WPC _@#^]h tV_aZOOj.% 'VQ0NLN!Ki7"UcO>ר~22h^ڷg|f6zmxI>[P;1+T\ ֒p! )xS:p]MZ!geJgJ8CqRʾVa=[ lLW<0K?{DPlS@ae-htd>~+h"Зl/PÎx% }F&?N:й(naمm0Pq3wg=4ןA8Dw%R:?;S{%i~(„cMF/F' ^W\Oӻhm;*MBC)yxNR]I\o1j * oV`}PA=n,ᨯVI ~ۛBO]# F U>Q % 0 UB 4  n U: f 4 "< w@^  U:U: B D3 0D3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 AOw 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh<( 9Z &Courier RegularX($  7'CXXdXXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular \\RA' Legal\    D{DDӀ XXXX7VXX   Ad FILEDXX7V  January14,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXX7VXX   Ad FILEDXX7V  December21,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  7XXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi  ݛXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T † : XXXX7  XXdXXd7r*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rr*<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  r8 @ D x xINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @#DATNASHVILLE@@66-R   OCTOBER1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,)   80 Ѐ    h   )    Appellee, h   )  No.01C019712CR00590       h   )       h   )  PutnamCounty   v.    h   )       h   )  HonorableJohnMaddux,Judge       h   )  HonorableJohnTurnbull,Judge z  STUARTALLENJENKINS,  )   h`     h   )  (Certifiedquestionoflaw) NF  Appellant. h   ) 4,     h   FortheAppellant:   h     FortheAppellee:  WilliamA.Cameron h     JohnKnoxWalkup   x   100S.JeffersonAvenue h     AttorneyGeneralofTennessee  Cookeville,TN38501 h      p and     x   ~v     h     DarylJ.Brand    h     AssistantAttorneyGeneralofTennessee    h     425FifthAvenueNorth x   0 (     h     Nashville,TN372430493    h     WilliamEdwardGibson    h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral    h      p and    h     ShawnFry    h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral    h     145S.JeffersonAvenue    h     Cookeville,TN385013424    h     OPINIONFILED:____________________̜AFFIRMEDJosephM.TiptonJudge >:639W @)D OPINION    Thedefendant,StuartAllenJenkins,wasconvicteduponhispleaofguilty   inthePutnamCountyCriminalCourttodrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant(D.U.I.),firstoffense,aClassAmisdemeanor.HewassentencedasaRangeI,standardoffendertoelevenmonthsandtwentyninedaysconfinementinthePutnamCountyjailwithallbutfortyeighthourssuspendedandtheremaindertobeservedonprobation.Hewasfinedthreehundredandsixtydollars.Heappealsasofrightuponacertifiedquestionoflaw.SeeT.R.A.P.3(b);Tenn.R.Crim.P.37(b).Thestate x questionswhetherthedefendanthasproperlyreservedacertifiedquestionoflaw.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. ThedefendantwasoriginallychargedwithD.U.I.,D.U.I.perse,simplepossessionofmarijuanaandpossessionofdrugparaphernalia.ThechargeswerebroughtafterapoliceofficerstoppedthedefendantuponasuspicionofD.U.I.baseduponananonymousinformantsreportandtheofficerspersonalobservations.Thedefendantfiledamotiontosuppressallevidenceobtainedafterthestop,claimingthatthestopwasunconstitutionalbecausetheofficerlackedspecific,articulablefactsonwhichtojustifyit.Thetrialcourtdeniedthedefendantsmotion,andthedefendantenteredintoapleaagreementwherebyhepledguiltytoD.U.I.inexchangeforhavingtheremainingchargesdismissed. ThejudgmentformfiledJanuary6,1998,doesnotreflectthatthedefendantreservedacertifiedquestionoflaw,nordoesitincorporatebyreferenceanordersettingforthacertifiedquestionoflaw.However,therecordreflectsthatonNovember14,1997,thedatethatthetrialcourtacceptedthedefendantsguiltyplea,thetrialcourtenteredanagreedorderrelativetothecertifiedquestionoflaw.Theorderprovidesasfollows: 706 Ї  8   Thismattercameontobeheardonthe30thdayofSeptember,1997andOctober30,1997,upontheDefendantsMotiontoSuppress,saidMotionhavingbeenheardbytheCourtandoverruledbyJudgeJohnTurnbull.ThepartiesagreedatthetimethatiftheMotiontoSuppresshadbeensustaineditwouldhavebeendispositiveanddeterminativeofthecaseandthecaseagainsttheDefendantwouldhavebeendismissed.FollowingthatorderoverrulingtheMotiontoSuppresstheDefendantonNovember14,1997,enteredapleaofguiltytoDUIFirstOffence[sic]reservinghisrighttoappealupontheissueofthesuppressionmotionandallpartiesunderstoodthattheappealwasastothecorrectnessoftheoverrulingoftheMotiontoSuppressandifincorrectwouldhaveresultedinadismissaloftheDefendantandwouldhavebeendispositiveofthecase.  x x 8   Beittherefore,ORDERED,ADJUDGEDANDDECREEDthatallparties,includingtheCourt,agreethattheissueonappealisthecorrectnessoftheorderoverrulingtheMotiontoSuppressandthatsaidMotionwouldbedispositiveofthiscase.Further,byagreementJudgeJohnMadduxistositbyinterchangeupontakingthepleaofguiltyandenteringthisorderbyprioragreementwithJudgeJohnTurnbull.TheappealwillbefromarulingissuedbyJudgeJohnTurnbull.  x x   0   % % Theinitialquestionbeforeusiswhetherthedefendanthasproperlyreservedacertifiedquestionoflawtoinvokeourjurisdiction. InStatev.Preston,759S.W.2d647,650(Tenn.1988),oursupreme z&r# courtsuccinctlyspecifiedtherequirementsforreservingacertifiedquestionoflawsoastoinvokeappellatejurisdiction:  8 Regardlessofwhathasappearedinpriorpetitions,orders,colloquyinopencourtorotherwise,thefinalorderorjudgmentfromwhichthetimebeginstoruntopursueaT.R.A.P.3appealmustcontainastatementofthedispositivecertifiedquestionoflawreservedbydefendantforappellatereviewandthequestionoflawmustbestatedsoastoclearlyidentifythescopeandthelimitsofthelegalissuereserved.  x x   OursupremecourthashadoccasiontoshowthatstrictadherencetothePreston 3,2 requirementsisexpected.SeeStatev.Pendergrass,937S.W.2d834,83637(Tenn. 5.4 1996). 706  :   Inthepresentcase,thefinaljudgmentdoesnotcontainastatementofthedispositivecertifiedquestionoflaw.Likewise,theagreedorderrelatingtothedispositivenatureofthemMotiontosSuppressfailstospecifyinanymannerthescopeorlimitsofthelegalissuereserved.Weviewtheordersstatementthattheissueonappealisthecorrectnessoftheorderoverrulingthemotiontosuppressasnotdescriptiveofanyissueinthecase.Underthesecircumstances,wecanonlysaythatthedefendantfailedtofollowtheproceduralrequirementsinPreston.Counselshould   takePrestontoheart.    Ontheotherhand,wenotethatthemotiontosuppressraisesseveralissuesasfollows:  8   TherewereinsufficientspecificandarticulablefactstopulltheDefendantoverandeffectthestopmadebytheofficer.Therefore,everythingfromtheillegalstopforwardwasfruitofthepoisontreeandshouldbesuppressed.Further,theDefendantwasnot  x x 8 mirandized[sic]andanystatementstheDefendantmadeatthetimeofthestopwithoutbeingmirandized[sic]shouldbesuppressed.  x x 8   TheDefendantwouldaverthatonMarch24,1997,onI40[sic]westofthe284milemarkerTrooperReakerBasspulledtheDefendantoverwithoutsufficientreason.  x x   Fromthewholerecord,wecandeterminethatthedispositivequestionoflawrelatestowhetherthetrooperhadreasonablesuspiciontobelievethatthedefendantwasdrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicantsoastojustifyhisstoppingthedefendantscarundertheFourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,Section7oftheTennesseeConstitution. Thus,althoughPrestonhasnotbeenfollowed,therecorddisclosesthat (2 +0 thepartiesandthetrialcourtagreedthattheissueofthelegalityofthestopofthecarwasdispositiveofthecaseandwastobeappealedbythedefendant.Moreover,webelievethattherecordreflectsthattheissueisfiniteinscope,adequatelystated,andis 706 dispositiveofthecase.Inthisrespect,therecordcontainstheinformationofconcerninPreston,althoughitdoesnotdosoinoneorderorinthejudgment.Inorderfor  substancetoprevailoverform,wewillconsidertheissuepresentedbythedefendant. Atthesuppressionhearing,TennesseeHighwayPatrolTrooperReakerBasstestifiedthatonMarch24,1997,thepatroldispatchernotifiedhimtobeonthelookoutforagoldBroncowithlicenseplatenumberHFW598.Hesaidthatthedispatcheradvisedhimthatithadbeenreportedaspossiblyinvolvingadrunkdriver.ThevehiclewaslastseenwestboundonInterstate40aroundmilemarker299.TrooperBasstestifiedthattentofifteenminuteslater,hegotbehindagoldJeepCherokeewiththesameplatenumbergoingwestonInterstate40aroundmilemarker285. TrooperBasstestifiedthatheobservedthevehicleforapproximatelyonemileandthatitwasweavingexcessivelyintheroadway.Heexplainedthatthismeantmorethantwiceandsaidthat whentheycontinuouslydoit,thatsexcessive.Hethenstoppedthedefendantforsuspicionofdrivingundertheinfluence.Oncrossexamination,heacknowledgedthatthevehiclesweavingdidnotgooutofthedefendantslaneoftraffic.Also,heacknowledgedthatphotographsrepresentedtobeofthevehiclehestoppedshowedavehiclethatlookedsilver,notgold.ThedefendanttestifiedthathisvehicleisasilverJeepCherokee,althoughheacknowledgedthathislicenseplatenumbermatchedtheoneTrooperBassreceived. Therecordalsoreflectsthattherelevanthighwaypatroldispatchlogwassubmittedtothetrialcourtasasupplementtotherecord.Thediscussionamongthetrialcourtandtheattorneysregardingthelogindicatesthattwocallsregardingavehiclewiththedefendantslicenseplatenumberwerereceived,onebeinga911callfromacellulartelephone.Unfortunately,therecorddoesnotcontaineitherthephotographsof 706 thedefendantsvehiclepresentedatthehearingorthedispatchlogthatwassubmittedasasupplementalexhibit. ThetrialcourtfoundthatthematchinglicenseplatenumberandϜexcessiveweavingweresufficienttojustifythetroopersstopofthevehicleintermsofhimhavingreasonablesuspicionbaseduponarticulablefactsthatthedefendantwasdrivingundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant,giventheinformantsinformationandthetroopersobservations.Weagreewiththetrialcourt.      Inreviewingthetrialcourtsdenialofthesuppressionmotion,weacceptthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.See  Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997).However,thelawthatwas  appliedtothosefactsisrevieweddenovo.Id.   Thepolicemaystopavehicleiftheyhavereasonablesuspicionbaseduponspecificandarticulablefactsthatanoccupantisviolatingthelaw.SeeUnited ! Statesv.BrignoniPonce,422U.S.873,881,95S.Ct.2574,2580___(1975);Hughesv. #  State,588S.W.2d296,305(Tenn.1979).Reasonablesuspicionmaybebasedupon %" ananonymouscallerstipprovidedthatthecircumstancesshowthattheinformationissufficientlyreliableareliabilitythatislessthanthatrequiredforprobablecause..񛀀See ,)$"& Alabamav.White,496U.S.325,330,110S.Ct.2412,2416(1990);Statev.Pully,863 *#( МS.W.2dD29,32(Tenn.1993). AsPullyindicates,theanalysisinvolvesconsiderationoftheinformants \0T). basisofknowledgeandreliabilityandofanycorroboratingcircumstancesknowntothepolice.Id.Inthepresentcase,althoughthereisnoexpressedstatementofpersonal 3,2 knowledgebytheinformant,theproximityinthetimeofthecalltoTrooperBasssightingofthevehicle,thespecificlocationofthevehicleprovidedbytheinformant, 706  †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT   †TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT  andthenatureoftheoffensereflectthattheinformanthadfirsthandknowledgeofthe  mattersreportedtothepolice.Id.Likewise,thedetaileddescriptionofthevehicleand  itsparticularlocationascorroboratedbyTrooperBassobservationslendcredibilitytotheinformant.Finally,theweavingobservedbyTrooperBass,albeitwithintheϜsamedfsdefendantslaneoftraffic,isanothercircumstancethatlendscredencetothepotentialforadrunkdriverasstatedbytheinformant.Moreover,withtheexistenceofthecircumstances,thepotentialforseriousharmcreatedbyadrunkdriverontheinterstateisafactorthatsupportsjustificationfortheinvestigatorystop.SeePully,Id.at3334.    Weconcludethatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeniedthedefendantsmotiontosuppress.Thejudgmentofconvictionisaffirmed.    h      p ________________________________    h      p JosephM.Tipton,JudgeCONCUR:_________________________PaulG.Summers,Judge_________________________JoeG.Riley,Judge