WPC=? ;,-"n7V:jz#mP6E `e#5Ð(=EO31vmS~\XѭRqsJ4DB{ߠ X҃dFv,,B5dc\=ko!yYD[g<m۞=܊rYWqׁ8gCh1Ԁ"xfϤg89XnH&wEэ[U;:vӍZ}Ų_%{b > e Tt4C @_X4?W6YQ>,2 Y+ƯHl9kz:_C 鴥>T_<ľ/^-bV#9()N,Y}DjW.'yD ܗ࿝# ]Ru&|AG¡&jzFSUAs^%^m1ЪN6j4FqL* 0v* 0`D+ 0`+ 0`, 0`d, 0`, 08$- 0\- 02.. 0`. 0:\/ 0Y/ 0_/ 0 N0 0jX1 02 B*F4 D/p4 04 D/#6 0R6 06 7 0V7 0:^8 0^8 0<8 0N29 09U6k:U>:U*: B ;&; 0B; D3; D-< 0KF<F< AS<< 0= 0DN> A>=ru-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularYo)rha3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60  R$      1    __ԀAbestinterestguiltyplea,otherwiseknownasan _Alford_ԀPlea,NorthCarolinav._Alford_,400U.S.25,91  S.Ct.160,27L.Ed.2d162(1970),allowsadefendanttopleadguiltywhilemaintaininginnocenceifhedeemsthe t evidenceissuchthataguiltypleamaybethebestoption.SuchpleasarespecificallyacceptedinTennessee,Dortchv. 8 State,705S.W.2d687,688(Tenn.Crim.App.1985).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  (9 Z(Times New Roman 2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KS<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?U%2A`Arial?7Z(X7  XXXST\  `&Times New RomanSG)2dxd0KS.SampleKS<6X9`(Courier NewKST\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKS<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXST\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  (O$(|G2$ !.8 dXXd8         0  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d fininsg(|3A6$ !.8 dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3A6$ !.8 dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     __    8XXXdd8р@tt INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust6,2002 L XXX  # XXX.#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.CALVINT.BARHAMXXX   J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforChesterCounty  J @@No.99027RogerA.Page,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200200246CCAR3CDFiledNovember19,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Defendantpledguiltytopossessionofcocainewithintenttosell,aClassCfelony.Defendants x  motiontosuppressevidencewasdeniedbythetrialcourt.Defendantclaimedthatevidencefound d onhimwastheresultofanillegalsearchandshouldhavebeensuppressed.Thesuppressionissue P wascertifiedforreview.Weaffirmthetrialcourtandholdtheevidencewasproperlyadmissible. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  d   # XX#XXX. JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_and < ThomasT._Woodall_,JJ.,joined. ( GeorgeMorton_Googe_,DistrictPublicDefender,andVanessaD.King,AssistantPublicDefender,  fortheappellant,CalvinT.Barham.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;_Angele_ԀM.Gregory,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; t JamesG.(Jerry)_Woodall_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andShaunA.Brown,AssistantDistrict ` AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. L  2@@OO& OPINION # XXXa#XXX  #`"  Facts $8 $    ӀAHendersonpoliceofficermadeanighttrafficstopofacarinwhichdefendant,CalvinT. &"& Barham,wasapassenger.Thestopwasmadeduetoadefectivetaillight.Afterbeingpulledover, '"' thedriverofthecarexitedandwalkedtotheofficerspatrolcar,wherethedriverwasissueda (#( verbalwarningforthedefectivelight.Afternoticingsome nervousmovementsbythepassengers )$) inthecar,theofficeraskedthedriverforhisconsenttosearchthecar.Thedriverconsented.The p*%* officerthenconductedapatdown# XXX #XXX Ԁoftheremainingpassengersastheyexitedthecar.Atthistime, \+&+ nocontrabandwasfoundonthepassengersorinthecar.Asthepassengersreturnedtothecar,the H,', officernoticeddefendantsshoewasuntied,whichledtheofficertobelievedefendantcouldhave 4-(- _contrabandinhisshoe.Theofficeraskeddefendantifhehadanythinginhisshoe,anddefendant  statedhedidnot.Theofficerthenaskeddefendant, Well,doyouwanttotakeyourshoeoff?,and  defendantimmediatelykickedoffhisshoes,revealingtwosmallpackagescontainingmarijuanaand  twosmallbagscontainingcocaine.Theofficerthenplaceddefendantunderarrest. t   Defendantwasindictedforfeloniouspossessionofcocaine,Tenn.CodeAnn.3917 L  417(a)(4).Hismotiontosuppresstheevidencefoundonhim# XXX#XXX Ԁastheresultofanillegalsearchwas 8  denied.Hesubsequentlyenteredabestinterest  #  1      ׀guiltyplea,certifyingaquestionoflawastothe $ t denialofhismotiontosuppress.ThisCourtdismissedhisappealforfailuretoproperlycertifythe  ` question,andoursupremecourtdeniedhisapplicationtoappeal.SeeStatev.Barham,No.W2000  L  00871CCAR3CD,2001Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS368,(May15,2001,atJackson),perm.to  8  appealdenied(Tenn.Oct.29,2001).Defendantthenfiledforpostconvictionrelief,whichwas $  grantedbythetrialcourt,asthetrialcourtconcludedhisguiltypleahadnotbeenmadeknowingly,   willfullyorvoluntarily.Defendantthenreenteredhisguiltypleaandmadeapropercertification   ofthefollowingquestionforthisappeal:    X X[W]hetherlawenforcementseizedthedefendantinviolationofhisconstitutional   rightswithouthavingareasonablesuspicionsupportedbyspecificandarticulable p factstostopthedefendant,whetherthefriskcompliedwithTerryv.Ohio,392U.S. \ 1(1968),andwhethertheconsentsearchwasvoluntary... H  X X  MotiontoSuppressHearing   p     Thearrestingofficertestifiedattheoriginalsuppressionhearingthathestoppedthecarin H questionduetoadefectivebrakelight.Heindicatedthedriverappearednervousashewalkedfrom 4 thecar# XXX;#XXX Ԁtowardstheofficer.Seeingmovementinthecar,theofficeraskedandwasgivenconsent   fromthedrivertosearchthecar.Subsequently,thepassengersexitedthecarandwerefriskedby   theofficer.Theofficerindicatedhefoundnocontrabandduringthefrisksofthepassengersnordid  hefindanycontrabandinthecar.Heindicatedthatafterthesearch,asthepassengerswere  preparingtoleave,henoticeddefendantsshoewasuntied.Withthemovementinthecar,thisdrew  hisattentionasheperceiveditasunusual.Hetestifiedthat,fromhistrainingandexperience,ashoe l wasacommonhidingplaceforcontraband.Hestatedthathethenaskedifdefendanthadanything X  inhisshoe,anddefendantansweredthathedidnot.Theofficerthensaidtodefendant, Well,do D! youwanttotakeyourshoeoff?,atwhichtimehesaiddefendantkickedoffbothhisshoes,and 0"  drugsfellfromtheshoesontothestreet.Theofficertestifiedhefoundtwosmallbrown paper #l! towellikebagsandtwosmallercellophanebags,whichlabtestslater# XXX#XXX Ԁconfirmedtobemarijuana $X" andcocaine.Hesaidhethenarresteddefendant.Theofficerfurtherstatedtherewerethreeother $D # officersatthesceneandthatatleastoneofthemwitnessedthedrugrecovery. %0!$  &"%   Oncrossexamination,thearrestingofficeradmittedheinitiatedthetrafficstopduetothe  defectivetaillightandthatthepresenceoftheotherofficersatthescenewasasafetyprecaution.He  hadnotspecificallycalledthem.Hestatedhehadreceivedconsentfromthedrivertosearchthe  vehicle,buthehadnotreceivedconsentfromthepassengersforthesearchesuponthem.He t admittedtofindingnothingduringtheoriginalpatdownofthepassengers.Theofficerstatedthat ` defendantvoluntarilyremovedhisshoesinresponsetothestatement, Well,doyouwanttotake L  yourshoeoff?# XXX#XXX  8    Insum,defendantarguesthattheevidencefoundasaresultoftheremovalofhisshoeswas  ` theresultofaninvoluntarysearch.Hecontendstheremovaloftheshoewascoerced,basedonthe  L  totalityofthecircumstancesastheyexistedthenightofthetrafficstop.  8    Thetrialcourtfoundtherehadbeenarticulablefactsgiven,risingtoareasonablesuspicion,   toallowtheinitialstop.Itdeterminedthequestiontobewhetherdefendantsremovalofhisshoes   wasvoluntary.Basedonthetestimonyheardatthesuppressionhearing,accompaniedwithweighing   thecredibilityofthewitnesses,thetrialcourtfounddefendantvoluntarilyremovedhisshoesand,   therefore,deniedthemotiontosuppress. p    StandardofReview H      XXXXXXUnlesstheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem,t#XXXXXX^'## XXXM##  XXX hefindingsoffact  p madebythetrialcourtatthehearingonamotiontosuppressarebindinguponthisCourt.Statev.  \ Ross,49S.W.3d833,839(Tenn.2001).Thetrialcourt,asthetrieroffact,isabletoassessthe H credibilityofthewitnesses,determinetheweightandvaluetobeaffordedtheevidence,andresolve 4 anyconflictsintheevidence.Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).However,thisCourt   isnotboundbythetrialcourtsconclusionsoflaw.Statev.Simpson,968S.W.2d776,779(Tenn.   1998).Theapplicationofthelawtothefactsfoundbythetrialcourtisaquestionoflawthatthis  Courtreviewsdenovo.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,423(Tenn.2000).Defendanthasthe  burdenofestablishingthattheevidencecontainedintherecordpreponderatesagainstthefindings  offactmadebythetrialcourt.Brazielv.State,529S.W.2d501,506(Tenn.Crim.App.1975).#XXXXXX (## XXX+(#XXX   l   XXXXXXAwarrantlesssearchispresumedunreasonableunderboththefederalandTennessee D! constitutions,andevidenceseizedfromthewarrantlesssearchissubjecttosuppressionunlessthe 0"  Statedemonstratesbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthesearchwas conductedpursuantto #l! oneofthenarrowlydefinedexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Simpson,968S.W.2dat780, $X" (Tenn.1998);seeCoolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,45455,91S.Ct.2022,2032,29L. $D # Ed.2d564,576(1971).Consenttoasearchisawellfoundedexceptiontotheneedforawarrant. %0!$ Seeinfrap.7.0 ` #XXXXXXH-## XXX-#XXX  &"%` (#` (#   XXXXXX  Apolicemanmaymakeaninvestigatorystopwhentheofficerhasareasonablesuspicion, (#' supportedbyarticulableandspecificfacts,thatacriminaloffensehasbeen,orisabouttobe, )$( committed.Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,21,88S.Ct.1868,1880,20L.Ed.2d889,906(1968);see |*%) alsoUnitedStatesv.Arvizu,534U.S.266,272,122S.Ct.744,750,151L.E.2d740,749(2002); h+&* Simpson,968S.W.2dat780.Foracourttodeterminewhetherapolicemansreasonablesuspicion  issupportedbyarticulableandspecificfacts,thecourtmustconsiderthetotalityofthe  circumstances.Arvizu,534U.S.at272, 122S.Ct.at750;  Simpson,968S.W.2dat783.This  inquiryincludessuchfactorsasobjectiveobservations,informationobtainedfromotherofficersor t agencies,informationobtainedfromcitizens,andcertainoffenderspatternsofoperation. Simpson, ` 968S.W.2dat783;Statev.Lawson,929S.W.2d406,408(Tenn.Crim.App.1996).#XXXXXX0## XXX0#XXX   L    Hence,indeterminingwhetherthemotiontosuppressshouldhavebeengranted,wewill $ t examinethetotalityofthefactorsconcerningthearrestingofficersactionsduringandatthetime  ` ofthearrest,willchecktoseeifhisactionsweresupportedbyarticulablefacts,andwillthenmake  L  adeterminationwhetherweconcludethatthetotalityofthecircumstancescompelsustodisturbthe  8  findingofthetrialcourt.  $    Analysis        Itiscleartheofficerhadalegitimatereasontomaketheinitialtrafficstop.Apoliceofficer   maymakeatrafficstopifhehasprobablecauseorreasonablesuspiciontobelieveatrafficviolation p hasoccurred.Statev.Vineyard,958S.W.2d730,734(Tenn.1997),citingWhrenv.UnitedStates, \ 517U.S.806,80910,11S.Ct.1769,35L.Ed.2d89(1996).Theofficernoticedadefectivebrake H light,whichisatrafficviolation,andhegavearticulableandspecificfactstosupporthisdecision 4 tomaketheinitialstop.Basedonthisparticularofficersexperience,wecanfindnofaultinhis  p decisiontoinitiatethestop.Nonetheless,evenifthetrafficstopislegitimate,itisconsidereda  \ seizureandtriggersconstitutionalprotections.Vineyard,958S.W.2dat734.Assuch,inorderfor H awarrantlesssearchtobeconsideredvalid,itmustbesubjecttoanexceptiontothewarrant 4 requirement.     Subsequenttotheinitialtrafficstop,thedriverofthecarvoluntarilyexitedthecarand,upon  beingaskedbytheofficerifhecouldsearchthecar,consentedtothesearch.Consentisaclear  exceptiontotheneedforawarrant.Schnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218,220,93S.Ct.2041,  204344,36L.Ed.2d854,858(1973).Defendantpresentsnoevidencenorhasanystandingto l protestthedriversconsentofasearchofhisowncar.Unlikedefendant,thedriverofthecarnever X  raisedtheissuethathisconsentwascoerced,anddefendantlacksstandingtoobjecttothesearch D! ofthedriverscar.# XXXC6#XXX  0"    Afterreceivingconsenttosearchthecar,thepoliceofficerconductedafriskoftheremaining $X" passengersastheyexitedthecar.Noevidencewasobtainedasaresultofthesefrisks.Absentany $D # evidencebeingobtained,thereissimplynoissuehereregardingthelegitimacyofthefrisks.Weneed %0!$ notaddressitfurther. &"%    Afterthefrisks,asthepassengerswerepreparingtoreenterthecar,thepoliceofficernoticed (#' defendantsshoewasuntied.Heaskeddefendantifhewashidinganythinginhisshoe,towhich )$( defendantansweredhewasnot.Theofficerthanaskeddefendant, Well,doyouwanttotakeyour |*%) shoeoff?Defendantrespondedbyimmediately kickingoffhisshoes,resultinginthe h+&* incriminatingdrugsbeingfound.# XXX@#XXX ԀThemainissueinthiscaseiswhetherdefendantvoluntarily  removedhisshoesorremovedthembecausehefeltcoerced.Becausethetrialcourtfoundthat  defendantremovedhisshoesvoluntarily,theburdenisondefendanttopresentevidenceto  preponderateagainstthatfinding.Theexistenceofconsentandwhetherconsentwasgiven t voluntarilyarequestionsoffact.Statev.McMahan,650S.W.2d383,386(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).  ` Wewillexamine_defendants_Ԁargumentthattherewasnoconsentgivenorthat,attheleast,any L  consentgivenwascoerced. 8    _Defendant_Ԁarguesthecircumstancessurroundingtheshoeremovalwerecoercive.Hepoints  ` toStatev._Morelock_,851S.W.2d838,840(Tenn.1992),  forthepropositionthataprolongedand  L  extendedtrafficstopcanresultintheinvalidationofconsent.Theunderlyingfactsof_Morelock_,  <  however, indicateafarmorecoerciveatmospherethanthepresentcase.In_Morelock_,defendant (  refusedtogiveapoliceofficerconsenttoopenatrunkfivetimesbeforefinallyconsentingtoopen   it.Inthepresentcase,therewasonequestion, Well,doyouwanttotakeyourshoeoff?,_followed_   byanimmediateremovaloftheshoes.Thecoerciveelementsthatwerefoundin_Morelock_arenot   foundintheinstantcase,makingitclearlydistinguishable.     In_Schneckloth_Ԁv._Bustamonte_,# XXXD#XXX ԀtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtlistedanumberoffactors ` tobetakenintoaccountwhenassessingthevoluntarinessofadefendantsconsent.412U.S.at226. L Thesefactors_include_ defendantsage,education,intelligence,lackofadviceregardingconstitutional 8 rights,lengthofdetention,whethertherewasrepeatedandprolongedquestioning,andanyuseof (x physicalpunishment.Inthepresentcase,thereisnothingpresentedtoindicate_defendants_Ԁage, d education,orintelligencewereafactor.Thereisnoevidencehewassubjecttoanyphysical P punishmentortoabarrageofrepeatedquestioning.Ifanything# XXXL#XXX ,onlythe_lengthofdetentionandlack < ofadviceconcerningconstitutionalrightsapply_. (   DefendantpointstoStatev._Halprin_,CCANo.1079,1989LEXIS180,at*2(Tenn.Crim.  App.,filedMarch13,1989,atKnoxville),wherethisCourtheldthatdetainingadefendantlonger  thannecessaryforthepurposeoftheinitialtrafficstopcreatesacoerciveenvironment.Yet,in  _Halprin_,thedefendanttestifiedhewasorderedtoopenthetrunkafterhavingrefusedconsenttodo t so. Thisisclearlydistinguishablefromtheinstantcasewhere,followingtheofficersinitialrequest,# XXXCP#XXX  `  _defendant_Ԁremovedhisshoeswithoutprotest.Additionally,defendantpointstoUnitedStatesv. P! _McCaleb_,552F.2d717,721(6thCir.1976),_where_Ԁthecourtstatedthatconsentmustbeprovedby <"  clearandpositivetestimonyandmustbeunequivocal,specific,intelligentlygiven,and (#x! uncontaminatedbyanyduressorcoercion.However,in_McCaleb_,thecourtconcludedthatthe $d" defendanthadbeenimproperlystoppedandthattheDEAagentstoldhimhecouldconsentorremain %P # indetentionuntilawarrantwasobtained.Inthepresentcase,therewasnosuchcoercive %