WPC*E :+e8e$ /c%{DNo$7!vLcRH2HŨBD:MUU])ȗVY78V_&)(RG?w(í"B]xq7!1q2Ŀѽ,B-ĂTw0YbOjTaʧ}&9EAyDzRaǓ. 9^uͬ?H84^RT8$6%d|pTOW;_:Dj7qH)81| IHX澸C*7,&ILpfFɉSmNCzUMbƃ]˸NMsH#OX ʸZ5:T,q";gҤ;pN]2c[7udFprSl6- h% R.C<'kPBß'r ( ų5DW"YL)n~qgorD_pV b#\ %% U N+ 0y U/N ^ O w[ z_  4   m   s9 0UNT 0V 09E 0 0 0x 0+ 0 0 0  0 0 0i 0 0 0^ 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 0 0 0G 0 bq! 0y! 0" 0" 0s# 0>1$ 0o$ 0g% 0I& 0+' 0 ( 0( 0) 0* 02]+ 0+ 0:, 0Y, 0_- 0 }- 0. 0 0 B*2 D/92 0h2 D/n4 04 06k5 05 0:6 0^6 0<A7U6}7U >7U*78 0: 0N;|P; 0D@ BAA 0-A D5A D-B 0K3B3B AS~BB 0C 0D;D AD\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularu1  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.wpt~/G3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   - -&&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7E(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dD)1dxd<:zTop of For7G(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  D)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial TerrellFindleyAntricanwarrantlessFuerteBostickDep'tProuseBinionWestbrooksarticulableNorword OdomGoforthYearganMimmsSchnecklothBustamonteTroxellJimenoBrogdonPringleDeberryoverbroad(|G2) $ !.8)dd8         0  (O$ r__ R) $      1    _OfR ThefactsofthiscasearedistinguishablefromMarylandv.Pringle,540U.S.366(2003).Inthatcase,an  officerstoppedacarforspeedingandsubsequentlyobtainedconsentfromthedrivertosearchthevehicle.Duringthe q consensualsearch,theofficerfound$763inthegloveboxandcocaineinthebackseatarmrest.Becausenoneofthe 2 threeoccupantsofthecar,includingPringle,whowasafrontseatpassenger,claimedthecocaine,theofficerarrested C eachofthem.Atthepolicestation,oneofthepassengersclaimedthecocaine.TheOX)X OfRԀ#OfR XOX)L#Courtheldthat# OfR#areasonableofficer  couldhaveconcludedthattherewasprobablecausetobelievethatPringlewasinpossessionofthedrugsandtherefore  didnotviolatetheFourthAmendmentbyarrestinghim.Id.Intheinstantcase,theevidencedoesnotindicatethatthe ^  officerhadprobablecausetobelievethatanycrimehadbeencommittedbythedefendantDeberry.(#$  0   d(|3 $ !.8)dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 $ !.8)dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8)dd8     _   )87XXdd8@hhl~)INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#)l~ #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember15,2004 F X7X) #)XX7!#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.TERRELLDEBERRYANDDAMIEN ? _LASHAWN_ԀNIXON,A/K/A"SKINNY"X7X)   P @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  J @@No.7433JosephH.Walker,III,Judge  4 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200400018CCAR3CDFiledDecember7,_2004_   AV) ` dE<n` A o     X)XXX7ThedefendantTerrellDeberrywasindictedforpossessionwithintenttodeliver.5gramsormore g ofcocaine.ThedefendantDamienNixonwasalsoindictedforpossessionwithintenttodeliver.5 P gramsormoreofcocaineandfordrivingonarevokedlicense.Aftergrantingamotiontosuppress 9 thecocainefoundinthepossessionofdefendantDeberry,thetrialcourtpermittedthestatean "r applicationforadiscretionaryappealunderRule9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.  [ Later,thestatedeterminedthatbecausethesubstantiveeffectofthetrialcourtsrulingresultedin D dismissalofthechargesagainsteachdefendant,themoreappropriateappellateremedywasunder - Rule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Thiscourtgrantedthemotiontoacceptthe  appealunderRule3andwaivedthetimelyfilingofnoticeofappealbythestate.Theissue  presentedforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterredbygrantingthemotiontosuppress.Because  theevidencewasproperlysuppressed,thejudgmentisaffirmed.  #X7XXX))##)XX7#X7X) Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmed ; DismissedinPart  S   #)X7 #X7X.)GaryR.Wade,_P.J._,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichNormaMcGeeOgleandAlan ( x E.Glenn,JJ.,joined. !a  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;DavidH.Findley,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;and "3" TraceyBrewer,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellant,StateofTennessee. ## GaryF.Antrican,DistrictPublicDefender,fortheappellee,TerrellDeberry. % % RebeccaS.Mills,Ripley,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DamienNixon. p'"' * @@OO& OPINION #)XX7Y #X7X) B)$) #)XX78#X7X)  X)XXX7  Atapproximately6:36p.m.,onJanuary31,2003,#X7XXX)#X)XXX7#}P XX)#X)X }PԀHallsPoliceOfficerKevinBrogdon +e&+ stoppedaredMitsubishiwhichwasbeingdrivenwithouteitherheadlightsortaillights.When +N', OfficerBrogdonapproachedthedriver'ssidewindow,herecognizedthedefendantDamienNixon. ,7(- AfterconfirmingthatNixonslicensehadbeenrevoked,theofficerorderedhimoutofthecar, - ). _arrestedhim,andplacedhiminthebackofhispolicecruiser.#X7XXX)9##)XX7{#X7X)Bythattime,atleasttwootherpolice  officerswerepresentatthescene.OfficerBrogdonthenreturnedtothevehicleandaskedDeberry,  apassenger,tostepout.Afterseekingpermission,theofficerperformedapatdownforweapons.  Whenhefoundnone,heconductedamoreextensivesearch,lifted_Deberry_sshirt,andultimately k foundabagofdrugsinhiswaistband.Asearchofthecaryieldednootherillegalsubstances.Each T defendantwastakentothejail,advisedofhisMirandarights,andquestionedbypolice.Special =  AgentDannyWilsonoftheTennesseeBureauofInvestigationassistedwiththequestioningofeach & v defendant.  _   Atthesuppressionhearing,OfficerBrogdontestifiedthatheaskedDeberrytostepoutof  1  thecarandopenedthedoorforDeberryashedidso.OfficerBrogdonrecalledaskingDeberryif    hehadanythingsuchasnarcoticsorweaponsinhispossession,towhichDeberryreplied, No.   Accordingtotheofficer,hethenaskedwhetherDeberryhadanyobjectiontoapersonalsearch,to   whichDeberryansweredinthenegative.OfficerBrogdonrecalledthenpattingdownDeberryfrom   headtofootandfindingnoweapons.OfficerBrogdontestifiedthatafterward,hemadeamore n  extensivesearchbyreachinginto_Deberry_spockets,wherehefoundanunopenedcigar.Finally, W  OfficerBrogdonintensifiedhissearch,liftedupthedefendantsshirt,andfoundthebagofillegal @ drugs.Theofficeracknowledgedthattherewerenodrugsinthecar,noscentofdrugsthereandno )y weapons. b   Deberrytestifiedthatwhenhesteppedoutofthecar,OfficerBrogdonwasstandingrightin 4 frontofhim,blockinghispath.Herememberedthattherewerealsoatleasttwootherpolicecars  atthesceneandseveralotherofficers.WhileDeberrycouldnotremembertheexactwordsthe  officerusedbeforeinitiatingthesearch,heexplainedthatheconsentedtoapatdownonlybecause  hewasfrightenedandbelievedtheofficerintendedtosearchhimanyway.    Attheconclusionofthehearingonthemotiontosuppress,thetrialcourtdeterminedthat Z thereweresufficientgroundsfortheofficerstostopthecarandplacethedriver,Nixon,underarrest. C ItruledthatthestatementofthedefendantNixonwasfreelyandvoluntarilygiven.Thetrialcourt ,| alsoheld,however,thatundertheseparticularcircumstances,involvingatrafficoffensebythe e driver, therewasnoreasonablebasisfortheofficertorequestthepassengergetoutofthecarand N submittoasearch.Further,itconcludedthat therewasnolegalbasistodisrobethedefendant  7 Deberry. !     ThestateinitiallysoughtpermissiontoappealfromthetrialcourtunderTennesseeRuleof #" AppellateProcedure9,contendingthattheprosecutioncouldnotproceedunlessthetrialcourts $# suppressionofthedrugswaserroneous.ThetrialcourtgrantedpermissiontoappealonOctober t% $ 27,2003.Because,however,theorderwasnotpresentedtotheAttorneyGeneral'sOfficeintime ]&!% (within10daysoftheorder)foraRule9appeal,thestatechosetoproceedunderRule3.Its F'"& rationalewasthatthesubstantiveeffectofthetrialcourtsorderofsuppressionofthedrugswasa /(#' dismissaloftheindictment.SeeStatev.Phillips,30S.W.3d372,373n.1(Tenn._Crim_.App.2000) )h$( (notingwhenasuppressionorderrelatestoseizeddrugs,theStateordinarilyfilesaRule3appeal *Q%) asofright). *:&*  +#'+ _  Inthisappeal,thestatearguesthatOfficerBrogdonproperlyaskedthepassenger,Deberry,  tostepoutofthecarfollowingthecustodialarrestofthedriverbecausetheofficer'ssearchofthe  vehicleincidenttoarrestcouldnoteffectivelyproceedifDeberryremainedinside.Further,thestate  arguesthatofficersmayorderpassengersoutofavehicleincidenttoalawfultrafficstop.In k addition,thestateclaimsthatbecausedefendantDeberrygaveconsent,thesearchwasnotlimited T toapatdownforweaponsasregulatedbyX)XXX7Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,27-28(1968)#X7XXX)%##)XX7#X7X).Althoughthe =  trialcourtdidnotreachthequestionofthevoluntarinessofDeberrysconsenttosearch,thestate & v insiststhathevoluntarilyconsentedtothefullsearch.#)XX7Y&#X7X)Finally,thestatearguesthatevenifthetrial  _ courtproperlysuppressedtheevidenceagainstDeberry,Nixondoesnothavestandingtochallenge  H theadmissionofthecocaineastohisprosecution.  1    Boththestateandfederalconstitutionsprotectindividualsfromunreasonablesearchesand   seizures;thegeneralruleisthatawarrantlesssearchorseizureispresumedunreasonableandany   evidencediscoveredsubjecttosuppression.U.S.Const.amend.IV;Tenn.Const.art.I,7;   Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,454-55(1971);Statev.Bridges,963S.W.2d487,490 n  (Tenn.1997).Neither,however,limitsallcontactbetweencitizensandlawenforcementandboth W  aredesigned,instead,"'topreventarbitraryandoppressiveinterferencewiththeprivacyand @ personalsecurityofindividuals.'"INSv.Delgado,466U.S.210,215(1984)(quotingUnitedStates )y v.Martinez-Fuerte,428U.S.543,554(1976)).Ourcourtshaverecognizedthreetypesof b police-citizeninteractions:(1)afullscalearrest,whichmustbesupportedbyprobablecause;(2) K abriefinvestigatorystop,whichmustbesupportedbyreasonablesuspicion;and(3)abrief 4 police-citizenencounter,whichrequiresnoobjectivejustification.SeeFloridav.Bostick,501U.S.  429,434(1991);Brownv.Illinois,422U.S.590(1975);Terry,392U.S.at1."Onlywhenthe  officer,bymeansofphysicalforceorshowofauthority,hasinsomewayrestrainedthelibertyof  acitizenmayweconcludethata'seizure'hasoccurred."Terry,392U.S.at19n.16.    X)XXX7Anautomobilestopconstitutesa"seizure"withinthemeaningofboththeFourth Z AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section7oftheTennesseeConstitution. C MichiganDep'tofStatePolicev.Sitz,496U.S.444,450(1990);Delawarev.Prouse,440U.S.648, ,| 653(1979);Statev.Binion,900S.W.2d702,705(Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Statev.Westbrooks, e 594S.W.2d741,743(Tenn.Crim.App.1979).Thefactthatthedetentionmaybebriefandlimited N inscopedoesnotalterthatfact.Prouse,440U.S.at653;Statev.Pulley,863S.W.2d29,30(Tenn.  7 1993);Binion,900S.W.2dat705;Westbrooks,594S.W.2dat743.Thebasicquestion,as !   indicated,iswhethertheseizurewas"reasonable."Binion,900S.W.2dat705(citingSitz,496U.S. " ! at444).#X7XXX)D/##)XX7x'#X7X)InPulley,oursupremecourtruledthat"thereasonablenessofseizureslessintrusivethan #" afull-scalearrestisjudgedbyweighingthegravityofthepublicconcern,thedegreetowhichthe $# seizureadvancesthatconcern,andtheseverityoftheintrusionintoindividualprivacy."863S.W.2d t% $ at30.#)XX73#X7X) ]&!