WPCjI !Q|7:8n:C\q@);~k!RYXN*%JT#`yop.7ᛏXi Rr~#yVO>UK ˠY|36p0DS0:-6=.Xwj܃zO'ͭE |[nr8p`/|*eי'G`T b@ߛt`{a լ lNoq e60Ps{S׻qڰZfg$=WwcgbCS0K|nU[71`+kHl y x](r}2DetbTf Ws%}y|1Jbsur*vw[#pz~bubŐVqT\mԛ$~b;׏I1>n# % ^ 0 UNg w 4 z G  ( m* A JN 1 72E 1u 72J 0c| 1 72f 0w 0 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0]! 07" 0# 0C# 0%$ 0$ 0% 0& 0o' 0:(b) 0 ) 0) 0@* 0* 0+ 0t, 0B- 0 . 0. 0/ 0\0 001 0<I1 01 0>C2 0v2 0`2 0`W3 0`3 0`4 0`w4 084 05 025 06 0:7 0YI7 0_7 0 8 0j 9 0u: B*; D/#< 0R< D/= 0> 0> 06? 0? B@ 0:A 0SA D3A D-*B 0KWB 0^B ASCSC 0D 0DD AE 0<E 1eEU6MFU>FU*F 0DF 1/G 72GG 0NGG46H\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0%/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularb.+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -*5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7O(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dN)1dxd<:zTop of For7Q(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7N)2dxd(|G2$ !.8Imdd8         0  u0KS.SampleKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS d42Variable(|3$ !.8Imdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  : 8HTML MarkupB      ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Imdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK2 0CommentB  '()*+,-/ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(#$  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.hA.(O$ * R$      2  u  _ԀInMoon,theCourtappliedthisstandardtoamagistratewhomustdeterminewhethersufficientprobablecause  existstoissueasearchwarrant. !.8Imdd8     _Im   8XXdd8@tt\ImINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#Im\ #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember23,2003Session L  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.KENNETHE.COFFEY   p XXIm@@ DirectAppealfromtheJohnsonCountyCriminalCourt  p @@No.3918LynnW.Brown,Judge  \ @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200202794CCAR3CD   December10,_2003_   AV) ` dE<` A      #ImXXz#XXImTheJohnsonCountyGrandJuryindictedtheDefendant,KennethE.Coffey,forpossessionwith   intenttosellanddeliver241.1gramsofmarijuana,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated  section3917417(Supp.2000).FollowingthetrialcourtsdenialoftheDefendantsmotionto v suppressevidence,theDefendantpledguiltytoPossessionofMarijuanaforPurposeofSale.The b trialcourtsentencedtheDefendanttooneyearinprisonandimposeda$2,000.00fine.The N Defendantreservedtherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflawregardingthetrialcourtsdenial : ofhismotiontosuppress.Findingnoerror,weaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgment. &v  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed  N   RobertW._Wedemeyer_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Wellesand & James_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  Steve_McEwen_,MountainCity,Tennessee,fortheappellant,KennethE.Coffey.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ReneeW. r  Turner,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;H.GreeleyWells,Jr.,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andWilliam ^!  Harper,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. J"! @@OO& OPINION "$r# I.Facts  %^ $     TheDefendantfiledamotiontosuppress241.1gramsofmarijuanaobtainedfromthe &6"& DefendantwhenhewasarrestedandsearchedincidenttohisarrestonMay22,2001.TheDefendant '"#' assertedthattherewasnoprobablecausetoperforma_warrantless_Ԁarrestofhimandtoconducta ($( _warrantless_Ԁsearchandseizureofevidencefromhispickuptruck.Atthesuppressionhearing,the )$) trialcourtfoundprobablecausefora_warrantless_ԀarrestoftheDefendantandfora_warrantless_Ԁsearch *%* andseizureofevidencefromhispickuptruckincidenttothearrest.Accordingly,thetrialcourt +&+ deniedtheDefendantsmotiontosuppress.TheDefendantsubsequentlyenteredaguiltypleato n,', possessionofmarijuanaforthepurposeofsaleinviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection Z-(- _3917417.ThetrialcourtsentencedtheDefendanttooneyearinprisonandimposeda$2,000.00  fine.TheDefendantreservedtherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflaw:whetherthetrialcourt  erredinfindingthatofficershadprobablecausetoeffectuateawarrantlessarrestoftheDefendant  andtoconductawarrantlesssearchandseizureofevidencefromtheDefendant#ImXX#XXIm? t   ThefollowingevidencewaspresentedatthesuppressionhearingheldonJune17,2002. L  AgentFreddieGeneAinsworth,oftheJohnsonCountySheriffsDepartment,testifiedthathewas 8  involvedinalongterminvestigationofLindaGailHawksregardingthesaleofillegaldrugs.Agent $ t Ainsworthexplainedthat,asaresultofthisinvestigation,helearnedthattheDefendantwas  ` deliveringasubstantialamountofmarijuanatoHawksinMountainCity,Tennessee,onMay22,  L  2001.  8    AgentAinsworthtestifiedthataconfidentialinformant,whohehadknownformanyyears,   toldhimthatHawkshadcalledtheinformantandtoldherthatHawkswasgoingtomeetsomeone   attheTennessee/NorthCarolinastatelineatPoplarRidgeStationtopurchasemarijuana.Agent   AinsworthstatedthattheinformanttoldhimthatHawkswascurrentlyattheMidwaybarlocated   inTrade,Tennessee.Accordingly,AgentAinsworthandthreeotherlawenforcementofficials p headedtowardstheMidwaybar.AgentAinsworthstatedthatastheyapproachedtheMidwaybar, \ theysawHawksinherredToyotapickuptruckleavingthebar.Theagenttestifiedthatthey H followedHawkstowardsPoplarRidgeStationand,inanefforttosurveythearea,parkedthepolice 4 carbehindafireworksstandatthestateline.  p   AgentAinsworthreportedthat,soonthereafter,theDefendantsblackpickuptruckwentpast H themheadedinthedirectionofPoplarRidgeStation.Hestatedthatherecognizedthevehiclefrom 4 havingpreviouslyseenitparkedatHawkssresidence;however,hewasunabletoidentifythedriver   astheDefendantatthetimetheblackpickuptruckpassedthem.AgentAinsworthexplainedthat   heandtheotherofficersgavethem afewminutesandthenapproachedthepickuptrucks,which  wereparkednexttoeachotheratPoplarRidgeStation.Theagentstatedthatthereweretwo  individualsintheDefendantspickuptruck,oneofwhichAgentAinsworthidentifiedasHawks.  AgentAinsworthtestifiedthatheactivatedthebluelightsofhispolicevehicle,thatheidentified l himselfasbeingwiththesheriffsdepartment,andthathetoldtheDefendantandHawksto freeze. X    AgentAinsworthstatedthat,uponhearinghimsay freeze,theDefendantbegan fumbling 0"  aroundinthemiddleofthetruck.Hereportedthat,onapreviousoccasion,whenheunsuccessfully #l! attemptedtopurchaseapoundofmarijuanafromtheDefendant,hewaswarnedbyCharlieDanner, $X" asupervisorinNarcoticsEnforcementfortheSheriffsOfficeofWatugaCounty,thattheDefendant $D # waslikelycarryingagun.OfficerDannertestifiedandconfirmedthathewarnedAgentAinsworth %0!$ tobecarefulwhendealingwiththeDefendantbecausetheDefendanthadareputationforcarrying &"% afirearm whenhecarrieddrugs.AgentAinsworthexplainedthattheDefendantwasremoved '#& fromthevehicle,handcuffed,friskedasasafetyprecaution,andplacedinthebackofapatrolcar. (#' AgentAinsworthstatedthathethensearchedtheDefendantsvehicle.Hetestifiedthathesawa )$( jacketinthemiddleoftheseat.Theagentfurthertestifiedthatwhenhepickedupthejackethesaw |*%) agrocerybagcontainingwhathebelievedtobemarijuana.Heexplainedthatheplacedthejacket h+&* backontheseatinthepositionhefoundit,tookaphotograph,andthenproceededtodoamore  thoroughsearchofthevehicleandgrocerybag.Hestatedthattestsconfirmedthatthegrocerybag  contained241.1gramsofmarijuana.AgentAinsworthreportedthatthesearchoftheDefendant  yieldedasmallbagofmarijuana,amethadonepill,and$1,095.00incash,andthatthesearchof t Hawksyielded$272.25incash. `   Oncrossexamination,thedefensequestionedthetruthfulnessoftheconfidentialinformant, 8  andAgentAinsworthconcededthatpriortotheDefendantsarrest,noarrestshadbeenmadeasa $ t resultofinformationprovidedbytheinformant.AgentAinsworthwasaskedhowtheinformant  ` learnedofthedrugbuy,andherecountedthattheinformanttoldhimthatshehadspokenwith  L  HawksonthetelephonewhileHawkswasattheMidwaybar.AgentAinsworthtestifiedthatthe  8  informanttoldhimthatHawkswasattheMidwaybar,andthatshewas goingtomeet...asubject $  atthestatelineatPoplarRidgeStationwhere[Hawks]wasgoingtopurchaseapproximatelya   quarterpoundofpot....AgentAinsworthacknowledgedthat,becausehepulledupbehindthe   Defendantsvehicle,hecouldnotseewhattheDefendantwasdoingwhenhewas fumblingaround   inthemiddleofthetruckandthattheDefendantcouldhavebeentryingtoremovehisseatbelt.   AgentAinsworthalsostatedthathecouldnotseeanytransactionsthathadtakenplaceinthe p vehicle.Further,hetestifiedthathefoundnoweaponsintheDefendantsvehicleoronhisperson. \   Whenaskedbythetrialcourt,AgentAinsworthreportedthattheinformanthadalways 4 providedhimwithaccurateinformationandwasresponsibleforsettingupa coupleofbuysfor  p officersthatsheintroducedtodealers.Healsostatedthatshemadebetweenfiveandeight  \ marijuanabuysfortheDrugTaskForce.Whenaskediftheinformantevergavehimincorrect H information,AgentAinsworthsaid noandstatedthat,everytimetheinformanthadgivenhim 4 information,itturnedouttobetrue.      @@$II.Analysis   h(83"3"  3-2  A  .3  0 @   ݀CertifiedQuestionofLaw 3-?-݌  Ќ  Q,  Becausethisappealcomesbeforeusasacertifiedquestionoflaw,pursuanttoRule37(b) l oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure,wemustfirstdeterminewhetherthequestion X  presentedisdispositive.TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure37(b)provides,inpertinentpart, D! that: 0"  8  Anappealliesfromanyorderorjudgmentinacriminalproceedingwherethelaw $X" providesforsuchappeal,andfromanyjudgmentofconviction...uponapleaof $D # guilty[if]...[the]DefendantenteredintoapleaagreementunderRule11(e)but %0!$ explicitlyreservedwiththeconsentofthestateandofthecourttherighttoappeal &"% acertifiedquestionoflawthatisdispositiveofthecaseandthefollowing '#& requirementsaremet:(#'     )$( 8  (A)Thejudgmentofconviction,orotherdocumenttowhichsuchjudgmentrefers  thatisfiledbeforethenoticeofappeal,mustcontainastatementofthecertified  questionoflawreservedbythedefendantforappellatereview;    8  (B)Thequestionoflawmustbestatedinthejudgmentordocumentsoastoidentify ` clearlythescopeandlimitsofthelegalissuereserved;L    8  (C)Thejudgmentordocumentmustreflectthatthecertifiedquestionwasexpressly $ t reservedwiththeconsentofthestateandthetrialjudge;and `   8  (D)Thejudgmentordocumentmustreflectthatthedefendant,thestate,andthetrial  8  judgeareoftheopinionthatthecertifiedquestionisdispositiveofthecase....$    Tenn.R.Crim.P.37(b);seeStatev.Preston,759S.W.2d647,650(Tenn.1988).Therecord   evincesthatallofthemandatoryrequirementsareclearlymet,andtheonlyissueiswhetherthe   certifiedquestionoflawisdispositiveofthecase.Wehavestatedthatadispositiveissueisone   wheretheappellatecourt musteitheraffirmthejudgmentorreverseanddismiss.Aquestionis p neverdispositivewhen[theappellatecourt]mightreverseandremandfortrial....Statev. \ Wilkes,684S.W.2d663,667(Tenn.Crim.App.1984). H   Thecertifiedquestionoflawinthiscaseiswhetherthetrialcourterredinfindingthat  p officershadprobablecausetoeffectuateawarrantlessarrestoftheDefendantandtoconducta  \ warrantlesssearchandseizureofevidencefromtheDefendant.BecausetheStatesentirecaseis H baseduponthewarrantlessarrest,ifwefindthatthearrestwasunconstitutional,thentheresulting 4 searchoftheDefendantsvehiclewouldviolatetheFourthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates   ConstitutionandArticle1,section7,oftheTennesseeConstitution,andthedrugsfoundinthe   Defendantspossessionwouldbefruitofthepoisonoustree.Therefore,shouldweholdthatthe  arrestwasunconstitutional,theStatecannotprovideanyevidenceastotheguiltoftheDefendant;  accordingly,wefindthatthecertifiedissueisdispositive.  @ B.MotiontoSuppress  X    TheDefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdeniedthemotiontosuppress, 0"  findingthatofficershadprobablecausetoeffectuateawarrantlessarrestoftheDefendantandto #l! conductawarrantlesssearchandseizureofevidencefromtheDefendant.Thestandardofreview $X" foratrialcourtsfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawinasuppressionhearingwasestablished $D # inStatev.Odom,928S.W.2d18(Tenn.1996).Thisstandardmandatesthat atrialcourtsfindings %0!$ offactinasuppressionhearingwillbeupheldunlesstheevidencepreponderatesotherwise.Id.at &"% 23;seeStatev.Randolph,74S.W.3d330,333(Tenn.2002).Theprevailingpartyinthetrialcourt '#& is entitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthesuppressionhearingas (#' wellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthatevidence.Odom,928 )$( S.W.2dat23.Furthermore, [q]uestionsofcredibilityofthewitnesses,theweightandvalueofthe |*%) evidence,andresolutionofconflictsintheevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrialjudgeasthe h+&* trieroffact.Id.However,thisCourtreviewsthetrialcourtsapplicationofthelawtothefactsde  novo,withoutanydeferencetothedeterminationsofthetrialcourt.Statev.Walton,41S.W.3d75,  81(Tenn.2001).Thedefendantbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthattheevidencepreponderates  againstthetrialcourtsfindings.Odom,928S.W.2dat2223;Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626, t 629(Tenn.1997).  `    Inordertoeffectuateawarrantlessarrest,thearrestingofficermusthave probablecause. 8   Probablecauseis afairprobabilitythatcontrabandorevidenceofacrimewillbefound.... $ t UnitedStatesv.Sokolow,490U.S.1,7(1989)(citingIllinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213,238(1983)).  ` TheStateassertsthatAgentAinsworthhadprobablecausebasedupontheinformationhewas  L  providedbytheconfidentialinformant.TheDefendantassertsthattheinformantwasnotcredible  8  andhadnobasisforherknowledgeand,therefore,assertstheevidenceshouldbesuppressed. $    Whenastopisbasedontheinformationfromacriminalconfidentialinformant,thefactors   setforthinStatev.Jacumin,778S.W.2d430,436(Tenn.1989),areusefulinevaluatingthe   sufficiencyoftheinformation.  g#  1      ׀InJacumin,theTennesseeSupremeCourtadoptedthetest   articulatedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinAguilarv.Texas,378U.S.108(1964),and p Spinelliv.UnitedStates,393U.S.410(1969),commonlyreferredtoasthe AguilarSpinellitest, \ todeterminewhethertherewasprobablecause,baseduponinformationprovidedbyacriminal H confidentialinformant.Jacumin,778S.W.2dat436.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtfoundthatthe 4 AguilarSpinellitestwas inkeepingwiththespecificrequirementofArticleI,Section7ofthe  p TennesseeConstitutionthatasearchwarrantnotissuewithoutevidenceofthefactcommitted.  \ Jacumin,778S.W.2dat436.TheAguilarSpinellitestconsistsoftwoprongs,thefirstiscommonly H referredtoasthe veracityprong,andthesecondiscommonlyreferredtoasthe basisof 4 knowledgeprong.ThisCourthasfoundthat anydeficiencyintheinformantsinformationunder   [theAguilarSpinelli]twoprongtestmaybeovercomebyindependentpolicecorroboration.State   v.Marshall,870S.W.2d532,539(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).      The veracityprong requiresashowingthattheinformantiscredibleortheinformation  isreliable.Statev.Luke,995S.W.2d630,636(Tenn.Crim.App.1998)(emphasisadded).   Ordinarily,thegeneralcredibilityofaninformanthasbeenshownbyhishavingpreviouslygiven  relevantinformationtolawenforcementwhichhasprovenreliable.Obviously,aninformantstrack t recordofprovidingverifiedinformationwouldberelevantininferringthattheinformantisa ` credibleperson.Statev.Moon,841S.W.2d336,339(Tenn.Crim.App.1992).AgentAinsworth L  explainedtothetrialcourtthatheknewtheinformantformanyyearsandthat,inthattime,shenever 8  providedwronginformationtohim.Furthermore,hesaidthatshesetuptwodrugpurchasesfor $ t officersandthatshemadebetweenfiveandeightdrugpurchasesfortheDrugTaskForce.Thetrial  ` courtfoundthat,baseduponAgentAinsworthstestimony,theinformantwascredible,anditwas  L  reasonableforAgentAinsworthtobelievethattheinformationprovidedbytheinformantwas  8  reliable.Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings;therefore,thisprong $  ofthetestissatisfied.     Tosatisfythe basisofknowledgeprongoftheAguilarSpinellitest, factsmustbe   revealedwhichpermitthemagistratetodeterminewhethertheinformanthasabasisforhis[orher]   informationthatacertainpersonhadbeen,wasorwouldbeinvolvedincriminalconduct....m g#  2      ׀ p Moon,841S.W.2dat338.TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedureRule4(b)statesthat: [t]he \ findingofprobablecauseshallbebaseduponevidence,whichmaybehearsayinwholeorinpart H providedthereisasubstantialbasisforbelievingthesourceofthehearsaytobecredibleandfor 4 believingthatthereisafactualbasisfortheinformationfurnished.Tenn.R.Crim.P.4(b).InState  p v.Raspberry,thisCourtstatedthat [w]hile[Rule4(b)]appliesitselfparticularlytowarrantsfor  \ arrest,thesameprinciplemustbeconsideredtoestablishprobablecausewhereanarresthasbeen H madewithoutawarrant.Statev.Raspberry,640S.W.2d227,228(Tenn.Crim.App.1982). 4 Accordingly,inthecaseundersubmission,factsmustberevealedatthesuppressionhearingthat   permittedAgentAinsworthtodeterminewhethertheinformanthadabasisofknowledgeforher   informationthatHawkshadbeen,wasorwouldbeinvolvedincriminalconductorAgentAinsworth  mustcureanydeficiencythroughindependentpolicecorroborationoftheinformantsstatements.    AgentAinsworthtestifiedthattheconfidentialinformantprovidedhimwithinformationtold l toherbyHawks.Hestatedthattheconfidentialinformanttoldhimthattheinformanthadreceived X  acallfromHawkswhileHawkswasattheMidwaybar.AgentAinsworthexplainedthat,according D! totheinformant,Hawkstoldherthatshe,Hawks,wasleavingthebartomeetsomeoneatthePoplar 0"  RidgeStationtopurchaseaquarterpoundofmarijuana.ThetrialcourtfoundthatHawkss #l! statementtotheconfidentialinformantwasreliable,andthatAgentAinsworthreceivedinformation $X" froma reliableinformantbaseduponknowledge!thebasisofknowledgeispersonal...tothe $D # informant....Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings. %0!$   Evenitweweretoconcludethattheconfidentialinformantsbasisofknowledgewas '#& deficient,wefindthatthereissufficientindependentpolicecorroborationtocureanydeficiency. (#' Thecriticalissueregardingcorroboratinginformationisnotwhethertheactivitiesobservedbythe  officerswereinnocentorsuspicious,butwhetherthe corroborationoftheinformersstory[gives]  risetoaninferencethattheinformant[is]credibleandthathehadobtainedtheinformationina  reliablemanner.Id.at434.Althoughcourtshavestruggledwiththequestionofhowmuch t independentpolicecorroborationisnecessary,corroborationofmorethan afewminorelements ` ofthestoryarerequired, especiallyifthoseelementsinvolvenonsuspectbehavior.UnitedStates L  v.Bush,647F.2d357,363(3rdCir.1981).However, thepoliceneednotcorroborateeverydetail 8  ofaninformantsreporttoestablishsufficientevidenceofhisveracity.Id.ThisCourtspeculated $ t thatifpolicerespondto aninformantsinformationwhichisdeficientunderboththebasisof  ` knowledgeandveracityprongsoftheJacuminprobablecausetest,courtsmayrequiregreater  L  corroborationthaniftheinformationisonlydeficientunderoneoftheprongs.Marshall,870  8  S.W.2dat539. $    AgentAinsworthstatedthattheconfidentialinformantsinformationwascorroboratedby   himselfandseveralotherofficers.Hetestifiedthathereceivedinformationfromareliable   confidentialinformantthat HawkswasatMidwayinTradeandshewasgoingtomeet...asubject   atthestatelineatPoplarRidgeStationwhereshewasgoingtopurchaseaquarterpoundofpot.. p ..Heexplainedthatbasedontheinformantsinformation,heandseveralotherpoliceofficers \ drovetowardstheMidwaybarandastheyapproachedthebar,hesawHawkssToyotapickuptruck H leavingthebar.AgentAinsworthstatedthattheyfollowedHawksfromtheMidwaybartoPoplar 4 RidgeStation,whichwaswheretheinformanttoldAgentAinsworthHawkswaspurchasingthe  p marijuana.Theagentthentestifiedthat [n]osoonerthan[they]...parked,herecomeablack  \ Nissanpickupwhich[he]recognizedas[previously]beingat[Hawkss]residence....Agent H AinsworthexplainedthatthepickuptruckwentpastthemandtraveledtoPoplarRidgeStation, 4 whereHawkswaslocated.Hestatedthatafterwaitingafewminutes,hedroveupbehindthe   vehiclestoinvestigate.AnydoubtsthatAgentAinsworthhadconcerningtheconfidential   informantsreliabilitywereerasedatthistime.Hawkshaddoneexactlywhattheconfidential  informanthadtoldhimshewould.    Moreover,AgentAinsworthtestifiedthat,atthetimehereceivedtheinformationfromthe l confidentialinformant,healreadyknewagreatdealaboutbothHawksandtheDefendant.Hestated X  thathe hadalongterminvestigationon[Hawks]where[he]hadpreviouslypurchaseddrugsfrom D! herandalsodonesearchwarrantsonherresidence.AgentAinsworthalsoexplainedthathehad 0"  seentheDefendantsvehicleparkedatHawkssresidenceonatleastoneoccasion,atnight,during #l! themonthleadinguptothearrest.AgentAinsworthtestifiedthatheknewthatHawkshada $X" boyfriendwhowasnottheDefendant.AgentAinsworthstatedthathetried topurchaseonepound $D # ofmarijuanafrom[theDefendant]whereMs.Hawks[worked]....Thedealfellthrough.Thats %0!$ whereIgotmyknowledge![theSheriffsOfficeofWatugaCounty,NorthCarolina]advisedus!I &"% receivedapicturefromNorthCarolinaandgotaphotographof[theDefendant].AgentAinsworth '#& statedthathereceivedaphotographoftheDefendantfromtheNorthCarolinaauthoritiesanda (#' warningfromOfficerDannerthattheDefendant routinelycarriedafirearm!whenhecarried )$( drugs.Thisindependentpolicecorroborationsufficientlycorroboratedtheconfidentialinformants |*%) information.#ImXX#XXIm h+&* Ї  HavingsatisfiedbothprongsoftheAguilarSpinellitest,theinformationtoldtoAgent  AinsworthbytheinformantprovidedhimwithprobablecausetoarrestHawkswhenhesawherat  PoplarRidgeStation.Officersarepermittedtomakeawarrantlessarrestwhentheyhaveprobable  causetobelievethattheindividualhascommittedoriscommittingafelony.Tenn.CodeAnn.40 t 7103(a)(2003).Inthecaseundersubmission,thetrialcourtfoundthatthepoliceofficershad ` probablecausetobelievethatacrimehadbeenorwasbeingcommittedinthepickuptruck.We L  findthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfinding.Hawkswasinthe 8  vehiclewiththeDefendant,andtherewassufficientevidencetoarrestHawksforpurchasing $ t marijuana.ItwasareasonableandlegitimateinferencethatifHawkswasatPoplarRidgeStation  ` topurchasedrugs,thatthepersonwhosevehicleshewasinwasthepersonsellingherthedrugs.  L  Therefore,atthatpointintime,thepoliceofficershadprobablecausetobelievetheDefendantwas  8  committingafelony;therewasprobablecausetoarresttheDefendantbaseduponfactsand $  circumstanceswithintheirknowledgetobelievethattheDefendant#ImXXr#XXImwassellingdrugstoHawks.   Accordingly,thetrialcourtdidnoterrbydenyingtheDefendantsmotiontosuppress.    @#IV.CONCLUSION      Inaccordancewiththeforegoingauthoritiesandreasoning,weAFFIRMthetrialcourts \ judgment. H    `     h     ___________________________________  \    `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE#ImXXx#