ÿWPCÊ …#†VU>Ü % 0© 4ÉÝì 0Jô 0T> 0^’ 0hð 0rX 0|Ê 0†F 0Ì 1u\ U,Ñ 0dý U,a U6 U.à B)ñ DC AM]U*ª«Ôv~ BývÓ D3í 0@  AO`Ư 0Åu 0D: D/~ B­˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ÙP 75 W;·^=·ø= <@ˆÐ9Z &Courier RegularX(ÊR$¡¡Ò4°ÒÒX°ÒÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÓÓÑ7€…0XXdÈXXdÈ7Ñ3x2x3|x…2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òFebruaryÏ21,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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»Ê$¢¢Ý ƒÊR!ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÓÓÑ7€eXXdÈXdÈ7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÑ7€eXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|2[` ´- `€€Lßà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àMARCH€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9410„CC„00220Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àHARDEMAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Jon€KerryÏBlackwood,€JudgeÌERIC€CHRISTOPHER€MILLER,à à*à à(Possession€ofÏCocaine€With€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à*à à€Intent)ÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓC.€Michael€Robbinsà àà àà àCharles€W.ÏBursonÌAsst.€Dist.€Public€Defenderà àAttorneyÏGeneral€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€700ÌSomerville,€TN€€38068à àà àRebecca€L.ÏGundtà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€JamesÍRobertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJerry€NorwoodÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€€38068ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Eric€Christopher€Miller,€was€convictedÏof€possession€of€over€.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€toÏsell€or€deliver.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€ofÏten€years.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€presents€theÏfollowing€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏdenying€the€motion€to€suppress;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏadmitting€as€an€exhibit€a€"propertyÏenvelope"€held€by€the€police;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€notÏdeclaring€a€mistrial€after€Sergeant€WeaverÏtestified€about€marijuana€he€found€in€theÏdefendant's€vehicle;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÏaltering€an€exhibit€and€then€speaking€to€aÏwitness€out€of€the€presence€of€the€defenseÏand€the€state;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(5)€whether€the€chain€of€custody€had€beenÏproperly€established€before€the€admissionÏof€two€of€the€exhibits.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€suppress.€€In€consequence,€we€must€reverseÍthe€conviction.ÌÌà àà àOn€November€19,€1993,€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,Ïassisted€by€the€Bolivar€Police,€set€up€several€roadblocks€inÏHardeman€County.€€The€defendant,€accompanied€by€Roderick€Polk,Ïwas€driving€a€friend's€vehicle€along€U.S.€Highway€64€when,€aboutÏfour„tenths€of€a€mile€(2,000€feet€or€more)€before€one€of€theÏroadblocks,€he€turned€onto€another€roadway.€€Officer€Mike€KingÏof€the€Bolivar€Police€then€stopped€the€defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àUpon€questioning,€the€defendant€acknowledged€that€heÏdid€not€have€a€driver's€license.€€When€Officer€King€was€able€toÏdetermine€that€the€defendant's€license€had€been€revoked,€he€wasÏplaced€under€arrest.€€Polk€got€out€of€the€car€and€tried€toÏdispose€of€a€substance€later€identified€as€cocaine;€he€wasÏarrested€as€well.€€A€search€of€the€glove€compartment€producedÏ"an€eight€ball,"€approximately€2.8€grams€of€cocaine.€€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€initially€contends€that€the€roadblockÏviolated€constitutional€principles.€€He€complains€that€anyÏevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€his€arrest€should€have€beenÍexcluded.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€pretrial€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€ÏBolivar€Police€Chief€Johnny€Ray€Anthony€testified€that€he€hadÏarranged€with€Lieutenant€James€Mills€of€the€Tennessee€HighwayÏPatrol€to€establish€the€roadblock.€€Chief€Anthony€could€notÏrecall€who€had€made€the€proposal€but€conceded€that€he€was€veryÏinterested€in€having€a€roadblock€to€look€for€"all€violations€ofÏthe€law,€not€only€the€drugs€but€all€violations."€€Chief€AnthonyÏacknowledged€that€he€arranged€to€have€drug€detecting€dogsÏavailable€"to€search€for€evidence€of€[any]€violations."ÌÌà àà àLieutenant€Mills,€the€THP€district€supervisor€forÏFayette€and€Hardeman€Counties,€directed€the€roadblock€operation.€ÏLocal€and€state€officers€were€assigned€to€three€locations.€€A€K„9€officer€and€a€drug€task€force€member€were€present€at€eachÏsite.€€THP€Sergeant€Worden€Gray€was€in€charge€of€the€roadblockÏon€U.S.€Highway€64.€€ÌÌà àà àLieutenant€Mills€testified€that€he€was€unaware€thatÏChief€Anthony€intended€to€investigate€possible€drug€violationsÏand€could€not€recall€establishing€any€policy€regarding€anyÍvehicles€that€appeared€to€be€avoiding€a€roadblock.€€LieutenantÏMills€stated€that€he€had€instructed€the€officers€to€act€inÏaccordance€with€Tennessee€Department€of€Safety€General€OrderÏ410,€which€governed€traffic€roadblocks.€€Most€of€the€officersÏwho€appeared€at€the€hearing,€however,€admitted€that€they€hadÏnever€seen€a€copy€of€Order€410.ÌÌà àà àTHP€District€Captain€Bobby€Arnold€testified€that€heÏauthorized€the€roadblocks€but€did€not€know€that€Chief€AnthonyÏwas€also€interested€in€searching€for€drug€violations.€€CaptainÏArnold€stated€that€Chief€Anthony€had€not€been€authorized€to€re„direct€any€of€the€officers€to€set€up€any€additional€roadblocksÏabsent€Lieutenant€Mills'€authorization.ÌÌà àà àPatrolmen€Eddie€Henson€and€Mike€King€of€the€BolivarÏPolice€Department€had€initially€been€assigned€to€the€roadblockÏon€U.S.€Highway€64.€€During€the€course€of€the€evening,€ChiefÏAnthony€received€information€that€traffic€was€backing€up€on€U.S.ÏHighway€64.€€He€learned€that€several€of€the€vehicles€approachingÏthe€roadblock€were€turning€onto€Old€Highway€64€in€an€attempt€toÏavoid€either€the€roadblock€or€the€associated€traffic€congestion.€ÏThe€Chief€then€instructed€Officer€Henson€to€relocate€to€theÍother€intersection€and€to€stop€any€cars€that€turned€so€as€toÏhelp€relieve€any€possible€traffic€hazards.€€Chief€AnthonyÏacknowledged€that€the€state€troopers€may€have€been€unaware€ofÏthis€change€in€the€plan.€ÌÌà àà àOfficers€Henson€and€King€took€a€patrol€car€to€the€newÏroadblock€location€on€Old€Highway€64,€observed€the€defendant€andÏhis€passenger€"acting€suspiciously,"€and€made€the€stop.€€Each€ofÏthe€officers€then€recognized€the€defendant€because€of€his€priorÏdrug€offenses.€€Officer€Henson,€who€acknowledged€that€he€had€noÏfactual€basis€for€suspecting€that€the€defendant€had€committedÏany€criminal€acts€prior€to€the€stop,€called€for€license€checkÏand€requested€the€K„9€officer.€€Officer€Henson€conceded€that€theÏonly€basis€for€detention€was€Chief€Anthony's€directive€to€pullÏover€anyone€turning€off€onto€Old€Highway€64.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€was€placed€under€arrest€for€driving€on€aÏrevoked€license.€€Meanwhile,€Polk€walked€to€the€rear€of€the€carÏand€threw€something€to€the€ground.€€Officer€King€and€SergeantÏWeaver€found€what€appeared€to€be€cocaine€wrapped€in€tissue.€ÏSergeant€Weaver,€whose€obligation€it€was€to€determine€whether€toÏuse€the€dog€to€sniff€for€contraband,€testified€that€he€had€notÍyet€made€that€decision€when€Polk€attempted€to€dispose€of€theÏcocaine.€€He€claimed€that€he€used€the€dog€based€upon€hisÏknowledge€of€the€defendant's€prior€record€and€the€actions€ofÏPolk.€€As€the€dog€stood€near€the€door€of€the€defendant'sÏvehicle,€it€indicated€the€presence€of€drugs.€€Sergeant€WeaverÏthen€looked€under€the€seats€and€in€the€ashtray,€but€found€only€aÏmarijuana€roach„clip.€€Once€inside€the€car,€the€dog€alerted€toÏthe€glove€compartment€where€the€"eight„ball"€of€cocaine€wasÏlocated.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€drug€task€force€and€theÏK„9€Unit€"were€employed€to€assist€in€further€investigativeÏefforts€if€needed€because€of€possible€violations€of€the€lawÏother€than€traffic."