ÿWPCê 3# ÚU>å %# 0í)UB4Xln­{U:(bw@j 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡ 0@ë D3+ B^ U6{ U.± U*ß B) DC2 AMu AQ Æ 0DÙ 0D D/a B†­f3v~™vÓ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi§aö"3|xà «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ¯ ° ± ² ³ ´ µ D¶ D· Ӏà 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAugust€25,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ#€$$Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ÔÑ7€ Œ• XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|xýò` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€APRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9610„CC„00356Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àWeakley€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€William€B.€Acree,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌDAVID€PRICE,à àà à€€€à à)à à€(Certified€question€of€law)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJoseph€P.€Atnipà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌ€€€€€€€€€€andà àà àà àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌJames€David€Kendallà àà àà àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€P.O.Ï111€Main€Streetà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌBox€734à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌDresden,€TN€38225Ì(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àThomas€A.€ThomasÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌJames€H.€Bradberryà àà àà àà àandÌP.O.€Box€789à àà àà àà àJim€CannonÌDresden,€TN€38225à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(AT€TRIAL€AND€ON€APPEAL)à àà àP.O.€Box€218Ìà àà àà àà àà àUnion€City,€TN€38261Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌà àThe€defendant,€David€Price,€was€convicted€upon€his€guilty€plea€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Weakley€County€for€possession€with€the€intent€to€sell€marijuana,€aÏClass€E€felony.€€He€received€a€sentence€of€one€year€in€the€custody€of€the€DepartmentÏof€Correction€as€a€Range€I,€standard€offender€to€be€served€in€the€county€jail€and€a€fineÏof€two€thousand€dollars.€€The€defendant€appeals€as€of€right€a€certified€question€ofÏsearch€and€seizure€law€that€is€dispositive€of€this€case:€whether€the€stop€andÏsubsequent€search€of€the€defendantððs€vehicle€violated€his€Fourth€Amendment€rightsÏunder€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€œ37(b).€€We€affirm€the€trial€court.›ÌÌà àAt€the€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Ron€Powers€of€the€Martin€PoliceÏDepartment€testified€that€he€saw€the€informant€sitting€in€a€car€near€a€bar€in€Martin.€€HeÏsaid€that€upon€approaching€the€informantððs€car,€he€smelled€marijuana€and€discoveredÏa€small€amount€of€marijuana€in€the€car.€€Officer€Powers€stated€that€the€informant€toldÏhim€that€he€could€turn€in€someone€much€bigger.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€arrest€theÏinformant,€but€instead,€he€and€the€informant€met€with€the€Drug€Task€Force.€€OfficerÏPowers€testified€that€the€informant€told€the€officers€that€he€knew€the€defendant,€that€heÏhad€made€several€trips€to€Martin€to€purchase€drugs€from€the€defendant,€and€that€heÏcould€arrange€a€purchase€of€a€quarter€of€a€pound€of€marijuana€from€the€defendant.€€œÌÌà àOfficer›€Powers€œtestified›€that€although€he€was€not€present€when€the€callÏwas€made,€the€informant€told€him€that€œhe›€had€called€the€defendant,€that€the€defendantÏagreed€to€meet€with€œthe€informant›€between€3:00€and€5:30€the€next€day€at€either€theÏinformantððs€workplace€or€at€the€informantððs€house€after€work,€and€that€the€cost€of€theÏdrugs€was€two€hundred€and€forty„five€dollars.€€Officer€Powers€œstated›€that€the€informantÏsaid€that€the€defendant€would€be€driving€a€blue,€Mazda€kingcab€truck€with€a€blackÏtoolbox€in€the€back€and€Gibson€County€tags,€but€he€did€not€describe€the€defendantððsÏappearance.€€Officer€Powers€conceded€that€the€informant€had€never€been€used€in€theÏpast€and€that€he€did€not€know€the€informant.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.ÌÌà àOfficer€Powers€testified€that€the€next€day,€he€and€Officer€Tack€Simmons€ofÏthe€Drug€Task€Force€drove€to€a€truck€stop€in€Gibson€County€near€the€Weakley€CountyÏline.€€He€said€that€Officer€Osborne€and€TBI€Agent€Champine€went€to€another€truck€stopÏto€conduct€surveillance.€€He€stated€that€after€waiting€a€couple€of€hours,€he€saw€a€blue,ÏMazda€kingcab€truck€with€Gibson€County€tags€traveling€in€the€direction€of€theÏinformantððs€house€and€workplace.€€Officer€Powers€testified€that€he€and€AgentÏChampine€began€following€the€defendant€in€separate€vehicles.€€According€to€OfficerÏPowers,€Agent€Champine€radioed€that€the€defendant€was€driving€sixty„two€miles€perÏhour,€and€the€defendant€was€stopped€at€approximately€5:30€p.m.€€He€stated€that€whenÏhe€informed€the€defendant€that€he€was€speeding,€the€defendant€said€that€heÏremembered€Officer€Powers€from€an€earlier€stop€when€the€defendant€possessedÏmarijuana.€€Officer€Powers€said€that€he€told€the€defendant€that€he€was€going€to€giveÏhim€a€warning€for€the€speeding€and€œthen›€asked€for€permission€to€search€theÏdefendantððs€truck,€but€the€defendant€refused.€€He€testified€that€he€told€the€defendantÏthat€a€drug€dog€was€with€them€and€that€they€were€going€to€take€the€dog€around€theÏtruck.€€Officer€Powers€stated€that€Officer€Simmons€took€the€dog€around€the€œtruck,›€andÏwhen€the€dog€alerted€that€drugs€were€in€the€truck,€the€defendant€stated,€ð ðItððs€in€theÏtoolbox.ðð€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌ€€€à àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Powers€admitted€that€he€did€not€knowÏanything€about€the€informantððs€prior€criminal€history€and€that€œthe€informant›€had€notÍpreviously€œgiven›€any€information€as€an€informant.€€According€to€Officer€Powers,€theÏinformant€placed€the€call€to€the€defendant€approximately€one€hour€after€he€caught€theÏinformant€with€marijuana.€€He€conceded€that€the€prosecutor€made€a€deal€with€theÏinformant€after€the€informant€called€the€defendant€and€stated€that€the€deal€was€that€theÏcharges€for€possession€of€marijuana€would€be€dropped€if€the€œinformant›€assisted€themÏin€turning€in€someone€for€a€bigger€possession€of€marijuana€case.€€Officer€PowersÏacknowledged€that€he€had€spoken€to€the€prosecutor€about€obtaining€a€warrant€butÏstated€that€a€warrant€was€not€obtained€because€he€did€not€believe€that€the€informantÏwas€reliable€because€he€had€never€been€used€in€the€past.€€He€testified€that€heÏbelieved€the€informant€to€be€credible€after€he€made€the€drug€deal€with€the€defendant.€ÏOfficer€Powers€also€conceded€that€he€did€not€personally€observe€the€defendantÏspeeding€and€admitted€that€the€officers€planned€on€stopping€the€defendant€basedÏupon€the€informantððs€information€regardless€of€the€traffic€violation.€€He€stated€that€heÏroutinely€gave€a€warning€rather€than€a€traffic€citation€followed€by€a€request€forÏpermission€to€search€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Powers€testified€that€the€officers€did€not€waitÏto€stop€the€defendant€until€the€defendant€arrived€at€the€informantððs€house€for€safetyÏreasons€and€to€protect€the€identity€of€the€informant.ÌÌà àOfficer€Bryan€Osborne€of€the€Obion€County€Sheriffððs€Department€testifiedÏthat€he€was€present€when€the€informant€called€from€the€Drug€Task€Forceððs€cellularÏœtelephone›€to€arrange€the€drug€deal€with€the€defendant.€€He€stated€that€he€watched€theÍinformant€punch€in€the€phone€number€and€said€that€the€informant€knew€theÏdefendantððs€phone€number.€€Officer€Osborne€testified€that€he€could€hear€the€œinformant,›Ïbut€not€the€œdefendant,›€œand›€that€he€heard€the€informant€say€that€he€needed€to€buy€aÏð ðquarterðð€from€œthe€defendant›€and€that€he€would€see€œthe€defendant€either›€at€work€or€atÏhome€after€3:00€the€next€day.€€He€said€that€what€he€heard€from€the€conversation€madeÏhim€believe€that€the€informant€knew€the€defendant€and€that€the€informant€hadÏpurchased€drugs€from€the€defendant€on€earlier€occasions.€€Officer€Osborne€alsoÏtestified€that€he€was€with€Agent€Champine€€when€the€defendant€was€being€followedÏand€when€Agent€Champine€stopped€the€defendant€for€speeding.€€He€stated€that€œAgent›ÏChampine€paced€the€defendant€to€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€speeding,Ïalthough€Officer€Osborne€did€not€personally€observe€the€defendant€speeding.€€œHe›Ïadmitted€that€he€did€not€know€anything€about€the€informantððs€background.ÌÌà àOfficer€Tack€Simmons,€a€member€of€the€Drug€Task€Force€with€the€UnionÏCity€Police€Department,€testified€that€he€took€the€drug€dog€around€the€defendantððsÏtruck€and€that€the€dog€scratched€on€the€œtoolbox,›€indicating€that€drugs€were€inside.€€HeÏadmitted€that€he€did€not€know€anything€about€the€informantððs€background€and€that€heÏdid€not€know€the€defendant€other€than€that€he€was€a€white€male.€€ÌÌà àOfficer€Scott€Robbins€testified€that€as€the€shift€commander,€he€wasÏadvised€at€the€beginning€of€the€shift€to€be€looking€for€a€blue,€Mazda€truck€with€GibsonÍCounty€tags€and€a€toolbox€because€the€Drug€Task€Force€was€looking€for€theÏdefendant.€€He€said€that€he€had€no€information€about€the€informantððs€call€to€theÏdefendant€or€any€other€information€about€a€drug€delivery€by€the€defendant.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€overruled€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress,€concludingÏthat€the€officers€had€probable€cause€to€stop€and€search€the€defendantððs€vehicle.€€TheÏtrial€court€also€found€that€the€defendant€voluntarily€informed€the€officers€of€the€locationÏof€the€drugs€after€the€dog€alerted€that€drugs€were€contained€in€the€toolbox.ÌÌà àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€overruling€his€motionÏto€suppress.€€He€maintains€that€the€stop€and€search€of€his€vehicle€violated€his€FourthÏAmendment€rights€because€the€state€failed€to€establish€that€the€informant€was€reliableÏand€that€the€deficiency€had€not€been€overcome€by€proof€of€independent€policeÏcorroboration.€€In€support€of€his€argument,€the€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,Ï791€S.W.2d€504€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€The€state€responds€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€overruled€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€because€the€officers€hadÏprobable€cause€to€stop€the€defendant€for€a€traffic€violation.€€The€state€also€asserts€thatÏthe€officers€had€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€defendant€based€upon€theÏinformantððs€information€that€was€also€corroborated€by€the€officers.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àBoth€the€state€and€federal€constitutions€protect€individuals€fromÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€An€automobile€stop€constitutes€a€ð ðseizureððÏwithin€the€meaning€of€both€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€òòMichigan€Depððt€of€StateÏPolice€v.€Sitzóó,€496€U.S.€444,€450,€110€S.€Ct.€2481,€2485€(1990);€òòState€v.€Pullyóó,€863ÏS.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Binionóó,€900€S.W.2d€702,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994).€€Generally,€we€note€that€the€police€are€entitled€to€stop€a€car€for€investigativeÏpurposes€if€they€have€reasonable€suspicion,€based€upon€specific€and€articulable€facts,Ïthat€an€offense€is€being€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2dÏ293,€295€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àWhen€a€stop€is€based€on€the€tip€of€an€informant,€the€factors€set€forth€inÏòòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€436€(Tenn.€1989),€are€useful€in€considering€theÏreliability€of€the€tip.€€òòPullyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31.€€Our€supreme€court€adopted€the€two„prong€test€of€òòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€84€S.€Ct.€1509€(1964),€and€òòSpinelli€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€89€S.€Ct.€584€(1960).€€òòIdóó.€at€436.€€In€òòAguilaróó,€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€concluded€that€there€must€be€a€ð ðbasis€of€knowledgeðð€when€anÏofficer€relies€on€an€informantððs€tip.€€The€ð ðveracityðð€prong€of€the€òòAguilar„Spinellióó€testÏrequires€a€showing€that€the€informant€is€credible€or€the€information€is€reliable.€€TheÏòòJacuminóó€court€held€that:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àwhile€independent€police€corroboration€could€make€upÏdeficiencies€in€either€prong,€each€prong€represents€anÏindependently€important€consideration€that€ð ðmust€beÏseparately€considered€and€satisfied€in€some€way.ððÌÌÓÓÓ  Óœ778›€S.W.2d€at€œ436€(quoting€òòCommonwealth€v.€Uptonóó,€476€N.E.2d€548,€557€(Mass.Ï1985));›€òòseeóó€òòPullyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€œ31.›€€An€investigatory€stop€based€upon€reasonableÑ€0ÑÇsuspicion€requires€ð ððða€lower€quantum€of€proof€than€probable€cause.ðððð€€òòPullyóó,€863ÏS.W.2d€at€31.€€ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 àœð ðReasonable›€suspicion€is€a€less€demanding€standard€thanÏprobable€cause€not€only€in€the€sense€that€reasonableÏsuspicion€can€be€established€with€information€that€isÏdifferent€in€quantity€or€content€than€that€required€to€establishÏprobable€cause,€but€also€in€the€sense€that€reasonableÏsuspicion€can€arise€from€information€that€is€less€reliableÏthan€that€required€to€show€probable€œcause.ðð›ÌÌòòÓÓÓ  ÓIdóó.€at€32€(quoting€òòAlabama€v.€Whiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110€S.€Ct.€2412,€2416€(1990)).€ÏThe€question€of€reasonable€suspicion€is€answered€by€considering€the€totality€of€theÏcircumstances,€including€looking€at€the€gravity€of€the€public€concern€at€stake,€theÏdegree€the€police€intrusion€advances€that€concern€and€the€severity€of€the€intrusion.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòPullyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€30;€òòWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294.€€ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€at€theÏconclusion€of€a€suppression€hearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€otherwise.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€œ18,€22„23›€(Tenn.€1996).€€TheÏdefendant€bears€the€burden€of€demonstrating€that€the€evidence€preponderated€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€findings.€€òòIdóó.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€state€acknowledges€on€appeal€that€it€conceded€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€that€the€stop€of€the€defendant€was€a€pretextual€stop€in€that€the€stop€was€notÏbased€upon€the€speeding€violation,€but€upon€the€drug€information.€€However,€it€reliesÍupon€òòWhren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€___,€116€S.€Ct.€1769€(1996),€and€òòState€v.ÏDavey€Joe€Vineyard€and€Jimmy€Lee€Cockburnóó,€Nos.€03C01„9502„CR„00052€&Ï03C01„9502„CR„00053,€Bradley€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€July€18,€1996),€òòappóó.Ïòògrantedóó€(Tenn.€Dec.€12,€1996),€to€argue€that€the€trial€court€properly€ruled€that€the€stopÏwas€reasonable€because€the€officers€had€validly€stopped€the€defendant€for€a€trafficÏœviolation,›€regardless€of€œtheir€motive›€to€investigate€for€drugs€during€the€stop.€€In€òòWhrenóó,Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€traffic€stop€is€reasonable€under€theÏFourth€Amendment€when€the€police€have€probable€cause€to€believe€that€a€trafficÏviolation€has€occurred€regardless€of€the€actual€motivations€of€the€officers€involved,Ïunless€the€stop€is€for€a€constitutionally€impermissible€reason,€such€as€selectiveÏenforcement€of€the€law€based€upon€considerations€such€as€œrace.€›€517€U.S.€at€___,€116ÏS.€Ct.€at€1774.€€Thus,€the€stop€in€the€present€case€was€reasonable€under€our€federalÏconstitution.€€œÌÌà àAlso,€this›€court€followed€œòòWhrenóó›€in€òòVineyardóó,€a€case€that€is€presentlyÏbefore€the€Tennessee€Supreme€œCourt,›€for€consideration€of€the€traffic€stop€issue€underÏœTennessee€law.›€€We€need€not€œdetermine€in€this€case,›€though,€whether€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€provides€greater€protection€œthan›€the€Fourth€Amendment,€because€weÏconclude€that€the€officers€had€the€right€to€stop€the€defendant€based€upon€theÏinformantððs€information€as€corroborated€by€the€officerððs€observations.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àThe€officers€were€sufficiently€apprised€of€the€informantððs€basis€ofÏknowledge€through€the€informantððs€telephone€call€to€the€defendant€arranging€a€drugÏœsale.›€€The€informant€told€Officer€Powers€that€the€defendant€agreed€to€sell€to€him€aÏquarter€of€a€pound€of€marijuana€the€next€day.€€Officer€Osborne€overheard€the€informantÏmaking€the€phone€call.€€Moreover,€the€informant€said€that€he€had€purchased€drugsÏfrom€the€defendant€on€earlier€occasions.€€These€facts€establish€the€informantððs€basis€ofÏknowledge.€ÌÌà àRegarding€the€veracity€prong,€the€evidence€reflects€that€Officer€PowersÏdid€not€know€the€informant€before€he€saw€him€smoking€marijuana€in€his€car€outside€aÏbar.€€Also,€the€officers€knew€nothing€about€the€informantððs€background,€including€anyÏprior€criminal€history,€and€the€informant€had€never€given€the€officers€information€in€theÏpast.€€œHowever,›€the€informant€told€Officer€Powers€that€he€could€turn€in€someone€muchÏbigger.€€The€informant€then€made€a€œdeal›€for€the€defendant€to€sell€a€quarter€of€a€poundÏof€marijuana€the€next€day.€€Officer€Osborne€overheard€the€informant€making€theÏarrangement.€€œÌÌà àThe›€informant€disclosed€to€the€officers€that€the€defendant€said€that€heÏwould€meet€him€at€work€or€at€his€home€between€3:00€and€5:30,€and€he€described€theÏdefendantððs€vehicle€as€a€blue,€Mazda€kingcab€truck€with€a€black€toolbox€and€GibsonÏCounty€tags.€€The€officers€began€surveillance€at€a€truck€stop€near€the€county€line€andÍsaw€a€truck€matching€the€description€given€by€the€informant€and€traveling€in€theÏdirection€of€the€informantððs€workplace€and€home€at€approximately€5:30€œp.m.›ÌÌà àWe€believe€œthat€the›€facts€of€this€case€are€distinguishable€from€those€inÏòòColemanóó€where€an€anonymous€informant€called€the€police€claiming€that€the€defendantÏwas€driving€an€older€model€black€Monte€Carlo€along€a€specified€highway€and€that€theÏvehicle€contained€marijuana.€€Though€the€informantððs€statements€were€not€sufficient€byÏthemselves€to€establish€probable€cause€to€stop€the€defendant,€we€hold€that€the€factsÏsufficiently€demonstrate€that,€given€the€statements€and€the€corroboration,€the€officersÏœhad,€at€least,›€reasonable€suspicion€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts€œthat›€aÏcrime€was€being€or€was€about€to€be€committed€by€the€defendant.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àWe€must€also€determine€whether€the€detention€of€the€defendant€wasÏreasonable.€€Upon€stopping€a€motor€vehicle€based€on€ð ðreasonable€suspicion,Ïsupported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€aboutÏto€be€committed,ðð€an€officer€may€briefly€detain€the€occupants€of€the€vehicle€forÏquestioning.€€òòSeeóó€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€1880€(1968);€òòWatkinsóó,Ï827€S.W.2d€at€294.€€Here,€after€stopping€the€defendant,€the€officers€asked€theÏdefendant€for€permission€to€search€the€truck,€and€the€defendant€refused.€€The€officersÏthen€took€a€drug€dog€that€was€with€them€at€the€scene€around€the€defendantððs€truck.€€AÏsweep€of€the€outside€of€a€vehicle€does€not€constitute€a€search,€but€rather€is€a€legitimateÍinvestigative€technique.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Placeóó,€462€U.S.€696,€707,€103€S.€Ct.Ï2637,€2644„45€(1983);€òòRomo€v.€Championóó,€46€F.3d€1013,€1018€(10th€Cir.€1995);€òòseeóóÏòòalsoóó€òòState€v.€James€Smith,€Jr.óóòò,óó€No.€38,€Shelby€County,€slip€op.€at€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏDec.€14,€1988).€€Weighing€the€public€concern€for€the€illegal€possession€andÏdistribution€of€drugs,€the€degree€to€which€the€seizure€advanced€that€concern€and€theÏminimal€intrusion€that€took€place,€we€conclude€that€the€investigatory€stop€in€this€caseÏwas€reasonable.Ìà àÌà àWhen€the€dog€was€taken€around€the€defendantððs€truck,€it€alerted€thatÏdrugs€were€inside€the€toolbox.€€At€that€time,€the€defendant€admitted€to€the€officers€thatÏdrugs€were€in€the€toolbox.€€These€facts€sufficiently€elevated€the€officersðð€reasonableÏsuspicion€to€probable€cause,€justifying€the€search€of€the€defendantððs€truck.€€Ì€€€€€€Ìà àUnder€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€stop€was€justified€andÏthat€the€seizure€of€the€marijuana€was€based€œupon›€probable€cause.€€In€consideration€ofÏthe€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€we€affirm€the€defendantððs€judgment€ofÏconviction.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌòòÌóó____________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge