ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë AQ) Æz 0D@ 0@„ 0DÄ U* D/2 Ba B~ D3› B)Î DC÷ AM: 1‡ v~¸ vÓ6˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLàÏ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- DE  E   Ó€UÃ$3|x2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d****7Border 1dd!#+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€10,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{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  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€EXXdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€!ÙßR€,-+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌFEBRUARY€SESSION,€1998ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9709„CR„00404Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellee,ò òà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àKNOX€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€RICHARDÏBAUMGARTNER,€ó óÌò òBRIAN€EUGENE€DANIEL,à àà à)€€€€€€€ó óà àò òJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó óà àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àò òà à)à à(POSSESSION€OF€MARIJUANA)€Ìó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òMARK€E.€STEPHENS€€à àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌò òœPAULA€R.€VOSS›à àœà à›à àà àà àTODD€R.€KELLEY€Ìó óAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àœà àà àà à›à àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌò òœJAMIE€L.€NILANDó ó›à àœà àà àà à425›€Fifth€Avenue€North€ÌœAssistant€Public€Defender›à àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243Ìœ1209€Euclid€Avenue›ÌœKnoxville,€TN€37921›à àà àà àà àò òRANDALL€E.€NICHOLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€General€ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òSCOTT€GREEN€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Building€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€37902ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇÓ  ÓÔ€%°Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€%ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àDefendant,€Brian€Daniel,€appeals€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(i)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€He€pled€guilty€to€possession€of€marijuanaÏand€reserved,€with€the€consent€of€the€State€and€the€trial€court,€the€right€to€appeal€aÏcertified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€After€review€of€the€entireÏrecord€and€the€briefs€and€arguments€of€both€parties,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€certified,€as€set€forth€in€the€trial€courtððs€order€is€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àThe€defendant€avers€that€he€was€subjected€to€an€invalid€stop€andÏillegal€search€on€August€15,€1995.€€The€defendant€avers€that€theÏarresting€officer€did€not€have€the€requisite€reasonable€suspicion€to€stopÏthe€defendant,€and€because€the€stop€led€directly€to€the€search,€theÏsubsequent€seizure€of€contraband€without€probable€cause€wasÏillegal,€in€that€it€was€a€violation€of€the€constitutions€of€the€United€StatesÏand€the€state€of€Tennessee,€(see€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1€(1968)),Ïand€any€evidence€seized€as€a€result€of€the€search€should€have€beenÏsuppressed.€€The€question€on€appeal€is€whether,€under€the€facts€and€Ïcircumstances€of€this€case,€the€seizure€of€this€defendant€was€illegal,Ïand€should€result€in€the€suppression€of€the€seized€evidence.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àDeputy€Jim€Wright€of€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€theÏonly€witness€who€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€At€approximately€9:00€p.m.Ïon€August€16,€1995,€Deputy€Wright€was€on€patrol€when€he€observed€theÏDefendant€and€three€(3)€other€men€standing€around€a€vehicle€on€the€dark€side€ofÍBengieððs€Market€in€Knox€County.€€The€sun€was€going€down€and€it€was€ð ðduskyÏdark.ðð€€The€lighting€for€the€market€was€only€on€the€front€side€of€the€store.€€ÌÌà àà àSince€the€location€was€an€area€known€for€illegal€drug€trafficking€andÏthe€young€men€ð ðjust€did€not€look€right,ðð€Deputy€Wright€drove€his€patrol€car€up€to€theÏmen€ð ðto€see€what€the€individuals€were€doing.ðð€€Wright,€in€a€general€conversation,Ïasked€the€men€what€was€going€on€and€then€requested€them€to€produce€I.D.€toÏidentify€themselves.€€All€four€(4)€of€the€young€men€voluntarily€produced€some€form€ofÏidentification.€€While€Wright€was€checking€the€identifications,€two€(2)€of€the€menÏasked€to€be€allowed€to€go€inside€the€market€to€either€use€the€restroom€or€purchaseÏa€soft€drink.€€Wright€allowed€the€two€men€to€do€so.€€ÌÌà àà àAfter€examining€Defendantððs€identification€and€ð ðrunning€his€name,ððÏWright€discovered€that€there€was€an€outstanding€warrant€for€the€arrest€ofÏDefendant.