€€The€trial€court€further€found€that€ChiefÏAnthony€had€sent€Officers€Henson€and€King€to€the€secondÏroadblock€in€order€to€stop€traffic€from€driving€away€from€theÏoriginal€location€and€to€check€for€other€possible€violations.€ÏNeither€finding,€in€our€view,€would€warrant€the€detention€of€theÏdefendant's€vehicle.€€We€will€attempt€to€explain.€€ÌÌà àà àDepartment€of€Safety€General€Order€410,€the€officialÏguideline€for€the€agency,€provides€that€roadblocks€may€be€usedÍto€check€(1)€driver€licenses,€(2)€equipment,€(3)€car€weight,€(4)Ïcar€length,€and€(5)€possible€agricultural€violations.€€TrafficÏroadblocks€may€not€be€"used€as€a€subterfuge€to€search€for€otherÏcrimes."€€General€Order€410€(III)€&€(IV)(A).€€Under€subsectionÏ(IV)(B),€an€officer€may€take€appropriate€law€enforcement€actionÏfor€any€law€violation€detected€while€conducting€a€roadblock.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€McFaydenóó,€865€F.2d€1306,€1312„13€(D.C.ÏCir.€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€the€defendant€correctly€argues€that€there€areÏviolations€of€the€General€Order€which€might€invalidate€the€stop,Ïa€general€violation€of€the€guidelines€does€not€necessarilyÏrequire€exclusion€of€the€evidence€acquired€as€a€result€of€theÏdetention.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€David€Lynn€Hagyóó,€No.€O3C01„9505„CR„00152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€December€5,€1995).€€TheÏreal€question€is€whether€the€deviation€from€the€guidelines€wasÏof€such€a€nature€or€degree€that€the€roadblock,€as€implemented,Ïwas€unreasonable€under€the€state€and€federal€constitutionalÏprovisions€prohibiting€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€ÏòòState€v.€Sarah€Hutton€Downeyóó,€No.€03C01„9307„CR„00221,€slip€op.Ïat€18€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€October€10,€1995).€€WeÏthink€it€was€in€this€instance.€€ÌÌà àà àBoth€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€protectÏindividuals€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€AnÏautomobile€stop€constitutes€a€"seizure"€within€the€meaning€ofÏboth€the€Fourth€Amendment€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòMichigan€Dep't€of€State€Police€v.ÏSitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,€450€(1990);€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.Ï648,€653€(1979);€òòState€v.€Binionóó,€900€S.W.2d€702,€705€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994);€òòState€v.€Westbrooksóó,€594€S.W.2d€741,€743Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€The€fact€that€the€detention€may€beÏbrief€and€limited€in€scope€does€not€alter€that€fact.€€òòDelawareÏv.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€at€653;€òòState€v.€Binionóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€705;ÏòòState€v.€Westbrooksóó,€594€S.W.2d€at€743.€€The€basic€question,€asÏindicated,€is€whether€the€seizure€was€"reasonable."€€òòState€v.ÏBinionóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€705€(citing€òòMichigan€Dep't€of€State€PoliceÏv.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444€(1990)).€€The€state€always€carries€theÏburden€of€establishing€the€reasonableness€of€any€detention.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Matthew€Manuelóó,€No.€87„96„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏNashville,€Nov.€23,€1988).€€A€traffic€roadblock€which€isÏactually€used€as€a€means€to€search€for€drugs€may€result€in€aÏconstitutional€infringement.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Morales„Zamoraóó,€974€F.2d€149,€152„53€(10th€Cir.€1992);€òòUnited€States€v.ÍMcFaydenóó,€865€F.2d€at€1312„13.ÌÌà àà àIn€determining€whether€a€particular€roadblock€violatesÏthe€Fourth€Amendment,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€hasÏutilized€the€following€balancing€test:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àConsideration€of€the€constitutionality€ofÏsuch€seizures€involves€a€weighing€of€theÏgravity€of€the€public€concern€served€by€theÏseizure,€òòthe€degree€to€which€the€seizureÏadvances€the€public€interest,€and€theÏseverity€of€the€interference€withÏindividual€libertyóó.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€[òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Brignoni„Ponceóó,€422€U.S.€873Ï(1975)].ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àA€central€concern€in€balancing€theseÏcompeting€considerations€in€a€variety€ofÏsettings€has€been€to€assure€that€anÏindividual's€reasonable€expectation€ofÏprivacy€is€not€subject€to€arbitraryÏinvasions€solely€at€the€unfetteredÏdiscretion€of€officers€in€the€field.€€ToÏthis€end,€the€Fourth€Amendment€requiresÏthat€a€seizure€must€be€based€on€specific,Ïobjective€facts€indicating€that€society'sÏlegitimate€interests€requires€the€seizureÏof€the€particular€individual,€òòor€that€theÏseizure€must€be€carried€out€pursuant€to€aÏplan€embodying€explicit,€neutralÏlimitations€on€the€conduct€of€individualÏofficersóó.ÌÌÓÓòòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€50„51€(1979)(emphasis€added)Ï(sobriety€checkpoint€analysis).€€The€United€States€Supreme€CourtÏreaffirmed€the€test€in€òòSitzóó€and€our€state€has€adopted€the€rule.€ÍòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Sarah€Hutton€Downeyóó,€slip€op.€at€9„10.€€WhenÏbalancing€the€public€interest€and€the€individual€right€toÏpersonal€security€free€from€arbitrary€interference€by€lawÏenforcement€officers€in€a€roadblock€context,€the€standard€to€beÏrelied€upon€is€"that€the€seizure€must€be€carried€out€pursuant€toÏa€plan€embodying€explicit,€neutral€limitations€on€the€conduct€ofÏindividual€officers."€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Matthew€Manuelóó,€òòsupraóó.€ÏQuoting€òòState€v.€Deskinsóó,€234€Kan.€529,€541,€673€P.2d€1174,€1185Ï(1983),€this€court€approved€of€the€following€factors€to€identifyÏareas€of€concern€in€the€application€of€the€test€used€in€òòBrownóó:ÌÓÓà8 àà0 à(1)€the€degree€of€discretion,€if€any€left€to€theÏofficer€in€the€field;€(2)€the€locationÏdesignated€for€the€roadblock;€(3)€the€time€andÏduration€of€the€roadblock;€(4)€standards€set€byÏsuperior€officers;€(5)€advance€notice€to€theÏpublic€at€large;€(6)€advance€warning€to€theÏindividual€approaching€motorist;€(7)€maintenanceÏof€safety€concerns;€(8)€degree€of€fear€orÏanxiety€generated€by€the€mode€of€operation;€(9)Ïaverage€length€of€time€each€motorist€isÏdetained;€(10)€physical€factors€surrounding€theÏlocation,€type€and€method€of€operation;€(11)€theÏavailability€of€less€intrusive€methods€forÏcombating€the€problem;€(12)€the€degree€ofÏeffectiveness€of€the€procedure;€and€(13)€anyÏother€relevant€circumstances€which€might€bearÏupon€the€test.ÌÌÓÓòòState€v.€Sarah€Hutton€Downeyóó,€slip€op.€at€10„11.ÌÌà àà àThe€first€prong€of€the€òòBrownóó€test€requires€aÍdetermination€of€the€state's€interest€in€instituting€theÏroadblock.€€Here,€the€state€alleges€that€the€roadblock€was€aÏdriver's€license€checkpoint;€€the€defendant€argues,€however,Ïthat€the€checkpoint€was€in€reality€designed€to€search€forÏillegal€drugs.ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€previously€held€that€there€is€"aÏsubstantial€state€interest€in€regulating€both€vehicles€andÏdrivers€upon€the€public€roads€of€our€state."€€òòState€v.€DavidÏLynn€Hagyóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€Here,€the€Tennessee€Highway€Patrol,€Ïas€the€supervising€authority,€was€apparently€unaware€of€any€aimÏof€the€Bolivar€Police€to€discover€drug€offenders.€€The€officialÏpurpose€was€to€check€for€driver€licenses.€€Every€car€was€to€beÏchecked.€€To€this€extent,€the€roadblock€qualified€as€a€part€of€aÏneutral€and€explicit€plan.ÌÌà àà àOther€factors,€however,€indicate€that€the€local€policeÏintended€to€expand€upon€the€original€limitations€of€the€plan.€ÏChief€Anthony€acknowledged€that€an€additional€objective€was€toÏinvestigate€drug€law€violations.€€The€utilization€of€the€localÏdrug€task€force€and€the€K„9€unit€at€each€of€these€locationsÏsupport€the€claim€that€the€officers€intended€to€use€theÍroadblock€as€a€means€to€search€for€the€presence€of€illegalÏdrugs.€€For€example,€Sergeant€Weaver€had€been€authorized€toÏdetermine€which€cars€would€be€subjected€to€a€K„9€search.