ÿWPCT F¸í÷8ùìb¡ ëÞÛ&‚`@9°Äj( Ïž©6‘0µà³—jæRE» ½“®QÞžp0 lYŒ-‘ÐÎÎòx¤ïhäbΦƒ¦…õóÄõÕ£ŠT&nTAÁœêʉœ;E› ó0s5óH7X-7K=dÎX‡f_’cÑl¥|5rn.21ò§Æ¹F”ͦ|QÏÑ9PwÉžÙÎŒMæÌ˜u|’ÒÏ´\>Iíif+|p5)WT¹×_ËŠŸŒ¸ ä­±A½m€T}³i›h™…ýfëô/`Ãgܤè­âÈRøgOmÔ£wÕËðï(MhÛÓÕ9ùç-:XçK .yC1õ8Imê1()_Ò¿ Ƈ$±xs©Ã½áPŸC*·ô)õR™„¤0^$ a{Šî+?iŒÀ¡ˆÙp^«!hÇÊ—V®œBìÛ!’V$W€[ݱy#áñMBšm™´„5Cv`"× Ý=QÆØ¶¨Žn²¸„Æ¢SJ—1FP‹£‡\rPó ÿ8¿KØÎ"¾ Å…ªÞûïI‡†s šEúmöºë@©ÎÑn ßTWù3Œä¤k°¶‡Ü•Êê*Ö¥½W€§ Óƒ¾Æ1…Afí¡ ¤…# F U>Q % 0• UB¤ 4æ ú n­ U:¶ fð ðV "F 0Dh¬w@´U:ô R.€U:ŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽŽ BÈÈÈ D3åå 0S 0Dkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk AO¯Æþþ 0DÄ D/ B7˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0nLlÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ç r$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€X‰XXXÔÑ7€ ‰ XXdæ XXdæ7ÑÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi·‚^!3|x£«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ æÝ ƒ, $ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XXäXXXÔÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Ô‡ô§áôXXXäÔLee€also€entered€a€guilty€plea€to€possession€of€more€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€inÐ  Ðcase€number€11490€from€the€Greene€County€Criminal€Court.€€Lee€contends€that€this€case€is€also€beforeÏour€court€upon€a€certified€question€of€law.€€His€ð ðOrder€Certifying€Question€of€Lawðð€indicates€that€heÏreserved€a€question€relative€to€the€propriety€of€the€search€leading€to€his€arrest€in€case€number€11490.€€ÏHowever,€case€›number€11490€arose€out€of€events€that€occurred€on€May€24,€1993,€and€no€evidence€wasÏpresented€at€the€suppression€hearing€relative€to€that€case.€€Therefore€the€defendant€waived€anyÏchallenges€to€his€conviction€in€case€number€11490€by€his€guilty€plea.€€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï37(b)(2)(iii). Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý {‘’“”D•–D—˜Ó€,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularH,€1993€€offense€dealt€with€in€case€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï€€number€11490.€€The€order€r Ô€XXäXXXÔÔ€K#XXXäÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XXäXK#ÔÐ  ÐÌò òFebruary€18,€1997Ð šš ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ô§áôXXXäÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular d'''''ÿÿdxd((3 $¤¤Ý ƒ r!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€XXäXXXÔÑ7€ Xä XXdæXXdì7ÑÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ¸ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€ ‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ r!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑ  ÑÔ€XXäXXXÔÑ7€ Xä XXdædÈ7ÑÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ÝÑܰÑѰћÑTR[¨ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ XXäXXXXäÔÑ  Ñà8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðñ˜ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E$Ö` ttx$\Ôð Örß›ñ˜ñà@~~%DàAT€KNOXVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€œDECEMBER€1994€SESSION›ÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð 80 Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ¸ àAppellee,à h àà À à)à  àNo.€03C01„9406„CR„00205Ð ü  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àGreene€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHon.€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÐ œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌTRAVIS€LOVE€andà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Certified€Question€of€Law)€Ð h` ÐJAMES€LEE,à  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ NF Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ¸ àAppellants.à h àà À à)Ð  ÐÌÌÌòòFor€œAppellant›€Loveóó:à  àà h àà À àœòòà  àFor›€the€Appelleeóó:Ð ²ª ÐÌWilliam€A.€Zierer€€€€€€à h àà À àà  àCharles€W.€BursonÐ ~v Ð124€W.