WPC, U:V % 0w@r 4  0  0D 9 0JA 0T 0^ 0h= 0r 0| 0 0 1uU, 0dJ BU,U*B)!DCJ AM D3Tv~l# 0@$v*% AO*L+ 0D, D/V, B,,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  BC` eaDbcEdeDfgӀԡ 3|xp((3r$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7<XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  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)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd-%C << G  !  #d##    ! \RA'\#d#   #   YYY FILED#XMay24,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d##     \RA'\#d#    $       Wenotethattheorderdenyingtheappellantsmotiontosuppressandanyattendantfindingsbythetrialcourthavenotbeenincludedintherecord.TheonlyreferencetothetrialcourtsdenialoftheappellantsmotioniscontainedintheSupplementalOrderpreservingtheappellantsrighttoappealthecertifiedquestionoflaw.Inanyevent,weconcludethattherecordinthiscasecontainsnoevidencethatwouldsupportareasonablesuspicionofcriminalactivity.SeeStatev.Dick,872S.W.2d938,943(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993),andStatev.Killebrew,760S.W.2d228,233(Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(thefindingsofatrialcourtattheconclusionofasuppressionhearingareaffordedtheweightofajuryverdict;thiscourtwillnotsetasidethejudgmentofthetrialcourtunlesstheevidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstitsfindings).  !#d##     \RA'\#d#    $       OfficerKauffmantestifiedthattheappellantinformedhimthathismotherlivedonManorDrive.'dxd  !#d##     \RA'\#d#    $       WenotethatourdecisioninScarlett,880S.W.2dat707,isclearlydistinguishablefromtheinstantcase.InScarlett,thepoliceofficerobservedatruckstoppedinthemiddleoftheroadbehindasmallchurch,whichwasadjacenttoaschool.Id.at708.Itwasmidnight.Id.Additionally,theofficerwasawareofseveralrecentcomplaintsconcerningprowlersandvandalismattheschool.Id.Whentheofficerdroveupbehindthetruck,thetruckbegantomoveaway.Id.Althoughthedriverofthetruckdidnotspeedordriveinarecklessmanner,hemadeseveral quick,hardangledturns.Id.Theofficerpulledthevehicleover.Id.Thiscourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontosuppress.Id.at709. Althoughaclosercase,wewouldalsodistinguishourdecisioninStatev.Fitzgerald,No.85143III(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1986).InFitzgerald,theofficerobservedthedefendantdrivingataslowrateofspeedat1:00a.m.Id.Theareawasnota highcrimearea,buttheofficerwasawareofseveralrecentburglaries.Id.Moreoverthehouseswerefairlysecludedandlocatedsomedistanceawayfromtheroad,renderingthemparticularlyvulnerabletoburglaries.Id.Theofficerobservedthedefendantturnintoadrivewayandproceedtowardthehouse.Id.Somemomentslater,thedefendantbackedoutofthedrivewayanddroveintheoppositedirectionfromwhichhehadcome.Id.Theofficernotedthatthevehicleboreoutofcountylicensetags.ThiscourtconcludedthattheofficerhadconductedavalidTerrystop.Id. Unliketheaboveinvestigatorystops,thestopinthiscaserestedonnothingmorethattheincidenceofcrimeintheareaandthetimeofthestop.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@("$    Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#    L&'%;+'h|`   `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ MARCHSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.01C019509CC00311 Appellee   )     ) RUTHERFORDCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.JamesK.Clayton,Jr.,Judge RICKEYDALELAWSON , )     ) (DUI,thirdoffense) Appellant   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:DickenE.Kidwell    CharlesW.BursonAttorneyatLaw    AttorneyGeneralandReporter300EastVineStreet Murfreesboro,TN37130   EllenH.Pollack      AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493               WilliamC.Whitesell,Jr.      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      ThirdFloor,JudicialBuilding      Murfreesboro,TN37130OPINIONFILED:򀀀REVERSEDANDDISMISSED DavidG.Hayes Judge @ OPINION  Theappellant,RickeyDaleLawson,appealsfromajudgmentofconvictionenteredbytheCircuitCourtofRutherfordCounty.TheappellantpledguiltytoDUI,thirdoffense,reservingtherighttoappealasacertifiedquestionoflawthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotiontosuppress.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2). (   ׀Theappellantcontendsthatthepolicelackedreasonablesuspicion,requiredundertheFourthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,Section7oftheTennesseeConstitution,toconductaninvestigatorystopofhisvehicle. Afterareviewoftherecord,wereverseanddismissthejudgmentofconviction.