€€TheÏoriginal€plan€was€amended€when€the€police€decided€to€extend€theÏlocation€of€the€roadblock€so€as€to€also€stop€those€cars€turningÏoff€U.S.€Highway€64€at€the€Old€Highway€64€intersection€about€aÏhalf€a€mile€away.€€This€action€placed€a€focus€on€thoseÏindividuals€who€might€have€been€attempting€to€avoid€theÏroadblock€but,€by€all€other€appearances,€were€lawfully€travelingÏa€public€road.€€It€would€be€difficult€to€characterize€ChiefÏAnthony's€order€as€"neutral€or€random."€€While€Chief€Anthony€mayÏhave€had€good€reason€to€suspect€that€some€of€these€individualsÏwere€attempting€to€avoid€detection€of€unlawful€activity,€heÏadmitted€that€it€was€equally€plausible€that€the€drivers€wereÏmerely€circumventing€the€traffic€congestion€created€by€theÏoriginal€location€of€the€roadblock.€€ÌÌà àà àCertainly,€Chief€Anthony€reached€the€fairly€logicalÏconclusion€that€those€persons€who€turned€off€U.S.€Highway€64Ïwere€more€likely€to€be€law€violators.€€Yet€the€arrestingÏofficers€conceded€that€they€had€seen€no€unlawful€conduct€on€theÏpart€of€the€defendant€prior€to€the€stop.€€Officers€Henson€andÍKing€had€been€dispatched€to€the€second€location€to€do€more€thanÏrelieve€congestion€at€the€Old€Highway€64€turnoff.€€The€directiveÏto€broaden€the€area€of€stop€clearly€exceeded€the€scope€of€theÏplanned€roadblock.€€If€the€aim€was€to€relieve€congestion,€thereÏwere€other,€perhaps€better€means€available.€€Using€additionalÏofficers€or€simply€waving€backed„up€traffic€through€may€haveÏbeen€reasonable€alternatives.€€General€Order€410(V)(H).€€ÌÌà àà àIt€is€our€opinion€that€the€officers'€actions€exceededÏthe€original€scope€of€the€roadblock€operation.€€There€was€aÏfailure€to€comply€with€the€official,€explicit€plan€of€theÏTennessee€Highway€Patrol.€€Moreover,€the€expanded€area€of€theÏroadblock€to€those€turning€onto€Old€Highway€64€would€be€governedÏby€the€standards€established€in€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1Ï(1968).€€In€òòTerryóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€aÏlaw€enforcement€officer€may€temporarily€seize€a€citizen€if€theÏofficer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,€based€upon€specific€andÏarticulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been,€is€being,Ïor€is€about€to€be€committed.€€Our€courts€have€held€that€theÏòòTerryóó€doctrine€applies€to€those€persons€riding€in€a€vehicle.€ÏòòE.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏPreviously,€this€court€has€held€that€a€lawful€turn,€some€1,000Ífeet€away€from€the€roadblock,€did€not€establish€the€reasonableÏsuspicion€necessary€for€an€investigatory€stop.€€òòState€v.€Binionóó,Ï900€S.W.2d€at€705.€€There€is€really€no€significant€difference€inÏbroadening€the€area€of€a€roadblock,€as€in€this€case,€andÏpursuing€all€of€those€who€appear€to€be€avoiding€the€stop,€as€inÏòòBinionóó.€€Each€action€is€designed€to€apprehend€all€possibleÏviolators,€irrespective€of€articulable€suspicion.€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€officers€acknowledged€that€they€had€seen€noÏunlawful€conduct.€€No€facts€were€provided€to€support€their€claimÏof€"suspicious€activity."€€Chief€Anthony€merely€deduced€thatÏthose€who€turned€off€onto€Old€Highway€64€were€more€likely€to€beÏviolators.€€òòTerryóó€stops,€however,€are€"never€justified€whenÏ[they]€are€based€upon€the€mere€hunch€or€inarticulable€suspicionÏof€the€law€enforcement€officer."€€òòState€v.€Dale€E.€Morrellóó,€No.Ï03C01„9409„CR„00355€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€January€31,Ï1996).€€In€òòBinionóó,€this€court€made€the€following€observation:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWe€conclude€that€where€a€motorist€acts€to€Ïavoid€a€roadblock,€such€action€may€byÏitself€constitute€reasonable€suspicion€thatÏa€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€toÏbe€committed.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWhether€reasonable€suspicion€existsÏmust€be€determined€from€the€totality€ofÏcircumstances€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€ÍAmong€the€factors€to€be€considered€isÏwhether€objective€evidence€indicates€thatÏthe€motorist€was€attempting€to€evade€arrestÏor€detection.€€Such€evidence€may€includeÏthe€distance€the€motorist€was€from€theÏroadblock€when€the€turn„off€or€U„turn€wasÏmade,€whether€the€motorist€was€able€to€seeÏthe€roadblock€before€the€motorist€tookÏevasive€action,€and€the€manner€in€which€theÏmotorist€operates€his€or€her€automobile€inÏmaking€the€evasive€action.€€Other€factorsÏto€be€considered€are€the€arrestingÏofficer's€experience€and€any€otherÏcircumstances€which€would€indicate€theÏdriver€was€intentionally€avoiding€theÏroadblock€to€evade€arrest€or€detection.ÌÌÓÓòòBinionóó,€900€S.W.2d€at€705„06€(footnotes€omitted).€€Because€theÏofficers€were€unable€to€articulate€any€reasons€for€expanding€theÏroadblock€area€to€the€defendant€and€stopping€his€vehicle,€theÏsearch€does€not€meet€constitutional€muster.€€In€òòBinionóó,€thisÏcourt€ruled€that€a€lawful€turn€some€1,000€feet€before€theÏroadblock€was€an€insufficient€basis€for€the€detention.€€Here,€aÏlawful€turn€was€made€some€2,000€feet€away.€€No€other€factorsÏindicated€the€defendant€"was€intentionally€avoiding€theÏroadblock€to€evade€arrest€or€detention."€€òòIdóó.€€In€our€view,€theÏtrial€court€should€have€granted€the€motion€to€suppress€due€toÏthe€unreasonableness€of€the€seizure.ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€overruling€his€motion€for€a€mistrial€based€on€the€admissionÏinto€evidence€of€a€manilla€"property€envelope"€used€by€theÏBolivar€Police€Department€to€place€property€in€the€vault€forÏstorage.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€objection€to€the€admission€of€the€exhibit€wasÏbecause€Chief€Anthony€lacked€any€"personal€independentÏrecollection€or€knowledge."€€Counsel€argued€that€"[a]ll€he€knowsÏis€that€he€got€some€property€from€Weaver€on€a€date€uncertain€andÏhis€testimony€was€clearly€based€on€inadmissible€hearsayÏconcerning€a€document,€we€don't€even€know€what€it€is."€€AlthoughÏthe€trial€court€had€overruled€the€objection,€the€defendant€laterÏmoved€for€a€mistrial€because€of€what€he€claimed€wereÏ"inadmissible€and€highly€prejudicial€notations€regarding€theÏseizure€of€marijuana€from€the€defendant."€€Ì€Ìà àà àThe€state€contends€that€because€the€defendant€failedÏto€object€until€after€the€cross„examination€of€Chief€Anthony€wasÏcompleted,€any€error€was€waived.€€It€is€true€that€the€failure€toÏmake€timely€objections€may€constitute€a€waiver.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€36(a).€€We€will€nevertheless€address€the€merits€of€thisÍissue.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€decision€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€theÏtrial€court's€discretion€and€will€not€be€disturbed€absent€anÏabuse€of€that€discretion.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€441,Ï443€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€"Generally€a€mistrial€will€beÏdeclared€in€a€criminal€case€only€when€there€is€a€'manifestÏnecessity'€requiring€such€by€the€trial€judge."€€òòState€v.ÏMillbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€at€443.€€Here,€the€trial€court€clearlyÏacted€within€its€discretionary€authority€when€it€denied€theÏmotion€for€mistrial.€€Moreover,€any€error€that€may€have€occurredÏas€a€result€of€the€admission€of€the€exhibit€was€clearlyÏharmless.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).€€Subsequent€testimonyÏestablished€a€proper€chain€of€custody€of€the€envelope€and€itsÏcontents.€€Even€though€the€exhibit€may€have€been€admittedÏprematurely,€it€could€have€been€introduced€later.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€also€find€as€harmless€any€error€which€occurred€inÏthe€failure€to€redact€any€reference€to€marijuana€on€theÏenvelope.€€The€defendant€did€not€initially€object€to€theÏexhibit's€admission€on€this€basis.€€When€the€issue€was€raised,Ïthe€trial€court€instructed€the€jury€to€disregard€any€referenceÍon€the€exhibit€to€marijuana.€€The€jury€is€presumed€to€haveÏfollowed€the€trial€court's€instructions€not€to€considerÏinadmissible€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Millbrooksóó,€819€S.W.2d€at€443;ÏòòKlaver€v.€Stateóó,€503€S.W.2d€946,€950€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).€ÏThere€is€no€indication€that€the€reference€to€marijuana€had€anyÏeffect€on€the€results€of€the€trial.€€ÌÌà@ àIIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€denying€his€motion€for€a€mistrial€based€upon€SergeantÏWeaver's€reference€to€the€marijuana.€€Specifically,€SergeantÏWeaver€testified€that€he€"opened€the€door,€looked€under€bothÏseats€and€in€the€ashtray€...€[and]€didn't€see€anything€except€aÏsmall€roach€part€of€a€marijuana€hand€rolled€cigarette€„„€whatÏappeared€to€have€been€a€hand€rolled€marijuana€cigarette."ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€objected€to€the€testimony€and€moved€forÏa€mistrial€on€the€basis€that€the€jury€had€information€aboutÏillegal€drugs€which€were€not€part€of€the€charges.€€The€trialÏcourt€overruled€the€request€for€a€mistrial€but€instructed€theÏjury€to€disregard€that€portion€of€the€testimony€which€referredÏto€what€appeared€to€be€marijuana.€€The€defendant€maintains€thatÍthe€prosecution€improperly€elicited€this€testimony€which€wasÏ"irrelevant€and€highly€inflammatory€and€prejudicial."€€ÌÌà àà àAs€stated,€a€mistrial€will€result€only€when€there€is€aÏ"manifest€necessity."€€The€record€here€does€not€establish€theÏnecessity€for€granting€a€new€trial€on€this€basis.€€The€testimonyÏwas€volunteered€by€Sergeant€Weaver€during€a€lengthy€descriptionÏof€the€events€surrounding€the€defendant's€arrest.€€The€referenceÏto€marijuana€does€not€appear€to€have€been€sought€by€the€state.€ÏThe€trial€court€provided€curative€instructions€and€the€jury€isÏpresumed€to€have€complied€with€that€directive.€€òòKlaver€v.€Stateóó,Ï503€S.W.2d€at€950.€€By€the€use€of€these€guidelines,€we€do€notÏbelieve€the€defendant€would€be€entitled€to€relief€on€this€basis.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).ÌÌà@ àIVÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€erredÏ(1)€by€removing€part€of€the€contents€of€an€exhibit€identified€byÏa€witness,€and€(2)€by€later€conferring€with€the€witness€outsideÏthe€presence€of€the€state€and€the€defense.€€The€claim€is€thatÏthese€actions€"placed€an€official€stamp€of€approval€on€thatÏevidence€in€the€minds€of€the€jurors."ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€when€Sergeant€Weaver€took€aÏsmall€white€envelope€out€of€the€larger€manilla€envelope,€theÏtrial€court€removed€some€of€the€contents.€€The€record,€however,Ïdoes€not€affirmatively€establish€that€such€an€event€occurred.€ÏNo€objection€was€made€on€the€record.€€ÌÌà àà à€The€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€later€speaking€to€Sergeant€Weaver€during€the€course€of€hisÏtestimony.€€Neither€side€could€hear€what€was€said.€€DuringÏSergeant€Weaver's€testimony,€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏasked€that€the€witness€be€instructed€not€to€refer€to€the€roachÏor€marijuana€in€his€answers.€€This€was€due€to€the€defendant'sÏearlier€objection.€€Immediately€following€this€request,€theÏtrial€judge€spoke€to€the€witness€outside€the€hearing€of€theÏparties€and€the€jury.€€Defense€counsel€then€offered€theÏfollowing€objection:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àJudge,€I€don't€want€to€interrupt€theÏproceedings€but€an€opportune€moment,€couldÏwe€have€the€jury€out?€€I€just€think€thisÏwhole€spectacle€of€all€this€that's€going€onÏin€front€of€the€jury€is€prejudicial€and€I'dÏlike€to€be€heard€on€that,€but€I'll€permitÏthis€to€continue„„ÌÌÓÓThe€trial€court€then€suggested€that€defense€counsel€could€"beÍheard€on€it€later."€€The€defendant€did€not€raise€the€issueÏagain.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€these€matters€were€presentedÏand€overruled€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€a€new€trial;€theÏtranscript€of€that€hearing,€however,€is€not€part€of€the€record.ÏIt€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€prepare€a€record€whichÏconveys€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpiredÏin€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€the€issues€which€form€theÏbasis€of€his€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€Without€aÏtranscript€of€the€hearing€on€the€issue,€this€court€must€presumeÏthat€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€court's€actions€andÏrulings.€€òòState€v.€Tayloróó,€669€S.W.2d€694,€699€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983);€òòState€v.€Baronóó,€659€S.W.2d€811,€815€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1983).€€Even€assuming€that€this€occurred,€the€defendant€hasÏfailed€to€demonstrate€any€specific€prejudice€as€a€result.€ÏAccordingly,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€thisÏissue.Ìà@ àVÌà àà àLastly,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€admitting€exhibits€five€and€six€because€the€evidenceÏdid€not€establish€a€proper€chain€of€custody.€€The€exhibitsÍconsisted€of€the€drugs€which€were€recovered€from€the€gloveÏcompartment€and€from€the€tissue€paper€thrown€down€by€theÏpassenger.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€initially€argues€that€the€issue€is€waivedÏbecause€the€defendant€did€not€timely€object€when€these€exhibitsÏwere€first€introduced€into€evidence.€€The€defendant€objectedÏonly€after€the€state€was€attempting€to€introduce€a€differentÏexhibit€through€Sergeant€Weaver.€€Again,€we€choose€to€addressÏthe€merits€of€the€issue.ÌÌà àà àTenn.€R.€Evid.€901(a)€requires€that€tangible€evidenceÏbe€authenticated€and€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€requirement€of€authentication€orÏidentification€as€a€condition€precedent€toÏadmissibility€is€satisfied€by€evidenceÏsufficient€to€the€court€to€support€aÏfinding€by€the€trier€of€fact€that€theÏmatter€in€question€is€what€its€proponentÏclaims.ÌÌÓÓIdentification€may€be€by€a€witness€or€by€the€demonstration€of€anÏunbroken€chain€of€custody,€but€identification€need€not€beÏabsolutely€certain.€€òòState€v.€Woodsóó,€806€S.W.2d€205,€212€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1990);€òòState€v.€Fergusonóó,€741€S.W.2d€125,€127€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€€Whether€tangible€evidence€has€been€properlyÍauthenticated€is€left€to€the€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€ÏTenn.€R.€Evid.€901(a);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòRitter€v.€Stateóó,€3€Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€372,€462€S.W.2d€247€(1970).€€The€trial€court's€decisionÏwill€not€be€disturbed€absent€a€clearly€mistaken€exercise€of€thatÏdiscretion.€€òòState€v.€Baldwinóó,€867€S.W.2d€358,€361€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Sergeant€Weaver€identified€the€envelope€inÏwhich€he€had€placed€a€large€rock€of€cocaine€and€four€smallerÏrocks.€€He€testified€that€the€exhibits€appeared€to€be€the€sameÏitems€he€had€placed€into€a€plain€envelope€and€sealed€with€tape.€ÏHe€had€not€marked€the€envelope€with€his€name€but€he€had€sealedÏit€in€his€usual€manner€and€delivered€it€to€another€officer€forÏplacement€into€the€property€envelope.€€Officer€King€hadÏtestified€that€he€gathered€the€cocaine€from€the€ground€and€gaveÏit€to€Sergeant€Weaver.€€Sergeant€Weaver€testified€that€he€firstÏput€the€evidence€in€his€pocket€and€later€performed€a€field€test.€ÏHe€then€put€the€cocaine€in€the€plain€envelope.€€He€and€ChiefÏAnthony€placed€it€inside€of€the€property€envelope.€€ChiefÏAnthony€stored€it€in€the€vault€at€the€police€department.€€OtherÏofficers€testified€about€taking€the€envelope€to€the€crime€labÏfor€testing€and€then€returning€the€envelope€to€the€vault.€€UnderÍthese€circumstances,€we€cannot€find€that€the€trial€court€abusedÏits€discretion€in€determining€that€the€chain€of€custody€had€beenÏsufficiently€established€for€each€of€the€two€exhibits.Ì€Ìà@ àòòConclusionóóÌà àà àBased€upon€our€finding€that€the€additional€"roadblock"Ïwas€not€supported€by€reasonable€suspicion€and€thus€violated€theÏdefendant's€state€and€federal€constitutional€rights,€theÏjudgment€of€conviction€is€reversed.€€The€cause€is€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court€for€disposition.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJoe€B.€Jones,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJohn€K.€Byers,€Senior€Judge