€€Wright€immediately€put€handcuffs€on€the€Defendant€and€placed€himÏunder€arrest€pursuant€to€the€outstanding€warrant€and€advised€Defendant€of€theÏstatus€of€the€warrant.€€Wright€then€searched€Defendant€pursuant€to€the€arrest€andÏasked€Defendant€if€there€was€anything€in€his€pockets€that€would€stick€or€otherwiseÏhurt€Wright€in€any€manner.€€Defendant€replied€that€he€had€a€bag€of€marijuana€in€hisÏpocket.€€This€was€discovered€by€Wright€during€the€search€and€led€to€the€criminalÏcharge€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal.ÌÌà àà àThere€is€nothing€in€this€rather€sparse€record€which€indicates€that€thereÏwas€any€search€of€the€other€men€who€were€with€the€Defendant.€€It€is€clear€from€theÏrecord€that€Defendant€was€not€physically€searched€until€after€Deputy€Wright€wasÏadvised€of€the€outstanding€warrant€for€the€arrest€of€Defendant€on€other€charges.ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€initial€seizure€of€Defendant€by€DeputyÏWright€by€requiring€production€of€identification€was€an€illegal€seizure€not€basedÏupon€either€probable€cause€or€reasonable€suspicion,€and€in€violation€of€theÏconstitutional€rights€of€Defendant€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€and€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€He€principallyÏrelies€upon€òòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€99€S.Ct.€2637,€61€L.Ed.2d€357€(1979)Ïand€òòHughes€v.€Stateóó,€588€S.W.2d€296€(Tenn.€1979).€€Defendant€further€argues€thatÏthe€discovery€of€the€contraband€was€a€direct€result€of€an€illegal€œsearch,›€œand,›Ïœtherefore,›€the€evidence€should€have€been€suppressed.ÌÌà àà àIn€contrast,€the€State€argues€that€the€Defendant€voluntarily€agreed€toÏstay€in€the€presence€of€the€officer,€answer€his€questions,€and€produce€anÏidentification.€€Consequently,€the€State€submits€that€the€Defendant€was€not€illegallyÏseized€under€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€have€concluded€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€determine€whether€orÏnot€Defendant€was€illegally€seized€at€the€time€Wright€asked€for€identification€toÏresolve€this€issue.€€It€is€undisputed€that€Defendant€was€not€formally€arrested€orÏsearched€by€Deputy€Wright€until€after€the€officer€discovered€that€there€was€anÏoutstanding€criminal€warrant€for€the€Defendantððs€arrest.€€Therefore,€the€onlyÏð ðevidenceðð€directly€obtained€as€a€result€of€Defendant€voluntarily€producing€hisÏidentification€for€Deputy€Wright€was€the€knowledge€of€the€existence€of€a€warrantÏauthorizing€the€arrest€of€the€Defendant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Defendant€does€not€challenge€his€actual€arrest€pursuant€to€theÏarrest€warrant.€€In€essence,€in€his€certified€question€presented€for€review€and€in€hisÏbrief,€Defendant€argues€that€the€initial€illegal€stop€mandates€suppression€ofÏevidence€discovered€during€a€search€incident€to€an€arrest€pursuant€to€a€warrant.€ÏDefendant€submits€that€this€result€is€required€based€upon€the€fact€that€the€officerÏonly€became€aware€of€the€existence€of€the€arrest€warrant€during€the€illegal€stop.ÌÌà àà àAssuming€ò òarguendoó ó€that€a€seizure€of€Defendant€by€Deputy€WrightÏoccurred€when€the€officer€requested€proof€of€identification,€and€that€this€seizure€wasÏin€violation€of€the€constitutional€rights€of€Defendant,€we€find€that€the€ð ðdegree€ofÏattenuation€here€was€sufficient€to€dissipate€the€connection€betweenðð€the€purportedÏillegal€seizure€and€the€€discovery€of€the€marijuana€during€a€search€incident€to€aÍlawful€arrest€pursuant€to€an€outstanding€arrest€warrant.€€œòòSeeóó›€òòUnited€States€v.ÏCeccolinióó,€435€U.S.€268,€98€S.Ct.€1054,€55€L.Ed.2d€268€œ(1978);€òòState€v.€Storyóó,€608ÏS.W.2d€599,€602€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).›ÌÌà àà àThe€opinion€of€the€court€in€this€case€should€in€no€manner€be€construedÏas€blanket€approval€of€any€law€enforcement€tactic€to€randomly€detain€individuals,Ïwithout€probable€cause€or€reasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activity€based€uponÏspecific€and€articulable€facts,€in€order€to€ascertain€the€identification€of€citizens€whoÏmay€be€gathered€in€public€places.€€Under€the€specific€and€narrow€facts€of€thisÏcase,€especially€the€uncontradicted€testimony€that€Defendant€voluntarily€compliedÏwith€the€request€to€show€an€identification,€a€limited€exception€to€the€ð ðfruit€of€theÏpoisonous€tree€doctrine,ðð€€òòWong€Sun€v.€United€Statesóó,€371€U.S.€471,€83€S.Ct.€407,Ï9€L.Ed.2d€441€(1963)€œapplies,›€even€if€it€is€assumed€that€the€initial€detention€byÏDeputy€Wright€was€a€seizure€of€Defendant€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights.€ÏAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€ACREE,€JR.,€Special€Judge