€Main€Street€€à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ d\ ÐP.O.€Box€1276€€€€€€€€€€€à h àà À àà  àà p àandÐ JB ÐMorristown,€TN€€37816€€€€€€€€€à À àà  àSharon€S.€Selby€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð 0 ( Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€TennesseeÌœòòFor›€Appellant€Leeóó:à  àà h àà À àœà  à450›€James€Robertson€ParkwayÐ ü!ô Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌWilliam€H.€Bellà  àà h àà À àÐ È#À  Ð114€€S.€Main€Streetà  àà h àà À àà  àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.€€€€€€€€€Ð ®$¦! ÐGreeneville,€TN€€37743à h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà x àÐ ”%Œ" Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAnthony€E.€Hagan€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€General€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à113€West€Church€StreetÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGreeneville,€TN€€37743ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_______________________ÌÌÌ€AFFIRMED€€€ÌÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÐ >:639” ÐÓÓòòò òà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óà È àÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àThe€defendants,€Travis€Love€and€James€Lee,€were€convicted€upon€guiltyÏpleas€in€the€Greene€County€Criminal€Court€of€the€offenses€of€possession€with€the€intentÏto€sell€more€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine,€a€Class€B€felony,€and€simple€possession€ofÏmarijuana,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€Lee€also€pled€guilty€and€was€convicted€ofÏpossessing€less€than€one„half€gram€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€it,€aÏClass€C€felony.€€Each€of€the€defendants€received€an€eight„year€sentence€for€the€ClassÏB€cocaine€conviction€and€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€theÏmarijuana€conviction.€€In€addition,€Lee€received€a€four„year€sentence€for€possessingÏless€than€one„half€a€gram€of€cocaine.€€All€sentences€are€to€be€served€concurrently.€€TheÏdefendants€appeal€as€of€right€upon€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€thisÏœcase.›×ƒ ×Ý ƒ-#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ל€›€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(b).€€œThey›€contend€that€the€trial€courtÐ ¤œ Ðerred€œin›€refusing€to€œsuppress€the€contraband€found›€as€the€result€of€œa›€stop€and€search€ofÏœthe›€car€they€occupied.€€The€trial€court€œfound›€that€œthe€stop€and›€search€of€the€car€did€notÏviolate€the€defendantsðð€Fourth€Amendment€œrights€both›€because€neither€defendant€had€œaÏreasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€car€and€because€the›€search€and€œseizure€was›Ïsupported€by€probable€cause€and€exigent€œcircumstances.€€The€state€contends€that€theÏappeal€does€not€present€a€properly€certified€question€of€law€and€that,€in€any€event,€theÏtrial€courtððs€findings€were€correct.›€€We€affirm€œthe›€judgments€of€conviction.€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€undisputed.€€On€May€24,€1993,€defendant€LeeÏwas€arrested€for€possessing€cocaine€after€he€exited€the€Charray€Inn€in€Greeneville,ÏTennessee,€with€cocaine.€€As€a€result€of€that€arrest,€Steve€Burns€of€the€Third€JudicialÐ h0`). ÐDrug€Task€Force€received€information€from€a€citizen€that€Rodney€Smith€was€staying€atÏthe€Charray€Inn€in€Greeneville,€Tennessee.€€The€citizen€told€Officer€Burns€that€SmithÏwas€driving€a€tan€Mitsubishi€automobile€with€Georgia€license€plates€and€that€he€hadÏnoticed€a€lot€of€traffic€to€and€from€the€motel.€€He€also€informed€Officer€Burns€that€SmithÏwould€not€be€staying€at€the€Charray€Inn€after€the€25th€of€May€because€there€were€noÏmore€reservations€available€after€that€date.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Burns€received€more€information€regarding€Rodney€Smith€from€aÏconfidential€informant€who€had€bought€cocaine€from€Rodney€Smith€around€May€24th.€ÏThe€confidential€informant€described€Rodney€Smith€as€his€supplier€and€told€OfficerÏBurns€that€Rodney€Smith€was€in€possession€of€cocaine€and€was€transporting€cocaineÏfrom€Atlanta€to€Greeneville€in€the€Mitsubishi.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àBased€upon€this€information,€Officer€Burns€drove€to€various€GreenevilleÏmotels€on€May€26th€in€search€of€Rodney€Smith's€car.€€He€found€the€car€at€the€HolidayÏInn€in€Greeneville€and€began€surveillance.€€At€one€point,€a€vehicle€with€two€women€in€itÏpulled€into€the€parking€lot€next€to€the€Smith€vehicle.€€The€passenger€got€out€of€her€car,Ïwalked€up€to€the€Smith€vehicle€and€looked€inside€a€window€that€was€halfway€open.€€TheÏpassenger€returned€to€her€car€and€the€women€drove€away.€€Several€minutes€later,ÏOfficer€Burns€saw€Love€pull€into€the€parking€lot€driving€a€blue€Nissan€Maxima.€€LoveÏparked€the€car€and€went€inside€the€motel.€€After€a€few€minutes,€Love€came€outÏaccompanied€by€another€male,€later€identified€as€Henry€Cheese.€€The€two€men€walkedÏto€the€Smith€vehicle,€looked€inside€and€then€got€into€the€Maxima€and€drove€away.€€ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Burns€called€on€other€surveillance€to€follow€Love's€vehicle.€€LoveÏdrove€to€an€apartment€complex€in€Johnson€City€where€he€parked€next€to€a€goldÏCadillac.€€Officer€Burns€identified€the€gold€Cadillac€as€belonging€to€Lee.€€Love€andÏCheese€went€into€an€apartment€and,€a€few€minutes€later,€returned€to€the€MaximaÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ…ñÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ññ…ñaccompanied€by€Lee.€€The€three€men€left€the€apartment€complex,€but€stopped€on€theirÏway€out€to€pick€up€a€fourth€male€who€was€carrying€a€cooler.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€four€men€drove€back€to€the€Greeneville€Holiday€Inn€and€went€inside.€ÏA€few€minutes€later€they€exited€the€motel.€€Love€and€Lee€drove€away€in€the€Maxima€andÏCheese€and€the€fourth€male€followed€in€Smith's€Mitsubishi.€€Officers€followed€the€carsÏfor€a€few€minutes€and€then€stopped€both€vehicles.€€A€search€of€the€Maxima€uncoveredÏcrack€cocaine€from€underneath€the€passenger€side€floor€mat€and€a€"very€small€amount"Ïof€marijuana.€€Crack€cocaine€was€also€found€in€Lee's€sock€upon€his€arrival€at€the€jail.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Burns€admitted€that€Rodney€Smith€was€notÏwell€known€as€a€drug€dealer€in€Greeneville.€€He€stated€that€he€relied€upon€the€citizenÏinformant's€statements€surrounding€the€suspicious€activity€of€traffic€coming€to€and€fromÏthe€motel€based€upon€his€knowledge€of€the€citizen€for€a€number€of€years€and€the€factÏthat€the€citizen€had€nothing€to€gain€from€giving€the€information.€€He€stated€that€he€hadÏfound€the€confidential€informant€to€be€reliable€in€the€past€on€the€basis€of€a€"couple€ofÏprior€drug€tips"€but€could€offer€no€specifics€regarding€the€reliability€of€the€information.€ÏHe€admitted€that€neither€of€the€informants€had€mentioned€that€Love€was€involved€withÏSmith€nor€did€he€have€any€information€that€drugs€were€actually€being€kept€inside€theÏSmith€vehicle.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€denied€both€the€defendantsðð€motions€to€suppress€because€itÏœfound›€that€neither€defendant€had€œð ðstandingðð›€to€challenge€the€search.€€At€LoveððsÏsuppression€hearing,€the€court€also€found€that€there€were€exigent€circumstances€and€Ïthat€probable€cause€was€established€from€the€observed€activity,€the€informants'€tips€andÏthe€fact€that€Lee,€a€known€drug€arrestee,€was€in€Love's€company.€€The€trial€courtÏattached€the€transcript€of€Loveððs€suppression€hearing€as€an€exhibit€to€its€ruling€thatÏLee's€motion€to€suppress€be€denied.€Ð Œ7„06 Їà@((/Dàò òIó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àPreliminarily,€the€state€contends€that€the€defendants€have€failed€to€complyÏwith€the€prerequisites€for€appellate€review€of€a€certified,€dispositive€question€of€œlaw.€›€TheÏstate€argues€that€Love's€question€does€not€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€limits€of€theÏlegal€issue€that€is€reserved,€does€not€contain€the€reasons€relied€upon€by€the€defendantÏin€the€trial€court€or€the€court's€rulings,€and€does€not€contain€a€specific€indication€that€theÏtrial€judge€and€district€attorney€considered€the€question€dispositive€of€the€case.€€WithÏrespect€to€Leeððs€question,€the€state€argues€that€it€is€unclear€whether€Lee€relied€œupon›€theÏcontentions€cited€in€his€question€in€the€trial€court,€that€the€question€does€not€contain€theÏtrial€court's€rulings,€and€that€there€is€no€explicit€indication€that€the€question€reserved€isÏdispositive€of€the€case.€€€ÌÌà ¸ àThe€record€reflects€that€Love's€motion€to€suppress€was€heard€and€deniedÏon€January€7,€1994,€and€that€Lee's€motion€to€suppress€was€heard€and€denied€onÏJanuary€21,€1994.€€Both€defendants€entered€guilty€pleas€on€January€24,€1994.€€TheÏtechnical€record€contains€orders€certifying€the€question€of€law€relative€to€eachÏdefendant.€€Lee's€order€was€entered€on€the€same€day€the€defendants€entered€theirÏguilty€pleas,€and€Love's€order€was€entered€a€week€later.€€In€their€certified€questions,Ïboth€defendants€allege€that€there€was€no€probable€cause€to€justify€the€stop€and€searchÏof€the€vehicle.€ÌÌà ¸ àIn€pertinent€part,€Rule€37(b),€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.,€provides€for€an€appeal€in€aÏcriminal€case€under€the€following€circumstances:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 ¸ à(2)€€Upon€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€if:Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðà8 ¸ àà  àœ(ñ‹ñiñ‹ññ‹ñIñ‹ñ)ññ›€ññ›€œñŒñdñŒññŒñ›DñŒñefendant›€entered€into€a€plea€agreementÏunder€Rule€11(e)€but€explicitly€reserved€with€theÏconsent€of€the€œñŽñSñŽññŽñ›sñŽñtate›€and€of€the€court€the€right€to€appealÏa€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case;ÏorÐ ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ à.€.€.€.€Ð ¸ x¸ x Ðâ âÐ ˜706 Ðà8 ¸ àà  àœ(iv)ññ€ññ›€œññdññññ›Dññefendant›€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consentÏâ âof€the€court€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€ofÏlaw€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓThe€Advisory€Commission€Comments€state€that€the€"first€provision€permits€a€pleaÏbargain€and€an€appeal€in€the€context€of€a€controlling€question€that€needs€answering,Ïsuch€as€.€.€.€the€validity€of€the€search€upon€which€the€œñ‘ñSñ‘ññ‘ñ›sñ‘ñtate's›€case€must€be€made,€andÏshould€avoid€the€necessity€for€many€trials."€€Rule€3(b),€T.R.A.P.,€provides€that€anÏappeal€as€of€right€by€a€defendant€lies€from€a€judgment€of€conviction€upon€a€guilty€pleaÏ"if€the€defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€but€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consentÏof€the€state€and€the€trial€court€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€dispositiveÏof€the€action€.€.€.€."ÌÌà ¸ àOur€supreme€court€addressed€the€proper€procedure€for€reserving€aÏcertified€question€of€law€in€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,€650€œ(ñ’ñTenn.€ñ’ñ1988).›€€TheÐ ˜ Ðcourt€stated:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 ¸ àRegardless€of€what€has€appeared€in€prior€petitions,Ïorders,€colloquy€in€open€court€or€otherwise,€the€finalÏorder€or€judgment€from€which€the€time€begins€to€run€toÏpursue€a€T.R.A.P.€3€appeal€must€contain€a€statement€ofÏthe€dispositive€certified€question€of€law€reserved€by€theÏdefendant€for€appellate€review€and€the€question€of€lawÏmust€be€so€stated€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€andÏthe€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved.€€For€example,Ïwhere€questions€of€law€involve€the€validity€of€searchesÏand€the€admissibility€of€statements€and€confessions,Ïetc.,€the€reasons€relied€upon€by€defendant€in€the€trialÏcourt€at€the€suppression€hearing€must€be€identified€inÏthe€statement€of€the€certified€question€of€law€and€reviewÏby€the€appellate€courts€will€be€limited€to€those€passedÏupon€by€the€trial€judge€and€stated€in€the€certifiedÏquestion,€absent€a€constitutional€requirement€otherwise.€ÏWithout€an€explicit€statement€of€the€certified€question,Ïneither€the€defendant€,€the€State€nor€the€trial€judge€canÏmake€a€meaningful€determination€of€whether€the€issueÏsought€to€be€reviewed€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€MostÏof€the€reported€and€unreported€cases€seeking€theÏlimited€appellate€review€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï37€have€been€dismissed€because€the€certified€questionÏwas€not€dispositive.€€Also,€the€order€must€state€that€theÏcertified€question€was€expressly€reserved€as€part€of€theÏplea€agreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judgeÏconsented€to€the€reservation€and€that€the€State€and€theÏtrial€judge€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€question€isÐ r8j17 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ’ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ’ññ‘ñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ññ‘ñññÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñññŽñÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  ÑñŽñdispositive€of€the€case.€€Of€€course,€the€burden€is€onÐ  Ðdefendant€to€see€that€these€prerequisites€are€in€the€finalÏorder€and€that€the€record€brought€to€the€appellate€courtsÏcontains€all€of€the€proceedings€below€that€bear€uponÏwhether€the€certified€question€of€law€is€dispositive€andÏthe€merits€of€the€question€certified.€€No€issue€beyondÏthe€scope€of€the€certified€question€will€be€considered.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓ€à ¸ àÐ 80 Ðà ¸ àRelative€to€Love's€certification€of€a€dispositive€question€of€law,€the€pleaÏsubmission€transcript€reflects€œthat›€Love€explicitly€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€a€certifiedÏquestion€in€connection€with€the€entry€of€his€guilty€pleas.€€Although€the€judgments€bearÏno€indication€that€a€certified€question€was€reserved€for€appeal,€the€trial€court€entered€itsÏorder€certifying€the€question€of€law€seven€days€after€it€entered€the€judgment,€before€theÏexpiration€of€its€jurisdiction.€€The€fact€that€the€order€was€entered€subsequent€to€theÏjudgment€does€not€alter€what€was€actually€shown€to€have€occurred€in€the€proceedings.€ÏLove's€certification€order€states€as€follows:€ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 ¸ àà  àOn€January€24,€1994€the€Defendant,€Trevis€[sic]ÏLove,€entered€an€unconditional€guilty€plea€œtoñ“ñ€theñ“ñ›€twoÏindictments€against€him€in€Criminal€Action€No.€11351,Ïpursuant€to€a€Plea€Agreement€under€Rule€11(e),€RulesÏof€Criminal€Procedure,€but€he€explicitly€reserved€withÏthe€consent€of€the€State€and€of€the€Court€the€right€toÏappeal€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€ofÏthe€case,€to€wit:€whether€œtheñ”ñ€trialñ”ññ–ñ›€ñ–ñ›œñ—ñ€ñ—ññ—ñ›ñ—ññ•ñCñ•ññ•ñ›cñ•ñourt›€erred€in€denyingÏDefendant's€Motion€to€Suppress€the€only€evidenceÏagainst€him€in€this€Criminal€Action,€being€.7€grams€ofÏcocaine€base€(crack€cocaine)€and€.8€grams€ofÏmarijuana,€for€the€reason€there€was€not€probable€causeÏto€justify€the€stop€and€search€of€the€motor€vehicleÏoperated€by€the€Defendant€as€required€by€the€UnitedÏStates€Constitution€and€the€Constitution€of€the€State€ofÏTennessee.€Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓUnquestionably,€the€order€could€have€and€should€have€been€more€detailed.€€However,Ïwe€do€not€view€it€to€be€so€deficient€as€to€require€a€dismissal€of€Love's€appeal.