€can€reasonably€be€found€to€extend€to€a€container,€additionalÏconsent€is€not€required.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Defendant€in€this€case€did€not€make€any€attemptsÏto€limit€the€officer's€search.€€Furthermore,€we€conclude€that€a€reasonable€personÏwould€assume€that€in€conducting€a€search€of€an€automobile,€an€officer€will€searchÏunder€the€seat€where€the€driver€has€been€sitting.€€Therefore,€we€find€that€theÏofficer's€search€of€the€Defendant's€car€was€consensual,€and€the€trial€court's€denialÏof€the€Defendant's€motion€to€suppress€was€appropriate.ÌÌà àThis€issue€has€no€merit.ÌÌà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌROBERT€E.€CORLEW,€III,€SPECIAL€JUDGE