@ BACKGROUND  OnJune23,1995,thetrialcourtconductedasuppressionhearingintheinstantcase.Atthesuppressionhearing,OfficerChrisKauffmanoftheMurfreesboroPoliceDepartmenttestifiedthat,onDecember24,1994,atapproximately1:45a.m.,heobservedasilverMazda,occupiedbytwomales,entertheJanuaryStreethousingprojects.Theofficerstatedthathewasnotfamiliarwitheitherthecarortheoccupants,and [d]uetoitbeingahighcrime,narcoticsarea,itseemedalittlebitoddtome.Theofficerproceededto theothersideof[his]zonenearVaughnStreetareaandSpringValleyandRollingAcresarea.Heremained onthelookoutforthesilverMazda.Approximatelytenorfifteenminuteslater,attheentranceofSpringValleyApartmentsonManorDrive,theofficeragainobservedthevehicleanddecidedtostopit. )   ׀ThisinvestigatorystopresultedintheappellantsarrestandsubsequentconvictionforDUI,thirdoffense.Atthesuppressionhearing,thearrestingofficersummarizedthegroundsforthestop: Q.8 Andwhatwerethereasonswhyyoustoppedthiscar? A.8 Well,Sir,ithadbeenseeninonenarcoticsarea,andtenorfifteenminuteslateritwasseeninanother,cruisingthroughtheareaat2:00o'clockinthemorningonChristmasEve. Q.8 Wasthevehicleinvolvedinanythingthatwouldbeconstruedasaviolationofthetrafficlaws? A.8 No,sir,asfarasgettinghimspeedingoranythinglikethat. Q.8 AsIunderstandit,yourarrestwasbasedonthefactthattheywereinahighcrimearea? A.8 Yes,sir.@ ANALYSIS  Stoppinganautomobileanddetainingitsoccupantsconstitutea seizurewithinthemeaningofthefederalandstateconstitutions.Statev.Binion,900S.W.2d702,705(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)(citingDelawarev.Prouse,440U.S.648,653,99S.Ct.1391,1396(1979)andStatev.Westbrooks,594S.W.2d741,743(Tenn.1979)).InStatev.Watkins,827S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.1992),theSupremeCourtofTennessee,applyingTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,88S.Ct.1868(1968),setforththeappropriatestandardfordeterminingtheconstitutionalityofinvestigatorystopsofautomobiles:8 Apoliceofficermaymakeaninvestigatorystopofamotorvehiclewhentheofficerhasareasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,thatacriminaloffensehasbeenorisabouttobecommitted.Indeterminingwhetherapoliceofficersreasonablesuspicionissupportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,acourtmustconsiderthetotalityofthecircumstances.Thisincludes,butisnotlimitedto,objectiveobservations,informationobtainedfromotherpoliceofficersoragencies,informationobtainedfromcitizens,andthepatternofoperationofcertainoffenders.Acourtmustalsoconsidertherationalinferencesanddeductionsthatatrainedpoliceofficermaydrawfromthefactsandcircumstancesknowntohim.(Citationsomitted).Additionally,indeterminingtheexistenceofreasonablesuspicioninthecaseofavehicularstop,acourtmayconsiderthecharacteristicsoftheareainwhichthevehiclewasstoppedbythepolice,thebehaviorofthedriver,andaspectsofthevehicleitself.Statev.Scarlett,880S.W.2d707,709(Tenn.Crim.App.1993). Intheinstantcase,thepoliceofficerssolejustificationforstoppingtheappellantwastheappellantspresenceina highcrimeareaat2:00a.m.Atleastonecourthasobservedthat anareaspropensitytowardcriminalactivityissomethingthatanofficermayconsider....Thelatenessofthehourisanotherfactthatmayraisethelevelofsuspicion.UnitedStatesv.Lender,985F.2d151,154(4thCir.1993).However,thesamecourtacknowledgedandtheSupremeCourthasheldthatanindividualspresenceinahighcrimearea,standingalone,isnotabasisforconcludingthattheindividualhimselfisengagedincriminalconduct.Id.SeealsoBrownv.Texas,443U.S.47,52,99S.Ct.2637,2641(1979).Weconclude,moreover,thatthelatenessofthehour,withoutmore,doesnotelevatethefactsofthiscasetothelevelofreasonablesuspicion. InAlabamav.White,496U.S.325,329,110S.Ct.2412,2416(1990),theSupremeCourtreaffirmedtheprinciplethat [t]heofficer[makingaTerrystop]...mustbeabletoarticulatesomethingmorethananinchoateandunparticularizedsuspicionorhunch.Inaccordancewiththisprinciple,thecourtofappealsofthisstatehasobservedthat, [e]veryvehiclethatentersahighcrimeareaisnotfairgametoinquisitiveofficers....Williamsv.StateDept.ofSafety,854S.W.2d102,106(Tenn.App.1992),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1993).SeealsoStatev.Massey,No.01C019406CR00218(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,September5,1995)(thiscourtaffirmedthetrialcourtsexclusionofevidenceobtainedpursuanttoaninvestigatorystop,wherethetrialcourtfoundthattheonlyreasonforthestopwasthedefendantspresenceatnightinahighcrimearea). +   ׀Similarly,inPeoplev.Bower,597P.2d115,119(1979),theCaliforniaSupremeCourtheld:8 [T]heofficersassertionthatthelocationlayinahighcrimeareadoesnotelevatethesefactsintoareasonablesuspicionofcriminality.Thehighcrimeareafactorisnotanactivityofanindividual.Manycitizensofthisstateareforcedtoliveinareasthathavehighcrimeratesortheycometotheseareastoshop,work,play,transactbusiness,orvisitrelativesorfriends.Thespectrumoflegitimatehumanbehavioroccurseverydayinsocalledhighcrimeareas.Asaresult,thiscourthasappraisedthisfactorwithcautionandhasbeenreluctanttoconcludethatalocationscrimeratetransformsotherwiseinnocentappearingcircumstancesintocircumstancesjustifyingtheseizureofanindividual.AstheStatenotesinitsbrief,thiscourtdidobserveinScarlettthat thequestionisnotwhethertheactivitymaybeconsistentwithinnocentactivity,[but]whethertherearefactsthatmaketheconductreasonablysuspiciousofpastorfuturecriminalconduct.880S.W.2dat709.However,inthiscase,therecordisdevoidofanysuchfacts.@ CONCLUSION  Forthereasonsstatedabove,weconcludethattheofficersstopconstitutedanunlawfulseizureoftheappellant.Accordingly,wereverseanddismisstheappellantsconviction.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________JERRYL.SMITH,Judge_______________________________WILLIAMS.RUSSELL,SpecialJudge