€€TheÏorder€states€the€general€claim€by€the€defendant€relative€to€the€absence€of€probableÏcause€for€the€stop€and€search€of€the€vehicle€and€that€the€right€to€appeal€a€certifiedÏquestion€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case€was€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€ofÏthe€state€and€trial€court.€€Love's€order€is€sufficient.€€ÌÐ r8j17 Ðà ¸ àWith€respect€to€Leeððs€certified€question,€we€note€œthat›€at€the€conclusion€ofÏLeeððs€guilty€plea€submission€hearing,€his€counsel€asked€the€court€whether€he€needed€toÏargue€the€suppression€issue€again.€€The€trial€court€replied€that€it€would€sign€an€orderÏallowing€the€issue€to€be€addressed.€€Although€the€judgment€against€Lee€makes€noÏreference€to€the€reservation€of€a€certified€question,€the€trial€court€filed€the€orderÏcertifying€the€question€of€law€on€the€same€day€it€accepted€Leeððs€plea€and€entered€theÏjudgments€against€him.€€œThe›€judgment€documents€should€make€reference€to€andÏincorporate€the€separate€order.€€However,€failure€to€do€so€in€this€case€is€not€fatal.€€As€inÏLove's€order,€Lee's€order€makes€the€general€claim€that€there€was€insufficient€probableÏcause€to€stop€and€search€the€vehicle€and€that€the€information€acted€upon€by€the€officersÏwas€given€by€an€unreliable€confidential€informant.€€The€order€states€that€the€motion€toÏsuppress€was€overruled.€€It€further€states€that€the€issue€was€explicitly€reserved€with€theÏconsent€of€the€state€and€the€trial€court€as€an€issue€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€WeÏconclude€that€Lee's€order€is€sufficient.€ÌÌà@ðð.Dàò òII€ó óˆà p ààHpp2pàˆÐ ü!ô Ðà ¸ àThe€trial€court€concluded€that€neither€of€the€defendants€had€œð ðstandingðð›€toÏchallenge€the€search€of€the€car.€€We€agree€that€Leeððs€Fourth€Amendment€rights€wereÏnot€violated€because€he€did€not€have€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€car.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòGriffin€v.€Stateóó,€604€S.W.2d€40,€43€(Tenn.€1980);€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440,Ð 8)0"& Ð446€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€œñ†ñ€ñ†ñHowever,›€we€disagree€with€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionÏthat€Love€lacked€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy€in€the€car.ÌÌà ¸ àOfficer€Burns€testified€œthat›€although€he€knew€the€Maxima€was€owned€byÏLoveððs€brother„in„law,€he€also€knew€that€Love€had€possession€of€the€car€most€of€theÏtime€and€was€freely€allowed€to€drive€it.€€Based€upon€these€facts,€Love€had€a€sufficientÏexpectation€of€privacy€in€the€car€to€challenge€the€search.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Morelockóó,€851Ð Ì5Ä.4 ÐS.W.2d€838,€840€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Ð ˜706 Їà@ðð.Dàò òIIIó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àLove€contends€that€the€evidence€in€this€case€was€obtained€as€a€result€ofÏan€illegal€stop€and€search€of€the€Maxima,€based€upon€insufficient€probable€cause.€€TheÏstate€contends€that€there€was€sufficient€probable€cause€to€justify€the€stop€and€search€ofÏthe€car.€€The€trial€court€held€that€there€were€exigent€circumstances€present€to€support€aÏwarrantless€search€and€seizure€and€that€probable€cause€was€established€by€theÏinformation€given€to€Officer€Burns€by€the€informants,€the€independent€corroborationÏobtained€through€surveillance€and€the€fact€that€Lee,€a€known€drug€arrestee,€was€inÏLove's€company.€€A€trial€court's€findings€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€conclusive€onÏappeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2dÐ @8 Ð18,€23;€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€802€S.W.2d€221,€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€Ð   ÐÌà ¸ àThe€analysis€of€any€warrantless€search€must€begin€with€the€propositionÏthat€such€searches€are€òòperóó€òòseóó€unreasonable€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€UnitedÐ ph ÐStates€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ThisÏprinciple€against€warrantless€searches€is€subject€only€to€a€few€specifically€establishedÏand€well„delineated€exceptions.€€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€357,€88€œS.€Ct.›Ð Ô#Ì  Ð507,€514€(1967);€òòState€v.€Tyleróó,€598€S.W.2d€798,€801€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€BeforeÐ  %˜" Ðthe€fruits€of€a€warrantless€search€are€admissible€as€evidence,€the€state€must€establishÏby€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€search€falls€into€one€of€the€narrowly€drawnÏexceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Shawóó,€603€S.W.2d€741,€742€(Tenn.Ð +ü#( ÐCrim.€App.€1980).ÌÌà ¸ àThere€are€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€which€provide€forÏwarrantless€searches€of€automobiles.€€For€instance,€the€warrantless€search€of€anÏautomobile€is€allowed€if€an€officer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€vehicleÏcontains€contraband€and€exigent€circumstances€require€an€immediate€search.€€òòCarrollÐ Ì5Ä.4 Ðv.€United€Statesóó,€267€U.S.€132,€155„56,€45€œS.€Ct.›€280,€286€(1925);€òòState€v.€Leveyeóó,€796Ð ˜706 ÐS.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€1990).€€Another€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€occurs€whenÏan€officer€searches€the€passenger€compartment€of€an€automobile€incident€to€a€lawfulÏarrest.€€òòNew€York€v.€Beltonóó,€453€U.S.€454,€460,€101€œS.ññ€ñññxñ€ñxñCt.›€œ2860,€2864€(1981).›€€ToÐ   ˜ Ðdecide€whether€the€search€conducted€in€this€case€meets€either€of€these€exceptions,€weÏmust€determine€whether€Officer€œBurns›€had€either€probable€cause€to€believe€that€the€carÏLove€was€driving€contained€contraband€or€probable€cause€to€arrest€either€Love€or€Lee.ÌÌà ¸ àIf€the€information€upon€which€probable€cause€is€based€is€not€of€theÏofficers'€personal€knowledge,€but€is€received€from€an€informant,€probable€cause€underÏour€state€constitution€is€determined€by€the€application€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€two„Ð 4, Ðpronged€test.€€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€431€(Tenn.€1981).€€The€test€requiresÐ ø Ðthe€state€to€establish€a€factual€basis€for€the€information€provided€and€the€veracity€ofÏthose€supplying€the€information.€€òòIdóó.€€The€veracity€prong€may€be€satisfied€byÐ ˜ Ðestablishing€an€informant's€inherent€credibility€or€by€establishing€the€reliability€of€theÏinformation.€€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€415,€89€S.€Ct.€584,€588€(1969);€Ð 0 ( ÐòòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€115,€84€œS.ñññ}ñ€ñ}ññññ€ñ€ñ€ññ~ñ›€ñ~ñññ›ñññ{ñCñ{ññ|ñCñ|ñt.›€1509,€1514€(1964).€€However,€anyÐ ü!ô Ðdeficiency€in€the€informant's€information€under€this€two„prong€test€may€be€overcome€byÏindependent€police€corroboration.€€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€436.Ð ”%Œ" ÐÌà ¸ àIn€this€case,€Officer€Burns€stopped€and€searched€defendant€Loveððs€carÏbased,€in€part,€on€information€he€received€from€a€confidential€informant€regardingÏRodney€Smith€and€the€tan€Mitsubishi.€€The€informant€told€Officer€Burns€that€SmithÏpossessed€cocaine€and€was€operating€the€tan€Mitsubishi.€€Officer€Burns€testified€thatÏthe€confidential€informant€described€Rodney€Smith€as€his€supplier€and€had€purchasedÏdrugs€from€him€two€days€before€the€defendants'€arrests.€€This€information€is€sufficient€toÏsatisfy€the€basis€of€knowledge€prong€of€òòAguilaróó„òòSpinellióó.€€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2dÐ ô3ì,2 Ð336,€339€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).ÌÐ Œ7„06 Ðà ¸ àWhen€Officer€Burns€was€asked€about€the€reliability€or€credibility€of€theÏinformant,€the€following€colloquy€took€place:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 ¸ àQ.€€On€what€basis€do€you€have€to€weigh€that€credibilityÏor€reliability€of€that€informant?