%   Ourdeterminationofthereasonablenessofastopofavehicledependsonwhethertheofficer /(#' hadeitherprobablecauseoran"articulableandreasonablesuspicion"thatthevehicleorits )h$( occupantsweresubjecttoseizureforviolationofthelaw.SeeProuse,440U.S.at663;Statev. *Q%) Coleman,791S.W.2d504,505(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).Probablecausehasbeengenerally *:&* definedasareasonablegroundforsuspicion,supportedbycircumstancesindicativeofanillegalact. +#'+ SeeLeav.State,181Tenn.378,380-81,181S.W.2d351,352(1944).Whileprobablecauseisnot  necessaryforaninvestigativestop,itisarequirementthattheofficer'sreasonablesuspicionbe  supportedby"specificandarticulablefactswhich,takentogetherwithrationalinferencesfromthose  facts,reasonablywarrantthatintrusion."Terry,392U.S.at21;Pulley,863S.W.2dat30;Coleman, k 791S.W.2dat505;seealsoStatev.Watkins,827S.W.2d293,294(Tenn.1992)(applyingTerry T doctrineincontextofvehicularstop).Indeterminingwhetherreasonablesuspicionexists,an =  importantfactorintheanalysisisthatreasonablesuspicionisalessdemandingstandardthan & v probablecausenotonlyinthesensethatreasonablesuspicioncanbeestablishedwithinformation  _ thatisdifferentinquantityorcontentthanthatrequiredtoestablishprobablecause,butalsointhe  H sensethatreasonablesuspicioncanarisefrominformationthatislessreliablethanthatrequiredto  1  showprobablecause.Pulley,863S.W.2dat32(citingAlabamav.White,496U.S.325,330    (1990)).     Courtsconsideringtheissueofreasonablesuspicionmustlooktothetotalityofthe   circumstances.Thosecircumstancesincludethepersonalobservationsofthepoliceofficer, n  informationobtainedfromotherofficersoragencies,informationobtainedfromcitizens,andthe W  patternofoperationofcertainoffenders.Watkins,827S.W.2dat294(citingUnitedStatesv.Cortez, @ 449U.S.411,417-18(1981)).Objectivestandardsapplyratherthanthesubjectivebeliefsofthe )y officermakingthestop.Statev.Norword,938S.W.2d23,25(Tenn.Crim.App.1996). b   Thescopeofreviewislimitedwhenthetrialcourtmakesafindingoffactsattheconclusion 4 ofasuppressionhearing,thefactsareaccordedtheweightofajuryverdict.Statev.Stephenson,  878S.W.2d530,544(Tenn.1994).Thetrialcourt'sfindingsarebindinguponthiscourtunlessthe  evidenceintherecordpreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996);  seealsoStephenson,878S.W.2dat544;Statev.Goforth,678S.W.2d477,479(Tenn.Crim.App.  1984).Questionsofcredibilityofwitnesses,theweightandvalueoftheevidence,andresolution q ofconflictsinevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrialjudgeasthetrieroffact.Theparty Z prevailinginthetrialcourtisentitledtothestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceadducedatthe C suppressionhearingaswellasallreasonableandlegitimateinferencesthatmaybedrawnfromthe ,| evidence.Odom,928S.W.2dat23.Theapplicationofthelawtothefacts,however,requiresde e novoreview.Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,423-24(Tenn.2000).Likewise,iftheevidencedoes N notinvolveacredibilityassessment,thereviewingcourtmustexaminetherecorddenovowithout  7 apresumptionofcorrectness.Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,629(Tenn.1997). !     InUnitedStatesv.Drayton,536U.S.194,201-02(2002),theSupremeCourtdetermined #" thatthereisnoFourthAmendmentviolationwhenanofficersimplyapproachesapersoninapublic $# placeandposesaquestion.Evenwhenthereisnobasistosuspectacrime,officersmayask t% $ questions,askforidentification,andaskforconsenttoconductasearch,solongasthemeansused ]&!% toinducethecooperationarenotcoercive.Id.;seeDaniel,12S.W.3dat425.Areviewingcourt F'"& mustexamine"allthecircumstancessurroundingtheencounter"indeterminingwhetherthelaw /(#' enforcementconductwouldhaveindicatedalackoffreedom"todeclinetheofficers'requestsor )h$( otherwiseterminatetheencounter."Bostick,501U.S.at439.Asindicated,thesubjectiveintent *Q%) oftheofficerisnotcontrolling.Statev.Johnson,980S.W.2d414(Tenn.Crim.App.1998). *:&*  +#'+   Here,thetrialcourtfoundthatOfficerBrogdonhadareasonablebasistostopNixons  vehicle.Becausethevehiclewasbeingoperatedatnightwithitslightsoff,theofficerhad  reasonablesuspiciontobelieveamisdemeanorwasbeingcommitted.Thetrialcourtalsoconcluded  thattheofficerhadabasistoarrestNixon.ItdeterminedthatOfficerBrogdonthenapproachedthe k passengersidedoor,askedDeberrytostepoutside,andDeberrycomplied.Implicitinthefinding T ofthetrialcourtisthatitwasthelegitimateobjectiveoftheofficertoassurehisownsafetyasto =  thepassenger,whowasnotasuspectastothetrafficviolation.Thetestimonywasindisputeasto & v whattheofficeractuallysaidtoDeberryandthetrialcourtmadenofindingastowhetherDeberry  _ consentedtotheofficersrequesttoremovehimselffromthevehicle.However,nothinginthe  H recordindicatesthatDeberryobjectedtoexitingthevehicle.Whiledeterminingthattheofficerhad  1  nobasistoaskDeberrytostepoutofthevehicle,thetrialcourtdidaccreditthetestimonyof    Deberrytotheextentthathisconsenttoanysearchwaslimitedtoapatdown,whichwas   appropriateforaweaponscheck.Italsoruledthatwhentheofficercompletedthepatdownwithout   discoveringanyweapons,hehadnoauthoritytomakeamoreintrusivesearch,i.e.,to disrobe   Deberrybytakingoffhisclothesorbyremovinghisshirt,andthattheofficerwouldnototherwise n  havefoundthecocaine.Itwasonthisbasisthatthetrialcourtorderedsuppression. W  #)XX7C5#X7X)  Itiswellsettledthatasearchconductedpursuanttoavoluntaryconsentisanexceptionto )y therequirementthatallsearchesandseizuresbeconductedpursuanttoawarrant.Statev.Bartram, b 925S.W.2d227,230(Tenn.1996)(citingSchnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218(1973))."To K passconstitutionalmuster,consenttosearchmustbeunequivocal,specific,intelligentlygiven,and 4 uncontaminatedbyduressorcoercion."Statev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,547(Tenn.1992).The  followingfactorsareusedtoevaluatethevoluntarinessoftheconsent:  0  (1)whetherthedefendantisincustody;(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2)thelengthofdetentionpriortothegivingofconsent;Z(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (3)thepresenceofcoercivepoliceprocedures;,|(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (4)thedefendant'sawarenessoftherighttorefusetoconsent;N(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (5)thedefendant'sage,educationandintelligence;!  (#(# 0   (#(# 0  (6)whetherthedefendantunderstandshisconstitutionalrights;#"(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (7)theextentofthedefendant'spriorexperiencewithlawenforcement;andt% $(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (8)whetherthedefendantwasinjured,intoxicated,orinillhealth.F'"&(#(# See,e.g.,Statev.Carter,16S.W.3d762,769(Tenn.2000).Thestatemustshow"morethan )h$( acquiescencetoaclaimoflawfulauthority."Bumperv.NorthCarolina,391U.S.543,548-49 *Q%)  (1968).Thetrialcourt'sfindingthatasearchisorisnotconsensual,however,willnotbe *:&* overturnedunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainsttheruling.Bradyv.State,584S.W.2d245,  251-52(Tenn.Crim.App.1979).     X)XXX7Initsorderofsuppression,thetrialcourtmadenomentionofthepresenceofatleastthree k otherofficerswhohadarrivedatthescenebythetimeDeberrywassearchedorthefactthatthe T driver,Nixon,hadalreadybeenplacedinthebackofapolicecruiser.#X7XXX)[#X)XXX7ԀEventhoughDeberryclaimed =  thathecouldnotmovewhenhesteppedoutofthevehiclebecausehispathwasblocked,#X7XXX)]#X)XXX7Ԁthetrial & v courtmadenoreferencetoanypossiblecoerciononthepartofOfficerBrogdon.  _   ThetrialcourtdidfindthatOfficerBrogdonsintentwastocheckforweaponswhenhe  1  askedDeberrytogetoutofthecar.TheofficerhadtestifiedthatapatdownofDeberrywas    necessarytoensurehisownsafety.