ÿWPC ï•Çel†¥.jý‚‹2Ñ@_yLE)*zŠ7À<´&0T૘¤{×^ ë4‡þ^‡¶Ü=#â>ǘçPVÙà>CgXh¡®Ù yÈŠÑp‹W>üîηšyG¢!ÀÐÒ:N cƒÌ—òÇTuT¼ŸoG­šX*R§î`·´Qãm,“¹¶ÙLmhÒîðæ*È×H>‡Õ\·*¨ZCú"ožü»· Ÿ1w1põ6fX9å…)é]ºÎ¨Î`~ì^4ùŽä±Óг\)|soƒI·EB´èDü«ð¥×ñ󹊒îáÖCrz»öÏ)ŸÎƒV!rN‡Õ ÿbå‰ÿ[ÌŸ˜m©Êkü%ÿRÜËxVÂ+"s Ÿ cãægd%1ù®4lj'&Æ·Äb‡]f½«:©Q4Çq('“*€vl.ãêø#–ÛQ|vƒ ¨8„”GöjÉ!4í?Ï\DtA-¸íí›fX…QN O($ØHŠnÁ¿*8^XôEåÉÿábÓq£h…û ¤À¯],ýW© #Î2ªø„`Ꜻz„'£Šo69¦2°|W*µèIÆ[éžLOÐ#/Ùã¢C?{‡Ÿ):¸$òx‘Ó’%U;[«ïj(Ö`#!@UNa %¯ 0:µ^ ïNûwýb 4  , m. U:E 0~ 0Dý A U,I Æu H; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; AQƒ BÔ 0Vñ 0VG 0D D3á ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô‘ƒ'L - ù-tpO'  ݤ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular(.(3Ä($¤¤Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ,c½¬AZ‹Arial ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 >Ý ƒ[½Þ"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ X[¦XXXÔÔ€ è þçX X[¦ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ 8rç è þÔÐ  ÐÌDecember€29,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAŠÔó ó[\]_Cþÿ<<Cÿÿ d(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óZZZZ'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€X[¦XXXÔÔ€Š·»‹XX[¦ÔÑ` °ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€4QXXdìdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿEÄf Žtt¨¦ü` \vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌOCTOBER€SESSION,€1999ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)à  àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9812„CR„00424Ð n Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àó óAppellee,à  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHAMILTON€COUNTYÐ v  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àÐ x  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHON.€DOUGLAS€A.€MEYER,Ð z  ÐDON€PALMER€BLACK,à h àà À à)à  àJUDGEÐ | Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ` àó óAppellant.à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  à(DUI„Second€Offense)Ð €  ÐÌÌÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌCRIMINAL€COURT€OF€HAMILTON€COUNTYÌÌÌÓ  Óó óòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà À àà  àòòà p àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ò òÐ Ž . ÐÌó óJERRY€H.€SUMMERSò òà h àà À àà  àó óPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ Œ", Ð500€Lindsay€Streetà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ ˆ#( ÐChattanooga,€TN€37403„3496Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMARVIN€S.€BLAIR,€JR.Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBILL€COXÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDEAN€FERRAROÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCity€and€County€Court€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àChattanooga,€TN€37402ò òÐ T0ô&' ÐÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEó óÐ  ^8þ./ø ÐÓ  ÓÔ‡°’‘ °‹Š·»Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ#†Š·»‹ °°’‘í #ÔÐ `  ÐÌÓ  ÓÓÓà ` àThe€Defendant,€Don€Palmer€Black,€appeals€as€of€right€his€convictionÐ . Î Ðpursuant€to€a€Hamilton€County€jury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€of€second€offenseÐ ¾ Ðdriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€€He€raises€the€following€four€issuesÐ ® Ðfor€review:€Ð þž ÐÓÓà8 ` àI.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€finding€the€Defendant's€stopÐ îŽ  Ðto€be€illegal€when€the€reasonable€suspicion€supporting€the€stopÐ æ†  Ðconsisted€solely€of€weaving€within€the€confines€of€a€single€lane€andÐ Þ~  Ðwhen€no€traffic€violation€occurred.ÐÖv ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àII.€€Whether€the€conviction€should€be€reversed€because€theÐ Æf Ðevidence€was€insufficient€to€support€a€guilty€verdict€since€no€rationalÐ ¾^ Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€that€the€Defendant€was€intoxicated€toÐ ¶V Ðthe€point€that€his€driving€was€impaired.ЮN` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àIII.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€Defendant€toÐ ž> Ðassert€the€invalidity€of€his€prior€1988€DUI€conviction€in€thisÐ –6 Ðproceeding€when€òòState€v.€McClintockóó€is€no€longer€valid€law€after€theÐ Ž. Ð1996€amendments€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.І &` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` àIV.€€Whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€the€Defendant€toÐ v" Ðsuppress€evidence€that€he€had€not€taken€a€chemical€test€becauseÐ n# Ðthe€implied€consent€form€was€vague€and€failed€to€apprise€theÐ f$ ÐDefendant€of€the€significant€consequences€of€not€taking€theÐ ^%þ Ðchemical€test.ÐV&ö` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓbÓÌà ` àThe€only€two€witnesses€at€trial€were€Officer€Robert€Starnes€of€the€HamiltonÐ 6*Ö ! ÐCounty€Sheriffððs€Department€and€the€Defendant.€€Officer€Starnes€testified€that€onÐ &,Æ"# ÐDecember€17,€1994,€he€was€a€patrolman€on€the€DUI€task€force€in€HamiltonÐ .¶$% ÐCounty,€and€his€job€was€to€travel€around€Hamilton€County€to€look€for€people€whoÐ 0¦&' Ðwere€driving€under€the€influence.€€Shortly€before€12:54€a.m.€on€December€17,Ð ö1–() Ð1994,€Officer€Starnes€observed€a€1975€GMC€pickup€truck€traveling€westboundÐ æ3†*+ Ðon€Brainerd€Road€in€Hamilton€County.€€He€gave€the€following€account€of€what€heÐ Ö5v,- Ðâ âobserved:Ð Æ7f./ ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€vehicle€was€driving€in€the€far€right„hand€lane€over€near€the€curbÐ `  Ðâ âline,€and€the€vehicle€was€driving€all€over€that€one€lane.ÐX ø` ü!` ü! Ðà8 ` àà ¸ àOn€one€or€two€occasions€I€observed€the€vehicle€almostÐ P ð Ðactually€strike€the€right€edge€or€curb€of€the€edge€of€the€roadway.€Ð H è ÐThis€seemed€very€peculiar€to€me€at€this€time,€and€this€vehicle€for€noÐ @ à Ðother€apparent€reason€„„€a€dog€hadnððt€run€out€in€front€of€the€car,€itÐ 8Ø Ðdidnððt€appear€any€other€reason,€the€brake€lights€didnððt€come€on,€anyÐ 0Ð Ðother€reason€why€the€vehicle€should€swerve€over€toward€the€rightÐ (È Ðside€of€the€curb,€so€I€ð!ð€to€check€the€driver€out€to€verify€if€everythingÐ  À Ðwas€okay,€I€activated€my€emergency€equipment,€which€included€blueÐ ¸  Ðlights€and€siren,€to€pull€the€person€over€to€make€sure€everything€wasÐ °  Ðokay.Ш ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓ ÓWhile€Officer€Starnes€testified€that€the€vehicle€was€swerving€to€the€right,€heÐ ø˜  Ðstated€that€the€vehicle€did€not€leave€its€lane€of€traffic.€€He€activated€his€lights,€andÐ èˆ Ðwhen€he€got€no€response€from€the€vehicle,€he€activated€his€siren.€€The€vehicleÐ Øx Ðpulled€over€to€the€right„hand€side€of€the€road€and€up€and€over€the€sidewalk.Ð Èh ÐÌà ` àAfter€this€testimony,€counsel€for€the€Defendant€moved€to€suppress€the€stopÐ ¨H Ðof€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€based€on€a€lack€of€reasonable€suspicion€to€make€theÐ ˜!8 Ðstop.€€During€a€jury„out€hearing,€Officer€Starnes€again€explained€why€he€stoppedÐ ˆ#( Ðthe€vehicle:Ð x% ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€vehicle,€I€observed€the€vehicle€traveling€westbound.€€TheÐ h' Ðvehicle€was€weaving€in€that€lane,€in€the€right„hand€lane,€and€theÐ `(  Ðvehicle€almost€struck€the€curb€on€the€right€edge€of€the€road€twice,Ð X)ø! Ðand€that€was€my€primary€reason€to€investigate,€stop€the€driver,€seeÐ P*ð " Ðif€there€was€possibly€a€problem€why€he€was€swerving€toward€theÐ H+è!# Ðcurb,€because€I€didnððt€see€him€apply€for€his€brakes€[sic]€or€anythingÐ @,à"$ Ðof€that€nature€or€any€dog€or€anything€run€out€in€front€of€him€to€causeÐ 8-Ø#% Ðhim€to€go€to€the€right.Ð0.Ð$&` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓB ÓThe€trial€court€expressed€reservations€about€the€stop,€but€reserved€ruling€on€theÐ  0À&( Ðissue€until€after€the€trial.Ð 2°(* ÐÌà ` àAgain€before€the€jury,€Officer€Starnes€testified€that€as€he€approached€theÐ ð5,. Ðvehicle,€the€Defendant€exited€the€vehicle,€and€Starnes€observed€that€theÐ à7€.0 ÐDefendant€was€ð ðvery€unsteady€on€his€feet.ðð€€Officer€Starnes€asked€for€theÐ Ð9p02 ÐDefendantððs€driverððs€license,€which€the€Defendant€produced,€though€he€ð ðfumbledÐ `  Ðexcessivelyðð€getting€the€license.€€Officer€Starnes€stated€that€he€noticed€a€veryÐ P ð Ðstrong€odor€of€an€alcoholic€beverage€coming€from€the€Defendantððs€person€as€wellÐ @ à Ðas€coming€from€the€vehicle.€€He€also€noticed€that€the€Defendantððs€eyes€appearedÐ 0Ð Ðto€be€ð ðbloodshot€and€glassy.ððÐ  À Ѐ€Ð °  Ðà ` àOfficer€Starnes€testified€that€he€asked€the€Defendant€to€perform€some€fieldÐ    Ðsobriety€tests€and€asked€the€Defendant€if€he€had€any€conditions€which€mightÐ ð  Ðimpair€his€ability€to€perform€the€tests.€€The€Defendant€replied€that€he€was€blindÐ à€ Ðin€his€right€eye.€€Officer€Starnes€then€had€the€Defendant€perform€the€ð ðone„legÐ Ðp Ðstandðð€and€the€ð ðwalk€and€turnðð€tests,€which€the€Defendant€failed.€€On€cross„Ð À` Ðexamination,€defense€counsel€directed€Officer€Starnesðð€attention€to€a€studentÐ °P Ðmanual€which€the€officer€used€to€teach€other€officers€how€to€detect€DUI€offenders.€Ð   @ ÐOfficer€Starnes€admitted€that€the€manual€states€that€for€the€field€sobriety€tests€toÐ "0 Ðbe€valid,€they€must€be€administered€in€the€prescribed,€standardized€manner€andÐ €$  Ðthat€if€any€one€of€the€standardized€field€sobriety€test€elements€is€changed,€theÐ p& Ðvalidity€is€compromised.€€He€also€acknowledged€that€according€to€the€manual,Ð `(  Ðð ð[p]ersons€who€cannot€see€out€of€one€eye€may€.€.€.€have€trouble€with€[the€walkÐ P*ð " Ðand€turn]€test€because€of€poor€depth€perception.ðð€Ð @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àOfficer€Starnes€arrested€the€Defendant€and€took€him€to€the€HamiltonÐ  0À&( ÐCounty€Jail.à ¸ à€Once€at€the€jail,€Officer€Starnes€requested€that€the€DefendantÐ 2°(* Ðsubmit€to€a€chemical€test€to€determine€the€alcohol€content€of€his€blood.€€TheÐ 4 *, ÐDefendant€refused€to€submit€to€the€test€and€signed€the€standard€implied€consentÐ ð5,. Ðform€in€use€at€the€time.Ð à7€.0 ÐÐ Ð9p02 Ðà ` àThe€Defendant€testified€that€his€right€eye€is€a€glass€eye,€which€he€has€asÐ `  Ða€result€of€an€accident€with€an€aerosol€can.€€He€said€that€his€eyes€naturallyÐ P ð Ðbecome€red€every€day,€and€he€had€his€glass€eye€painted€red€so€that€it€wouldÐ @ à Ðmatch€his€other€eye.€€He€takes€two€medications€for€seizures€three€times€a€day.€Ð 0Ð ÐHe€stated€that€he€is€not€supposed€to€drink€alcohol€with€his€medication,€but€on€theÐ  À Ðevening€in€question,€he€decided€to€have€a€drink€because€he€had€not€taken€hisÐ °  Ðevening€dose.€€He€had€a€scotch€and€water€with€his€dinner€at€a€restaurant€inÐ    ÐChattanooga.€€He€stated€that€after€dinner,€he€was€going€home€when€he€saw€aÐ ð  Ðfriend€of€his€pulling€into€the€parking€lot€of€a€bar.€€The€Defendant€followed€hisÐ à€ Ðfriend€and€went€into€the€bar€to€buy€his€friend€a€Christmas€drink.€€He€said€that€heÐ Ðp Ðordered€a€drink€for€himself,€but€drank€only€about€two€sips€of€it.€€Ð À` ÐÌà ` àAfter€leaving€the€bar,€the€Defendant€was€going€home.€€He€said€that€he€wasÐ   @ Ðdriving€in€the€right„hand€lane€of€Brainerd€Road€and€that€he€did€not€know€OfficerÐ "0 ÐStarnes€was€behind€him€until€he€heard€the€siren.€€He€testified€that€the€sirenÐ €$  Ðð ðscared€me€to€death,ðð€so€he€pulled€over€and€got€out€of€the€officerððs€way€so€thatÐ p& Ðthe€officer€could€go€around€him.€€He€stated€that€when€he€was€stopped,€he€had€notÐ `(  Ðdone€anything€wrong,€and€he€did€not€believe€his€driving€abilities€were€impairedÐ P*ð " Ðin€any€way.€€€Ð @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àThe€Defendant€further€testified€that€as€he€was€pulling€over€to€the€side€of€theÐ  0À&( Ðroad,€he€had€a€ð ðmini€seizureðð€triggered€by€being€startled,€which€lasted€only€a€rewÐ 2°(* Ðseconds.€€He€explained€that€such€a€seizure€ð ðmakes€you€floppy.ðð€€He€stated,€ð ðYourÐ 4 *, Ðarms€will€hurt€and€youððre€„€„€you€just€donððt€operate€right.ðð€€When€asked€to€take€theÐ ð5,. Ðbreathalyser€test,€the€Defendant€refused€because€he€had€been€told€that€ð ðthoseÐ à7€.0 Ðmachines€.€.€.€arenððt€accurate.ðð€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àThe€jury€returned€a€verdict€finding€the€Defendant€guilty€of€second€offenseÐ `  Ðdriving€under€the€influence.€€The€trial€court€then€sentenced€the€Defendant€toÐ P ð Ðeleven€months,€twenty„nine€days€incarceration,€with€all€but€forty„five€daysÐ @ à Ðsuspended,€as€well€as€fifty€days€of€community€service.€€After€the€trial,€theÐ 0Ð ÐDefendant€again€challenged€the€legality€of€the€stop€of€his€vehicle.€€The€trial€courtÐ  À Ðupheld€the€stop€stating,€ð ðIððm€going€to€rule€against€[the€Defendant]€for€one€reason:€Ð °  ÐOn€a€factual€basis,€that€articulable€suspicion€is€increased€when€he€failed€to€stopÐ    Ðin€a€half€a€mile,€so€that€strengthens€the€articulable€suspicion.ðð€€The€court€went€onÐ ð  Ðto€explain,€ððIððm€finding€there€was€an€articulable€suspicion€to€stop€him,€based€onÐ à€ Ðthe€fact€that€he€was€weaving€in€that€lane,€almost€hit€the€curb€a€couple€of€times.Ð Ðp Ð.€.€.€But€the€fact€it€took€him€a€half€a€mile€to€stop€I€think€is€the€clinching€point.ððÐ À` ÐÌà@gg#®àI.€€MOTION€TO€SUPPRESSˆÐ   @ Ðà ` àOn€appeal,€the€Defendant€once€again€challenges€the€initial€stop€of€hisÐ "0 Ðautomobile,€arguing€that€the€evidence€discovered€as€a€result€of€that€stop€shouldÐ €$  Ðhave€been€suppressed.€€Ô‡ Š\ˆˆŠ\ÔWhen€reviewing€the€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€toÐ p& Ðsuppress,Ð `(  ÐÓÓà8 ` à[q]uestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€theÐ P*ð " Ðevidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€mattersÐ H+è!# Ðentrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailingÐ @,à"$ Ðin€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÐ 8-Ø#% Ðevidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€allÐ 0.Ð$& Ðreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€thatÐ (/È%' Ðevidence.€€So€long€as€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supportsÐ  0À&( Ðthe€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findings€shall€be€upheld.€€In€otherÐ 1¸') Ðwords,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppression€hearing€will€beÐ 2°(* Ðupheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.Ð3¨)+` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓý<ÓòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€the€application€of€theÐ ø4˜+- Ðlaw€to€the€facts€as€found€by€the€trial€court€is€a€question€of€law€which€the€appellateÐ è6ˆ-/ Ðcourt€reviews€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)Ð Ø8x/1 Ð(citing€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€858€S.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.Ð `  Ð1993)).€€In€upholding€the€stop€of€the€Defendantððs€automobile,€the€trial€courtÐ P ð Ðaccredited€Officer€Starnesðð€testimony€that€the€Defendant€was€weaving€within€hisÐ @ à Ðown€lane€of€traffic€and€that€he€swerved€to€the€right€twice€and€almost€hit€the€curbÐ 0Ð Ðof€the€roadway.€€Thus,€we€must€determine€whether€these€facts€justified€the€stopÐ  À Ðof€the€Defendantððs€automobile.Ð °  ÐÌà ` àThe€stop€of€an€automobile€and€the€detention€of€its€occupants€constitutesÐ ð  Ða€seizure,€calling€into€play€the€protections€of€the€United€States€and€TennesseeÐ à€ ÐConstitutions,€even€if€the€purpose€of€the€stop€is€limited€and€the€detention€is€brief.€Ð Ðp ÐòòSeeóó€òòWren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806,€809„10€(1996);€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,Ð À` Ð440€U.S.€648,€663€(1979);€òòState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€734€(Tenn.€1997).€Ð °P ÐThus,€to€justify€the€seizure€of€an€automobile,€an€officer€must€at€least€haveÐ   @ Ðreasonable€suspicion,€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€the€occupantsÐ "0 Ðhave€been€involved€in€or€are€about€to€be€involved€in€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóóÐ €$  ÐòòOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€690,€693€(1996);€òòProuseóó,€440€U.S.€at€663;Ð p& ÐòòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€780€(Tenn.€1998);€òòVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€atÐ `(  Ð734.€€ð ðReasonable€suspicionðð€is€an€objective€standard,€to€be€determined€by€theÐ P*ð " Ðtotality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Cortezóó,€449€U.S.€411,€417„18Ð @,à"$ Ð(1981);€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€Relevant€factorsÐ 0.Ð$& Ðto€consider€include€the€officerððs€personal€observations,€information€obtained€fromÐ  0À&( Ðother€police€officers€or€agencies,€information€obtained€from€citizens,€and€theÐ 2°(* Ðpattern€of€operation€of€certain€offenders.€€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€783;€òòWatkinsóó,Ð 4 *, Ð827€S.W.2d€at€294;€òòCortezóó,€449€U.S.€at€418.€€A€court€must€also€consider€theÐ ð5,. Ðrational€inferences€and€deductions€that€a€trained€officer€may€draw€from€the€factsÐ à7€.0 Ðand€circumstances€known€to€him€or€her.€€òòId.óó€€€€Ô#†Š\ˆˆ Š\z<#ÔÐ Ð9p02 Їà ` àWhen€an€officer€turns€on€his€blue€lights,€he€has€initiated€a€stop€or€seizureÐ `  Ðof€an€automobile.€€òòState€v.€Pullyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore,€anÐ P ð Ðofficer€must€have€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€vehicle€before€turning€on€theÐ @ à Ðblue€lights.€€Consequently,€we€must€only€consider€the€Defendantððs€actions€priorÐ 0Ð Ðto€the€time€Officer€Starnes€turned€on€his€blue€lights,€even€though€the€trial€courtÐ  À Ðupheld€the€seizure€of€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€based€on€both€the€DefendantððsÐ °  Ðdriving€before€the€stop€and€the€Defendantððs€failure€to€respond€immediately€to€theÐ    Ðofficerððs€instigation€of€a€stop.Ð ð  ÐÌà ` àIn€this€case,€the€Defendant€was€weaving€within€his€own€lane€of€traffic,€andÐ Ðp Ðhe€swerved€to€the€right€twice,€almost€hitting€the€curb€of€the€roadway.€€In€the€wordsÐ À` Ðof€Officer€Starnes,€he€was€ð ðdriving€all€over€that€one€lane.ðð€€Such€phenomena€hasÐ °P Ðbeen€described€in€other€cases€we€have€considered.€€In€òòState€v.€Stuart€AllenÐ   @ ÐJenkinsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9712„CR„00590,€1998€WL€917806€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð "0 ÐNashville,€Dec.€21,€1998),€the€defendantððs€vehicle€was€seized€after€anÐ €$  Ðanonymous€informant€reported€the€vehicleððs€license€number€to€police€and€toldÐ p& Ðpolice€that€the€vehicle€contained€a€possible€drunk€driver.€€Then,€an€officerÐ `(  Ðmatched€the€license€number€to€the€vehicle€and€observed€the€vehicle€ð ðweavingÐ P*ð " Ðexcessively€in€the€roadway.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€*2.€€After€considering€the€credibility€andÐ @,à"$ Ðreliability€of€the€informant,€we€stated,€ð ð[f]inally,€the€weaving€observed€by€TrooperÐ 0.Ð$& ÐBass,€albeit€within€the€defendantððs€lane€of€traffic,€is€another€circumstance€thatÐ  0À&( Ðlends€credence€to€the€potential€for€a€drunk€driver€as€stated€by€the€informant.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ 2°(* Ðat€*4.€€In€òòState€v.€Donnie€Ray€Lodenóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9311„CR„00380,€1995Ð 4 *, ÐWL€23351€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€19,€1995),€we€upheld€the€trialÐ ð5,. Ðcourtððs€finding€of€reasonable€suspicion€when€the€defendantððs€vehicle€wasÐ à7€.0 Ðobserved€ð ðweaving€extremely€bad€[sic]ðð€and€ð ðsort€of€hugging€the€while€[sic]€lineÐ Ð9p02 Ðon€the€right€and€just€weaving€real€bad€[sic].ðð€òòId.óó€at€*1.€€The€vehicle€also€ð ðdartedÐ `  Ðoverðð€to€enter€the€westbound€ramp€leading€onto€the€interstate.€€òòId.€óó€Similarly,€inÐ P ð Ðthe€case€of€òòState€v.€Guy€Binetteóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9802„CR„00075,€1999€WLÐ @ à Ð427606€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€28,€1999),€we€upheld€the€trial€courtððsÐ 0Ð Ðfinding€of€reasonable€suspicion€when€the€officer€observed€the€defendantððs€vehicleÐ  À Ðswerve€and€weave€within€its€own€lane,€approach€the€dividing€lines€a€number€ofÐ °  Ðtimes,€and€touch€the€center€line€at€least€twice.€€€Ð    ÐÌà ` àAfter€reviewing€the€law€as€applied€in€these€cases,€we€believe€the€factsÐ à€ Ðarticulated€by€Officer€Starnes€are€sufficient€to€establish€reasonable€suspicion€thatÐ Ðp Ðthe€Defendant€was€driving€while€under€the€influence.€€Not€only€did€the€DefendantÐ À` Ðweave€within€his€lane,€but€he€swerved€twice,€almost€hitting€the€curb.€€TheÐ °P Ðcomment€by€Officer€Starnes€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðdriving€all€over€that€oneÐ   @ Ðlaneðð€indicates€that€the€Defendant€was€weaving€excessively.€€We€conclude€€thatÐ "0 Ðthis€is€evidence€of€erratic€driving€justifying€the€investigatory€stop€of€theÐ €$  ÐDefendantððs€vehicle.€€Ð p& ÐÌà ` àWhile€we€uphold€the€stop€of€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€based€on€reasonableÐ P*ð " Ðsuspicion€of€criminal€activity,€we€recognize€the€Defendantððs€concern€that€ð ða€ððnoÐ @,à"$ Ðweavingðð€rule€could€never€have€realistic€boundaries€[in]€determining€whether€aÐ 0.Ð$& Ðstop€would€be€permissibleðð€and€caution€that€we€sanction€no€such€rule.€€We€realizeÐ  0À&( Ðthat€no€driver€drives€perfectly€at€all€times€and€that€some€movement€inside€aÐ 2°(* Ðdriverððs€own€lane€of€travel€is€only€natural€and€does€not€automatically€constituteÐ 4 *, Ðreasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activity.€€There€must€be€specific€and€articulateÐ ð5,. Ðevidence€of€actions€by€a€driver€which€would€qualify€as€erratic€driving,€as€opposedÐ à7€.0 Ðto€mere€inattention€to€detail€and€imperfection,€before€an€investigatory€stop€isÐ Ð9p02 Ðjustified€based€only€on€the€manner€of€driving€of€a€vehicle€when€no€traffic€lawsÐ `  Ðhave€been€violated.Ð P ð ÐÌà@XX®àII.€€SUFFICIENCY€OF€THE€EVIDENCEˆÐ 0Ð Ðà ` àNext,€the€Defendant€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€Ð  À ÐÔ‡ Š\ˆˆŠ\ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€13(e)€prescribes€that€ð ð[f]indings€of€guiltÐ °  Ðin€criminal€actions€whether€by€the€trial€court€or€jury€shall€be€set€aside€if€theÐ    Ðevidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€findings€by€the€trier€of€fact€of€guilt€beyondÐ ð  Ða€reasonable€doubt.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e).€€Evidence€is€sufficient€if,€afterÐ à€ Ðreviewing€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€any€rationalÐ Ðp Ðtrier€of€fact€could€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€crime€beyond€aÐ À` Ðreasonable€doubt.€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307€(1979).€€In€addition,Ð °P Ðbecause€conviction€by€a€trier€of€fact€destroys€the€presumption€of€innocence€andÐ   @ Ðimposes€a€presumption€of€guilt,€a€convicted€criminal€defendant€bears€the€burdenÐ "0 Ðof€showing€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient.€€òòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€372€S.W.2d€173,Ð €$  Ð176€(Tenn.€1963);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Evansóó,€838€S.W.2d€185,€191€(Tenn.€1992)Ð p& Ð(citing€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474,€476€(Tenn.€1976),€and€òòState€v.€Brownóó,Ð `(  Ð551€S.W.2d€329,€331€(Tenn.€1977));€òòState€v.€Tuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€913,€914Ð P*ð " Ð(Tenn.€1982);€òòHolt€v.€Stateóó,€357€S.W.2d€57,€61€(Tenn.€1962).Ð @,à"$ ÐÌà ` àIn€its€review€of€the€evidence,€an€appellate€court€must€afford€the€State€ð ðtheÐ  0À&( Ðstrongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€as€well€as€all€reasonable€and€legitimateÐ 2°(* Ðinferences€that€may€be€drawn€therefrom.ðð€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914€(citingÐ 4 *, ÐòòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978)).€€The€court€may€not€ð ðre„Ð ð5,. Ðweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidenceðð€in€the€record€below.€€òòEvansóó,€838€S.W.2d€atÐ à7€.0 Ð191€(citing€òòCabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€at€836).€€Likewise,€should€the€reviewing€courtÐ Ð9p02 Ðfind€particular€conflicts€in€the€trial€testimony,€the€court€must€resolve€them€in€favorÐ `  Ðof€the€jury€verdict€or€trial€court€judgment.€€òòTuggleóó,€639€S.W.2d€at€914.Ô#†Š\ˆˆ Š\j`#ԀРP ð ÐÌà ` àTaking€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€State,€the€evidenceÐ 0Ð Ðshows€that€the€Defendant€was€ð ðdriving€all€overðð€his€lane€of€traffic,€that€he€swervedÐ  À Ðtwice€and€almost€hit€the€curb,€that€he€did€not€immediately€stop€his€vehicle€whenÐ °  ÐOfficer€Starnes€activated€his€lights,€that€when€he€did€stop,€he€pulled€his€vehicleÐ    Ðup€and€over€the€sidewalk,€that€he€had€a€strong€odor€of€alcohol€about€his€personÐ ð  Ðand€his€vehicle,€that€his€ð ðeyeðð€appeared€bloodshot€and€glassy,€that€he€fumbledÐ à€ Ðð ðexcessivelyðð€for€his€driverððs€license,€that€he€admitted€drinking,€that€he€failed€twoÐ Ðp Ðsobriety€tests,€and€that€he€refused€to€take€a€breathalyser€test.€€All€of€thisÐ À` Ðevidence,€taken€together,€is€sufficient€for€a€rational€juror€to€find€the€DefendantððsÐ °P Ðguilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.Ð   @ ÐÌà ` àThe€Defendant€makes€a€strong€argument€in€which€he€attacks€and€attemptsÐ €$  Ðto€undermine€the€sufficiency€of€all€of€this€evidence€by€emphasizing€both€OfficerÐ p& ÐStarnesðð€testimony€and€the€Defendantððs€testimony,€but€the€Defendantððs€attackÐ `(  Ðgoes€to€the€credibility€and€weight€of€the€evidence,€which€are€matters€for€theÐ P*ð " Ðdetermination€of€the€jury.€€Because€we€cannot€re„weigh€the€evidence€or€re„Ð @,à"$ Ðevaluate€the€witnessesðð€credibility€and€because€we€are€required€to€resolveÐ 0.Ð$& Ðconflicts€in€testimony€in€favor€of€the€jury€verdict,€we€must€accept€the€StateððsÐ  0À&( Ðevidence.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€supports€the€verdict€renderedÐ 2°(* Ðby€the€jury€and€uphold€that€verdict.Ð 4 *, ÐÌÐ  à7€.0 Ðà@BB"®àIII.€€ATTACK€ON€PRIOR€DUIˆÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€allowing€him€to€assertÐ P ð Ðthe€invalidity€of€his€facially€valid€prior€1988€DUI€conviction€in€this€proceeding.€€HeÐ @ à Ðasserts€that€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€which€prohibitsÐ 0Ð Ðcollateral€attacks€on€facially€valid€judgments€in€subsequent€proceedings€in€whichÐ  À Ðthe€challenged€convictions€are€used€to€enhance€punishment,€is€no€longer€validÐ °  Ðlaw€after€the€1986€and€1995€amendments€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,Ð    Ðwhich€placed€a€statute€of€limitations€on€the€filing€of€a€post„conviction€petition.€€WeÐ ð  Ðpreviously€considered€and€rejected€this€precise€argument€in€the€case€of€òòState€v.Ð à€ ÐPhillip€Todd€Swordsóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9807„CR„00239,€1999€WL€222702,€*6„7Ð Ðp Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Apr.€14,€1999),€in€which€we€stated,Ð À` ÐÓÓà8 ` àà ¸ àAccording€to€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€McClintockóó€732Ð °P ÐS.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€ð ðThe€rule€has€been€firmly€established€inÐ ¨H ÐTennessee€that€a€facially€valid,€unreversed€judgment€in€a€court€withÐ   @ Ðjurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€and€the€person€cannot€beÐ ˜!8 Ðcollaterally€attacked€in€a€subsequent€proceeding€except€by€theÐ "0 Ðauthorized€routes€of€attack.ðð€€We€decline€to€hold€the€rule€announcedÐ ˆ#( Ðin€òòMcClintockóó€unconstitutional€following€institution€of€a€statute€ofÐ €$  Ðlimitations€for€post„conviction€petitions,€as€Defendant€requests€thatÐ x% Ðthis€Court€hold.Ðp&` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓuÓòòId.óó€at€*6€(quoting€òòMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€272).€€Accordingly,€this€issue€has€noÐ `(  Ðmerit.€Ð P*ð " ÐÌà@  ®àIV.€€VALIDITY€OF€IMPLIED€CONSENT€FORMˆÐ 0.Ð$& Ðà ` àIn€his€final€issue,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€notÐ  0À&( Ðsuppressing€evidence€that€he€refused€to€submit€to€a€chemical€test€to€determineÐ 2°(* Ðthe€alcohol€content€of€his€blood.€€He€asserts€that€the€evidence€should€have€beenÐ 4 *, Ðsuppressed€because€the€implied€consent€form€that€was€used€to€obtain€his€refusalÐ ð5,. Ðwas€vague€and€failed€to€inform€him€of€the€significant€consequences€of€refusingÐ à7€.0 Ðor€submitting€to€such€a€test.Ð Ð9p02 Їà ` àIn€the€case€of€òòState€v.€Whaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€346,€349€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð `  Ð1997),€we€considered€the€issue€of€whether€the€implied€consent€form€was€vagueÐ P ð Ðor€misleading€as€applied€to€a€person€who€submitted€to€the€test.€€In€that€case,€theÐ @ à Ðdefendant€submitted€to€the€breathalyser€test€and€then€subsequently€argued€thatÐ 0Ð Ðthe€results€should€have€been€suppressed€because€the€implied€consent€form€wasÐ  À Ðunconstitutionally€vague€and€misleading€in€that€it€failed€to€inform€her€of€theÐ °  Ðconsequences€of€submitting€to€the€test.€€We€noted€that€the€form€clearly€indicatedÐ    Ðthat€the€purpose€of€the€test€is€to€determine€the€drug€and€alcohol€content€of€theÐ ð  Ðaccusedððs€blood€and€that€the€average€person€would€understand€that€the€resultsÐ à€ Ðwill€be€used€against€him.€€If€the€test€could€not€be€used€to€prosecute€the€personÐ Ðp Ðfor€the€crime€charged,€then€there€would€be€no€purpose€for€administering€the€test.€Ð À` ÐòòId.óó€€In€addition,€we€recognized€the€prior€holding€by€this€Court€that€ð ðadmonitionsÐ °P Ðprior€to€submitting€to€a€blood€alcohol€test€are€not€required€to€sustain€a€validÐ   @ Ðconsent.ðð€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€598€S.W.2d€834,€835€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð "0 Ð1980)).€€Therefore,€we€found€the€form€to€be€neither€vague€nor€misleading.€€òòId.óó€€Ð €$  ÐÌà ` àSimilarly,€we€do€not€find€the€form€to€be€vague€or€misleading€as€applied€toÐ `(  Ða€person€who€refuses€to€submit€to€the€test.€€As€required€by€Tennessee€CodeÐ P*ð " ÐAnnotated€ðð€55„10„406(a),€the€consent€form€signed€by€the€Defendant€informedÐ @,à"$ Ðhim€that€he€could€refuse€the€test,€but€that€if€he€refused,€his€driverððs€license€wouldÐ 0.Ð$& Ðbe€suspended.€€Though€the€form€did€not€tell€him€that€his€refusal€could€be€usedÐ  0À&( Ðagainst€him€as€an€inference€of€guilt,€we€believe€that€an€average€person€wouldÐ 2°(* Ðunderstand€that€that€could€be€a€possible€result€of€refusal.€€Nothing€on€the€formÐ 4 *, Ðcould€have€caused€him€to€believe€that€his€refusal€would€òònotóó€have€been€usedÐ ð5,. Ðagainst€him.€€In€addition,€ð ðnothing€in€the€statute€requires€that€a€driver€be€givenÐ à7€.0 ÐMiranda„like€admonitionsðð€prior€to€requesting€consent€to€perform€such€a€test.€Ð Ð9p02 ÐòòSeeóó€òòKingóó,€598€S.W.2d€at€835.€€We€therefore€decline€to€hold€that€the€impliedÐ `  Ðconsent€form€is€constitutionally€defective€and€instead€hold€that€the€DefendantððsÐ P ð Ðrefusal€to€submit€to€the€test€was€properly€admitted€into€evidence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.Ð @ à ÐFrasieróó,€914€S.W.2d€467€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€681€S.W.2d€569,€570Ð 0Ð Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Ð  À ÐÌà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð    ÐÌÌÓ  Óà ` àÌÌÌÓÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ð   @ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÐ ˜!8 ÐÌÌÌCONCUR:Ð x% ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð X)ø! ÐGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ P*ð " ÐÌÌÌ___________________________________Ð 0.Ð$& ÐDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGEÐ (/È%' Ð