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àA.€€Information€that€I€had€received€from€this€person€thatÏI€had€checked€out€and€found€to€be€credible.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àQ.€€Such€as?€€How€many€occasions?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àA.€€Just€on€a€couple€of€different€things.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÔ% € ÔÌà8 ¸ àQ.€€Such€as?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àA.€€Drugs.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àQ.€€Can€you€be€more€specific?Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌà8 ¸ àA.€€No.Ð ¸ x¸ x ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓÓ*4„Üä ˜X°X` ˜X*ÓOfficer€Burns€also€explained€the€he€believed€the€informant€because€he€received€theÏinformation€as€the€result€of€a€charge€that€he€placed€against€the€informant€and€becauseÏthe€information€he€received€from€the€informant€concerned€illegal€activity€in€which€theÏinformant€was€involved.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Harrisóó,€403€U.S.€573,€583„84,€91€œS.ñuñ€ñuñCt.›Ð 0 ( Ð2075,€2081€(1971)€(plurality€opinion€recognizing€that€informantððs€admission€of€a€crimeÏcarried€its€own€indicia€of€credibility);€œòòcfóó.›€òòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€œat›€œ340›€(no€indicia€ofÐ È#À  Ðcredibility€when€information€received€from€informant€is€unrelated€to€informantððs€criminalÏactivity).€€The€information€was€also€corroborated€by€the€citizen€bystander€informant€whoÏtold€Burns€about€heavy€traffic€in€and€out€of€the€Charray€Inn€while€Smith€was€stayingÏthere,€and€by€Leeððs€possession€of€cocaine€after€he€left€the€Charray€Inn€on€May€24,Ï1993.€€We€conclude€that€Officer€Burns€was€justified€in€believing€that€the€informationÏgiven€by€the€informant€was€reliable.€€Thus,€the€veracity€prong€was€satisfied.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,Ð .ˆ', ÐòòState€v.€Ballardóó,€836€S.W.2d€560€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532Ð \0T). Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).ÌÌà ¸ àHowever,€our€inquiry€does€not€end€with€our€determination€that€theÏinformantððs€tip€met€the€two„prong€òòJacuminóó€test.€€To€determine€whether€there€wasÐ Œ7„06 Ðprobable€cause€in€this€case,€we€must€decide€whether€Officer€Burns€had€reason€toÏbelieve€that€the€car€Love€was€driving€contained€cocaine,€thereby€justifying€either€anÏautomobile€search€for€contraband€or€a€search€incident€to€arrest.€€In€reaching€itsÏconclusion€that€probable€cause€existed,€the€trial€court€stressed€that€Love€wasÏaccompanied€by€Lee€at€the€time€Officer€Burns€searched€the€car.€€We€agree€that€LeeððsÏpresence€in€the€car€is€significant.ÌÌà ¸ àBased€on€information€he€had€received€from€the€informant,€Officer€BurnsÏhad€probable€cause€to€believe€that€Rodney€Smith€was€selling€cocaine€and€had€used€theÏMitsubishi€to€transport€it.€€Officer€Burns€was€justified€in€inferring€that€Lee€was€connectedÏto€Smith€and€his€drug€operations€because€he€knew€that,€two€days€earlier,€Lee€wasÏarrested€for€possessing€cocaine€after€he€had€left€a€different€motel€where€Smith€wasÏstaying€and€because€he€had€seen€Love€and€Lee€arrive€and€enter€the€Holiday€Inn€withÏthe€two€men€who€eventually€followed€them€in€the€Mitsubishi.€€Given€these€facts,€weÏconclude€that€Officer€Burns€acted€reasonably€under€the€circumstances€and€that€hisÏsearch€of€the€car€Love€was€driving€was€supported€by€probable€cause€and€exigentÏcircumstances.ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€œwholeñpñ,ñpññmñ€ñmññnñthñnññnñTñlñtñlññnññlñhñlñe›Ïjudgments€of€œconvictionñoñsñoñ›€are€œaffirmed.Ìà ¸ à›ÓÓà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ ø*ð#( Ðà ¸ àœà  à›à h àà À àà  àà p àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ \0T). ÐGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Ú4Ò-3 ÐRobert€E.€Burch,€Special€Judge€€Ì