#X7XXX)]#ԀAlthoughtheofficercontendedthathisintentwastoask   permissionforafullsearch,therewasnothing,asthetrialcourtfound,toindicatehehadany   reasontobelieveDeberrypossessedanycontraband.Theofficerhadnotfounddrugsorweapons   onthedriver,therewasnoindicationofweaponsordrugsinthecar,andDeberryhadbeen n  cooperative.T U#  1      ׀Further,Deberrytestifiedthatheconsentedonlytoaweaponscheckbecausethe W  officerhadfirstaskedhimifhehadanythinginhispossessionthatwould pokehimduringthe @ patdown.ThetrialcourtfullyaccreditedthatportionofDeberry'stestimony. )y   Oursupremecourthasmadethefollowingobservations: K 8   ` Indeterminingthescopeofconsent,therelevantconsiderationsincludeany  expressorimpliedlimitationsregardingthetime,duration,area,orintensityof  policeactivitynecessarytoaccomplishthestatedpurposeofthesearch,aswellas  theexpressedobjectofthesearch.Thescopeofconsentisnotbasedonthe  subjectiveintentionsoftheconsentingpartyorthesubjectiveinterpretationsofthe q searchingofficer.Insteadthestandardis"thatof'objective'reasonableness!what Z wouldthetypicalreasonablepersonhaveunderstoodbytheexchangebetweenthe C officerandthesuspect." S,|     OX)XXX7 Statev.Troxell,78S.W.3d866#X7XXOX)f#OX)XXX7,87172(Tenn.2002)(quoting#X7XXOX)g#Floridav.Jimeno,500U.S.248,   251(1991))OX)XXX7(citationsandfootnoteomitted). !  S #X7XXOX)g# "      Asindicated,Deberrycontendedthatheconsentedonlytoapatdownforweapons.The   officerbelievedDeberryhadagreedtoafullsearch.Thetrialcourtaccreditedthetestimonyof  Deberrytotheextentthathedidnotexpecttobe disrobedwhenthepatdowndidnotrevealany  weapons.Althoughtheorderofsuppressioncouldhavebeenmoreexplicitsoastoindicatewhat k a reasonablepersonwouldhaveunderstoodbytheexchange,theholdingthattheofficerexceeded T thescopeofconsentissupportedbyevidenceintherecord.Whileitappearsthattheofficerhad =  areasonablebasistoaskDeberrytostepoutofthecar,deferenceshouldbeaffordedtothetrial & v court,whosawandheardthewitnessesfirsthand,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthe  _ findings.Inthisinstance,theevidencepresentedbythestateisnotsopersuasiveastoovercome  H thefactualconclusionsofthetrialjudge.  1  ih    Inarelatedissue,thestatearguesthatevenifthedrugsaresuppressedastoDeberry,the   driver,Nixondoesnothavestandingtochallengethesuppressionbecausehedidnothavea   reasonableexpectationofprivacyastowhatwasinDeberryspersonalpossession.Afailureonthe   partofthestatetoraisetheissueofstandingattrialservesasawaiveroftheissueonappeal.State n  v.White,635S.W.2d396(Tenn.Crim.App.1982).InWhite,ourcourtheldasfollows: W  8  [T]heStatehasadutytonotifythedefendantthatitopposeshismotiononstanding )y grounds,aresultwhichreflectsthetraditionalpoliciesofnoticeandfairplay.Ifthe b Statefailstoraisethestandingissue,butinsteadopposesthemotiononthemerits, K thedefendantisentitledtoinferthattheStateconcedeshisstandingandneednot 4 offeranyevidencerelevanttohisexpectationofprivacy.   Id.at399400(citationsomitted).    Inthiscase,standingwasnotraisedinthetrialcourtandthedefendantdidnotrespondto q theissueonappeal.Theonlymentionofstandingpriortothisappealcameintheaffidavitattached Z tothemotiontowaivetimelyfilingofnoticeofappeal.Intheaffidavit,thestatearguedthatthe C suppressionorderwasoverbroadbecauseNixondidnothavestandingtochallengethedrugsseized ,| fromDeberry.Because,however,thestatefailedtoraisetheissueofstandinginthetrialcourt,it e isourviewthattheissueiswaivedonappeal. N m    Accordingly,theorderofsuppressionisaffirmedtotheextentthatthecontrabandfoundin !   thepossessionofthedefendantDeberrymaynotbeadmittedasevidence.Thestatewaivedthe " ! issueofthedefendantNixonsstandingbyfailingtopresenttheissueinthetrialcourt.The #" judgmentisaffirmedandthechargesagainsteachdefendantforpossessionofcocainearedismissed. $# t   `     h     ___________________________________ F'"&    `     h     GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE