ÿWPC4 B³¨mÒIÒþ;MO5ÛÕ(òE…ÿ'œ¢¿”5ê3w©Y7fíĵÖo µßWüî< ¤‹„ÝÒJ ý ê•Ž!­}Ùǰ¾&Þ~÷Ãù$H<‘£ð‚ QC#YW¢Öê@oŸTœ—_GÄÇ~?ºq°/º¦’€ñW¸ÿÏ>º«é¾Ñ„üK•ÄɉáfžÌJ9ž v¯$÷s«ñG˜ääŠ FàÌÉg);-±þ³˜äÉÇæÄ  2~Š!yû»‘h©tYiá™Á™JÛÅÑ^À̲‘BcïÀÂÏUîyŒè ‰/ÀµIêïÀTàü¾Á’;Å=•<{7kY¬ÐZ Êk·k,zXjsßÚƒ÷¨Õm‹úÒ=‚™´ÞFÛ[¿ÈWú;§$ϼ³U™ s¤ïÈK}·ÌÌY7ˆnPÔðAõ½iúŒøãø]Ÿku-é½ÓÞµ—MjÐóúíê—M2C…ÏŽI4^i?þ±0BŒ¥]‹%Þ¦L'©ö¯¬å‰·æ{Z$Ÿ;z8)õè†Ò€“ {?µÛš¥¯ÀI?D:Eu€ÙItPgB­eß‚Ûê0j?–_Ä£°eˆÐ•{iÝj©Ñ¾C{ô}Ê2­&!Žb %\b 0Ÿ€ UN m U@ U:J z„ Òþ ^ Ð wÜ 4à ô ÆÆÉÆÆUN m#Á6E÷÷÷÷÷ 0Dùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù 1u= 72²²²bääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääääää 0ìììì Bîî 0»  D3Æ D-ù 0K&& ASqÆÄ 0»Š 0DE A«‰» Ý ƒR}¡$ÝÔ  ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€X|\X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôutòXX|\ÔBecause€the€Defendant€pleaded€guilty€to€the€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€charge€without€reserving€aÐ ° Ðcertified€question€regarding€the€legality€of€his€seizure,€that€conviction€is€not€before€us;€thus,€our€holding€does€not€affectÐ n¾ Ðthe€Defendant's€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b).(wß¶$¡¡Ñ8€L±XXdì»»d8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€..ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular “Ý ƒR}¡$ÝÔ  ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€X|\X»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôutòXX|\ÔAlthough€Officer€Wright€testified€that€he€smelled€an€odor€of€marijuana€when€he€approached€the€vehicle,€theÐ ° Ðonly€marijuana€found€in€the€vehicle€was€marijuana€residue€in€a€wooden€"dugout"€inside€the€glove€compartment.(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman ,“í|AZ‹"Arial Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptš£) ÖJ~'X+£3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)*i)- ù-(“G2}¡$¤¤Ý ƒß¶!ÝÑ8€|\XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€X|\X»»Ô d(“3Ì $££Ý ƒß¶!ÝÑ8€|\XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(“3Ì $¢¢Ý ƒß¶!ÝÑ8€|\XXdæd8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒß¶!ÝÑ8€|\XXdædÈ8ÑÔ  ÔÑ  ÑÑ€.ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼à»»»Ôà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@§§$ìàAT€NASHVILLEˆÐ ¾ ÐÓ  ÓJune€2000€SessionÐ Ì ÐÔ‡X|\X»¼àÔÌò òÔ#†¼à»XX|\|#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€FREDERICK€GONZALEZÔ‡X|\X»¼àÔó óÐ À ÐÌà@@i i ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ´  Ðà@@4 4 ìàNo.€I„199„12„B€€€€€€Henry€Denmark€Bell,€JudgeÐ š ê ÐÌÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<1` AßÐ 2‚  ÐÌà@@ö ö ìàNo.€M1999„00165„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€August€10,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ 'w  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<ò` AßÐ óC  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€of€simple€possession€of€cocaine.€€He€arguesÐ è8 Ðthat€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€the€evidence€used€to€convict€him€because€the€evidenceÐ Î Ðwas€the€fruit€of€an€unlawful€seizure.€€We€agree;€€accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Defendant's€convictionÐ ´ Ðand€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ð šê ÐÌò òÓ  ÓTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ f¶ ÐÓÌÓÌòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.Ô#†¼à»àX|\ê#ÔÔ‡X|\X.¼àÔóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smith,€J.,óó€and€òòJohnÐ 2‚ ÐEverett€Williams,€J.óó,€joined.Ð h ÐÌJohn€Conners,€Franklin,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Frederick€Gonzalez.Ð ä4 ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Lucian€D.€Ô_ÔGeiseÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€RonÐ ° ÐDavis,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Jeff€Burks,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€theÐ –æ Ðappellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð |Ì ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼à»XX|\ˆ#ԈРH!˜! ÐÌÔ‡X|\X»¼àÔà  àThe€Defendant,€Frederick€H.€Gonzalez,€was€indicted€by€the€Williamson€County€Grand€Jury€Ð <#Œ# Ðfor€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€and€possession€of€over€0.5€grams€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€toÐ "$r$ Ðsell€and€deliver.€€He€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€against€him€as€the€result€of€anÐ %X % Ðunlawful€seizure,€but€such€motion€was€denied€after€a€hearing.€€Prior€to€trial,€the€Defendant€pleadedÐ î%>!& Ðguilty€to€the€possession€of€drug€paraphernalia€charge,€but€proceeded€to€trial€on€the€possession€withÐ Ô&$"' Ðintent€charge.€€The€jury€found€the€Defendant€guilty€of€the€lesser€included€offense€of€misdemeanorÐ º' #( Ðâ âpossession€of€cocaine.€€From€this€conviction€the€Defendant€appeals€as€of€right,€arguing€that€the€trialÐ  (ð#)ýÿ Ðcourt€erred€in€denying€his€motion€to€suppress.€€We€agree;€accordingly,€we€reverse€the€Defendant'sÐ ° Ðconviction€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà@´´(ìàFACTSˆÐ b² ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€Officer€Craig€Wright€of€the€Franklin€PoliceÐ . ~ ÐDepartment€testified€that€on€December€5,€1998,€he€was€patrolling€in€a€residential€area€of€Franklin.€Ð  d ÐHe€said€that€he€had€been€given€information€around€midnight€from€another€officer,€who€received€theÐ ú J Ðinformation€from€a€confidential€informant,€that€the€Defendant€was€"en€route"€to€purchase€cocaineÐ à 0 Ðon€Cadet€Lane.€€The€confidential€informant€had€stated€that€the€Defendant€would€be€a€passenger€inÐ Æ   Ða€blue€Ford€Taurus€with€damage€to€driver's€side€and€that€the€Defendant€would€purchase€the€cocaine.€Ð ¬ ü  ÐOfficer€Wright€was€already€familiar€with€both€the€Defendant€and€the€blue€Taurus.€€While€notÐ ’â  Ðactively€looking€for€the€Taurus,€Officer€Wright€testified€that€he€"thought"€he€would€stop€the€vehicleÐ xÈ  Ðif€he€saw€it.€Ð ^®  ÐÌà  àAround€1:00€a.m.€on€December€5,€1998,€Officer€Wright€saw€the€blue€Taurus€in€the€residentialÐ *z  Ðarea€in€which€he€was€patrolling.€€He€had€not€received€any€additional€information€regarding€theÐ ` ÐDefendant,€so€he€did€not€know€whether€the€Defendant€had€actually€purchased€cocaine.Ô#†¼à»XX|\< #ÔÔ‡X|\X»¼àÔ€ThisÐ öF Ðresidential€area€was€not€the€area€in€which€the€confidential€informant€said€the€Defendant€wouldÐ Ü, Ðpurchase€cocaine.€€After€passing€the€blue€Taurus,€which€was€traveling€in€the€opposite€direction,Ð Â ÐOfficer€Wright€made€a€U„turn€and€proceeded€to€follow€the€vehicle.€€He€observed€the€vehicle€turnÐ ¨ø Ðright€onto€Chickasaw€Drive,€a€dead„end€street,€without€using€a€turn€signal.€€Upon€observing€theÐ ŽÞ Ðvehicle€turn€without€signaling,€Officer€Wright€decided€to€stop€the€vehicle€for€making€an€improperÐ tÄ Ðturn.€€However,€Officer€Wright€also€testified€that€the€driver€of€the€Taurus€made€a€"quick€turn"€andÐ Zª Ðthat€the€turn€would€not€have€affected€his€police€vehicle.€€Ð @ ÐÌà  àOfficer€Wright€followed€the€vehicle€onto€Chickasaw€Drive€where€he€saw€the€vehicle€stop€atÐ  \ Ðthe€dead„end.€€The€driver€of€the€vehicle,€Andrew€Rayburn,€exited€the€vehicle€and€approached€theÐ òB Ðpolice€car,€at€which€point€Officer€Wright€ordered€Rayburn€to€get€back€into€the€vehicle€and€activatedÐ Ø( Ðhis€blue€lights.€€Rayburn€did€as€he€was€ordered,€and€Officer€Wright€approached€the€vehicle.€€OfficerÐ ¾ ÐWright€testified€that€as€he€approached,€he€smelled€an€odor€of€marijuana€coming€from€the€vehicle.€Ð ¤ô ÐHe€made€Rayburn€exit€the€car€and€found€a€crack€pipe€and€a€razor€blade€after€"patting€down"Ð Š Ú ÐRayburn.€€Rayburn€was€placed€under€arrest.€€Upon€discovering€that€the€Defendant,€who€wasÐ p!À  ÐRayburn's€passenger,€had€an€outstanding€warrant€for€failure€to€appear€on€a€fireworks€violation,€theÐ V"¦! ÐDefendant€was€arrested€and€placed€in€the€same€patrol€car€as€Rayburn.€€An€audio€recorder€secretlyÐ <#Œ" Ðrecorded€the€conversation€between€the€Defendant€and€Rayburn.Ð "$r# Ðâ âÐ %X $ Ðà  àA€search€of€Rayburn's€vehicle€uncovered€a€small€amount€of€cocaine€and€some€drugÐ ° Ðparaphernalia.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€Rayburn€and€the€Defendant€were€removed€from€the€police€vehicle,€a€bagÐ –æ Ðâ âcontaining€an€additional€0.7€grams€of€cocaine€was€discovered€under€the€seat€where€the€DefendantÐ |Ì Ðhad€been€sitting.€€€€€€€Ð b² ÐÌà  àAndrew€Rayburn€testified€that€on€December€5,€1998,€he€and€the€Defendant€passed€a€policeÐ . ~ Ðvehicle€traveling€in€the€opposite€direction,€and€immediately€after€they€passed€the€police€vehicle,€itÐ  d Ðmade€an€"abrupt"€U„turn€and€began€following€Rayburn.€€Rayburn€anticipated€that€the€police€officerÐ ú J Ðintended€to€pull€him€over,€so€he€turned€right€onto€Chickasaw,€a€dead„end€road,€and€stopped€hisÐ à 0 Ðvehicle.€€Rayburn€admitted€not€using€a€turn€signal€when€he€turned€right,€but€he€testified€that€thereÐ Æ   Ðwas€no€traffic€immediately€behind€or€otherwise€near€him.€€Although€the€police€vehicle€was€behindÐ ¬ ü  Ðhim,€Rayburn€testified€that€it€was€not€yet€close€enough€to€have€been€affected€by€the€turn.Ð ’â  ÐÌà  àLieutenant€Darrell€Cagle€testified€that€he€supplied€Officer€Wright€with€information€from€aÐ ^®  Ðconfidential€informant€that€the€Defendant€was€"en€route"€to€purchase€cocaine€on€December€5,€1998.€Ð D”  ÐAfter€giving€Officer€Wright€the€original€information,€Lt.€Cagle€did€not€speak€with€Officer€WrightÐ *z  Ðagain.€€He€testified€that€he€had€received€information€from€the€confidential€informant€before,€thatÐ ` Ðprior€information€from€the€informant€had€led€to€arrests,€and€that€the€informant€was€being€paid€forÐ öF Ðinformation.€€Lt.€Cagle€said€that€he€had€recruited€the€informant€to€work€with€the€police€and€that€toÐ Ü, Ðhis€knowledge,€the€informant€had€not€provided€false€information.€€Lt.€Cagle€did€not€testify€as€to€howÐ Â Ðthe€informant€knew€the€information,€but€he€did€say€that€the€informant€was€not€someone€who€wouldÐ ¨ø Ðbe€at€the€drug€sale.Ð ŽÞ ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€the€proof,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendant's€motion€to€suppress,€finding€thatÐ Zª Ðif€there€was€a€stop,€it€was€a€"proper€stop"€based€upon€the€failure€to€give€a€turn€signal€and€theÐ @ Ðinformation€given€by€the€confidential€informant€that€the€Defendant€was€going€to€purchase€drugs.Ô#†¼à»XX|\6#ÔÔ€X|\X»¼àÔÐ &v ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€now€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€suppress€evidence€of€theÐ òB Ðdrugs€found€in€Rayburn's€vehicle,€the€drugs€found€in€the€police€vehicle,€and€the€conversationÐ Ø( Ðbetween€the€Defendant€and€Rayburn€which€was€secretly€recorded€while€they€were€in€the€policeÐ ¾ Ðcruiser.€€He€argues€that€all€of€the€evidence€against€him€was€the€fruit€of€an€unlawful€stop€of€Rayburn'sÐ ¤ô Ðcar;€thus,€the€evidence€must€be€suppressed€because€it€was€obtained€in€violation€of€his€right€to€be€freeÐ Š Ú Ðfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.Ð p!À  ÐÌà@––!ìàSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWˆÐ <#Œ" ÐÌà  àÔ€X|\XXX|\ÔWhen€reviewing€the€grant€or€denial€of€a€motion€to€suppress,Ð %X $ Ðà8  à[q]uestions€of€credibility€of€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€andÐ î%>!% Ðresolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidence€are€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðtrier€of€fact.€€The€party€prevailing€in€the€trial€court€is€entitled€to€the€strongestÐ º' #' Ðlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing€as€well€as€allÐ  (ð#( Ðreasonable€and€legitimate€inferences€that€may€be€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€So€longÐ ° Ðas€the€greater€weight€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€findings,€those€findingsÐ –æ Ðshall€be€upheld.€€In€other€words,€a€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€in€a€suppressionÐ |Ì Ðhearing€will€be€upheld€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.Ðb²Ð Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€the€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ . ~ Ðas€found€by€the€trial€court€is€a€question€of€law€which€the€appellate€court€reviews€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòState€v.Ð  d ÐYearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€629€(Tenn.€1997)€(citing€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€858Ð ú J ÐS.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993)).€€Because€the€facts€presented€at€the€suppression€hearing€wereÐ à 0 Ðundisputed,€only€questions€of€law€are€before€this€Court.€€Therefore,€our€review€of€the€record€belowÐ Æ   Ðis€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423„24€(Tenn.€2000).€Ð ¬ ü  ÐÌà@ìàUNLAWFUL€"STOP"€OR€SEIZUREÔ‡X;` XXX|\ԈРxÈ  Ðà  àÌà  àÔ#†X|\X XX;`d/#ÔThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€as€follows:Ð D”  Ðà8  àUnreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€ð!ð€The€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€theirÐ *z  Ðpersons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€shallÐ ` Ðnot€be€violated,€and€no€warrants€shall€issue,€but€upon€probable€cause,€supported€byÐ öF Ðoath€or€affirmation,€and€particularly€describing€the€place€to€be€searched,€and€theÐ Ü, Ðpersons€or€things€to€be€seized.ÐÂÐ Ð  ÐÌSimilarly,€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guaranteesÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà8  àthat€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers€and€possessions,€fromÐ Zª Ðunreasonable€searches€and€seizures;€and€that€general€warrants,€whereby€an€officerÐ @ Ðmay€be€commanded€to€search€suspected€places,€without€evidence€of€the€factÐ &v Ðcommitted,€or€to€seize€any€person€or€persons€not€named,€whose€offences€are€notÐ  \ Ðparticularly€described€and€supported€by€evidence,€are€dangerous€to€liberty€and€oughtÐ òB Ðnot€to€be€granted.ÐØ(Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€intent€and€purpose€of€the€prohibition€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€found€in€theÐ ¤ô ÐTennessee€Constitution€has€been€found€to€be€the€same€as€that€found€in€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€theÐ Š Ú ÐUnited€States€Constitution.€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.€1998)€(citing€òòState€v.Ð p!À  ÐDowneyóó,€945€S.W.2d€102,€106€(Tenn.€1997);€òòSneed€v.€Stateóó,€423€S.W.2d€857,€860€(Tenn.€1968)).€Ð V"¦! ÐAccording€to€the€Supreme€Court,€the€intent€and€purpose€behind€the€Fourth€Amendment€is€toÐ <#Œ" Ðð ðsafeguard€the€privacy€and€security€of€individuals€against€arbitrary€invasions€of€governmentÐ "$r# Ðofficials.ðð€€òòCamara€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€528€(1967).€Ð %X $ ÐÌà  àObviously,€before€the€constitutional€protections€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizuresÐ Ô&$"& Ðcome€into€play,€there€must€be€a€search€or€seizure.€€The€Defendant€here€challenges€the€detention€ofÐ º' #' ÐRayburn€and€himself€in€Rayburn's€vehicle€as€a€violation€of€the€Fourth€Amendment;€thus,€as€aÐ  (ð#( Ðpreliminary€matter,€we€must€determine€whether€the€Defendant€was€seized.€€It€has€been€repeatedlyÐ †)Ö$) Ðheld€that€the€stop€of€an€automobile€and€the€detention€of€its€occupants€constitutes€a€seizure,€even€ifÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€purpose€of€the€stop€is€limited€and€the€detention€is€brief.€€òòWren€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.€806,Ð R+¢&+ Ð809„10€(1996);€òòDelaware€v.€Prouseóó,€440€U.S.€648,€663€(1979);€òòUnites€States€v.€Martinez„Fuerteóó,€428Ð 8,ˆ', ÐU.S.€543,€556„58€(1976);€òòState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€734€(Tenn.€1997).€€However,€in€thisÐ ° Ðcase,€Officer€Wright€did€not€literally€"stop"€the€vehicle€in€which€the€Defendant€was€riding.€€TheÐ –æ Ðvehicle€had€already€come€to€a€stop€before€Officer€Wright€had€any€contact€with€its€occupants.€€ThisÐ |Ì Ðdistinction€is€important€because€courts€have€also€repeatedly€held€that€an€officer€may€approach€anÐ b² Ðindividual€in€a€public€place€and€ask€questions€without€implicating€constitutional€protections,€whetherÐ H˜ Ðthe€individual€is€in€a€parked€car€or€walking€in€a€public€place.€€òòSeeóó€òòFlorida€v.€Bostickóó,€501€U.S.€429,Ð . ~ Ð434€(1991);€òòFlorida€v.€Royeróó,€460€U.S.€491,€497€(1983)€(plurality€opinion);€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12Ð  d ÐS.W.3d€420,€426€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993);€òòState€v.€Wilhoitóó,Ð ú J Ð962€S.W.2d€482,€486€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à 0 ÐApp.€1990).€€Such€an€occurrence€is€considered€a€"consensual"€police„citizen€encounter.€€òòSeeóó€Ð Æ   ÐòòBostickóó,€501€U.S.€at€434.€€The€Supreme€Court€has€explained€the€application€and€reasoning€of€thisÐ ¬ ü  Ðrule€as€follows:Ð ’â  ÐÌà8  à[L]aw€enforcement€officers€do€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment€by€merelyÐ ^®  Ðapproaching€an€individual€on€the€street€or€in€another€public€place,€by€asking€him€ifÐ D”  Ðhe€is€willing€to€answer€some€questions,€by€putting€questions€to€him€if€the€person€isÐ *z  Ðwilling€to€listen,€or€by€offering€in€evidence€in€a€criminal€prosecution€his€voluntaryÐ ` Ðanswers€to€such€questions.€€Nor€would€the€fact€that€the€officer€identifies€himself€asÐ öF Ða€police€officer,€without€more,€convert€the€encounter€into€a€seizure€requiring€someÐ Ü, Ðlevel€of€objective€justification.€€The€person€approached,€however,€need€not€answerÐ Â Ðany€question€put€to€him;€indeed,€he€may€decline€to€listen€to€the€questions€at€all€andÐ ¨ø Ðmay€go€on€his€way.€€He€may€not€be€detained€even€momentarily€without€reasonable,Ð ŽÞ Ðobjective€grounds€for€doing€so;€and€his€refusal€to€listen€or€answer€does€not,€withoutÐ tÄ Ðmore,€furnish€those€grounds.€€If€there€is€no€detention€„„€no€seizure€within€the€meaningÐ Zª Ðof€the€Fourth€Amendment€„„€then€no€constitutional€rights€have€been€infringed.Ð@Ð Ð  ÐÌòòRoyeróó,€460€U.S.€at€497„98€(citations€omitted);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425.Ð  \ Ѐ€€€€€€€Ð òB Ðà  àNotwithstanding€the€right€of€a€police€officer€to€approach€an€individual€in€a€public€place,€anÐ Ø( Ðencounter€between€an€officer€and€a€citizen€will€not€be€considered€consensual€and€will€instead€beÐ ¾ Ðconsidered€a€seizure€"when€the€officer,€by€means€of€physical€force€or€show€of€authority,€has€in€someÐ ¤ô Ðway€restrained€the€liberty€of€a€citizen."€€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€19€n.16€(1968);€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòBostickóó,Ð Š Ú Ð501€U.S.€at€434„35.€€A€seizure€occurs€"'if,€in€view€of€all€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ p!À  Ðincident,€a€reasonable€person€would€have€believed€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave.'"€€òòMichigan€v.Ð V"¦! ÐChesternutóó,€486€U.S.€567,€573€(1988)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,€554Ð <#Œ" Ð(1980)€(opinion€of€Stewart,€J.));€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòINS€v.€Delgadoóó,€466€U.S.€210,€215€(1984);€òòDanielóó,€12Ð "$r# ÐS.W.3d€at€425.€€"[I]n€order€to€determine€whether€a€particular€encounter€constitutes€a€seizure,€a€courtÐ %X $ Ðmust€consider€all€the€circumstances€surrounding€the€encounter€to€determine€whether€the€policeÐ î%>!% Ðconduct€would€have€communicated€to€a€reasonable€person€that€the€person€was€not€free€to€decline€theÐ Ô&$"& Ðofficer's€request€or€otherwise€terminate€the€encounter."€€òòBostickóó,€501€U.S.€at€439.€€Some€of€theÐ º' #' Ðfactors€to€consider€include€the€time,€place€and€purpose€of€the€encounter;€the€words€used€by€theÐ  (ð#( Ðofficer;€the€officer's€tone€of€voice€and€general€demeanor;€the€officer's€statements€to€others€who€wereÐ †)Ö$) Ðpresent€during€the€encounter;€the€threatening€presence€of€several€officers;€the€display€of€a€weaponÐ l*¼%* Ðby€an€officer;€€and€the€physical€touching€of€the€person€of€the€citizen.€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425„26.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àThe€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€that€this€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àtest€is€necessarily€imprecise,€because€it€is€designed€to€assess€the€coercive€effect€ofÐ |Ì Ðpolice€conduct,€taken€as€a€whole,€rather€than€to€focus€on€particular€details€of€thatÐ b² Ðconduct€in€isolation.€€Moreover,€what€constitutes€a€restraint€on€liberty€prompting€aÐ H˜ Ðperson€to€conclude€that€he€is€not€free€to€"leave"€will€vary,€not€only€with€the€particularÐ . ~ Ðpolice€conduct€at€issue,€but€also€with€the€setting€in€which€the€conduct€occurs.Ð dÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` à[However,]€[w]hile€the€test€is€flexible€enough€to€be€applied€to€the€whole€rangeÐ ú J Ðof€police€conduct€in€an€equally€broad€range€of€settings,€it€calls€for€consistentÐ à 0 Ðapplication€from€one€police€encounter€to€the€next,€regardless€of€the€particularÐ Æ   Ðindividual's€response€to€the€actions€of€the€police.Ь ü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòChesternutóó,€486€U.S.€at€573€(citation€omitted).Ð xÈ  ÐÌà  àIn€òòMichigan€v.€Chesternutóó,€€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€actions€of€the€police€in€followingÐ D”  Ðand€then€driving€their€police€cruiser€alongside€the€defendant€for€a€short€distance€did€not€constituteÐ *z  Ða€seizure.€€òòId.óó€at€574.€€In€analyzing€whether€a€reasonable€person€would€have€felt€free€to€leave,€theÐ ` ÐCourt€noted€that€the€record€did€"not€reflect€that€the€police€activated€a€siren€or€flashers;€or€that€theyÐ öF Ðcommanded€respondent€to€halt,€or€displayed€any€weapons;€or€that€they€operated€the€car€in€anÐ Ü, Ðaggressive€manner€to€block€respondent's€course€or€otherwise€control€the€direction€or€speed€of€hisÐ Â Ðmovement."€€òòId.óó€at€575.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àApplying€the€constitutional€standards€to€the€facts€presented€here,€we€conclude€that€theÐ tÄ ÐDefendant€was€seized€when€Officer€Wright€ordered€the€driver€to€get€back€into€the€vehicle€and€whenÐ Zª Ðhe€activated€the€emergency€lights.€€The€only€persons€present€were€Officer€Wright,€Rayburn,€and€theÐ @ ÐDefendant,€so€the€officer's€actions€were€obviously€directed€towards€the€Defendant€and€Rayburn.€€WeÐ &v Ðbelieve€that€the€actions€of€Officer€Wright€in€activating€the€emergency€lights€and€in€ordering€RayburnÐ  \ Ðto€return€to€his€vehicle€constituted€a€show€of€authority€such€that€a€reasonable€person€in€the€positionÐ òB Ðof€either€the€Defendant€or€Rayburn€would€not€have€felt€free€to€leave.€€In€the€context€of€stopping€aÐ Ø( Ðmoving€vehicle,€as€opposed€to€a€seizure€of€a€parked€vehicle,€our€supreme€court€has€maintained€thatÐ ¾ Ð"[w]hen€an€officer€turns€on€his€blue€lights,€he€or€she€has€clearly€initiated€a€stop."€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2dÐ ¤ô Ðat€30.€€We€see€little€difference,€from€the€perspective€of€the€occupants€in€the€vehicle,€in€turning€onÐ Š Ú Ðthe€blue€lights€behind€a€moving€vehicle€and€turning€on€the€blue€lights€behind€a€parked€vehicle.€€TheÐ p!À  Ðlights€still€convey€the€message€that€the€occupants€are€not€free€to€leave.€€This€conclusion€is€consistentÐ V"¦! Ðwith€that€of€courts€in€other€jurisdictions,€which€have€held€that€the€activation€of€emergency€lightsÐ <#Œ" Ðbefore€approaching€a€parked€vehicle€constitutes€a€seizure.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Donahueóó,€742€A.2d€775,€779„Ð "$r# Ð80€(Conn.€1999);€òòState€v.€Mirelesóó,€991€P.2d€878,€880€(Idaho€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòLawson€v.€Stateóó,€707Ð %X $ ÐA.2d€947,€950„51€(Md.€Ct.€Spec.€App.€1998);€òòState€v.€Walpóó,€672€P.2d€374,€375€(Or.€Ct.€App.€1983);Ð î%>!% ÐòòWallace€v.€Commonwealthóó,€528€S.E.2d,€739,€741„42.€€(Va€Ct.€App.€2000);€òòState€v.€Burgessóó,€657Ð Ô&$"& ÐA.2d€202,€203€(Vt.€1995);€òòState€v.€Stroudóó,€634€P.2d€316,€318„19€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€As€aptlyÐ º' #' Ðstated€by€the€Maryland€Court€of€Special€Appeals,€"Few,€if€any,€reasonable€citizens,€while€parked,Ð  (ð#( Ðwould€simply€drive€away€and€assume€that€the€police,€in€turning€on€the€emergency€flashers,€wouldÐ †)Ö$) Ðbe€communicating€something€other€than€for€them€to€remain."€€òòLawsonóó,€707€A.2d€at€951.€€OrderingÐ l*¼%* Ðan€occupant€to€return€to€the€vehicle,€as€was€done€here,€serves€to€enhance€that€communication.€€òòSeeóóÐ R+¢&+ ÐòòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€426„27€(noting€that€initial€encounter,€which€was€not€seizure,€was€òònotóóÐ 8,ˆ', Ðaccompanied€by€order€to€stop€and€answer€questions,€by€drawn€weapon,€by€demand€for€identification,Ð ° Ðor€by€physical€restraint).€€A€reasonable€person€would€not€think€that€he€or€she€could€simply€get€in€hisÐ –æ Ðor€her€vehicle€and€drive€away€after€being€ordered€by€a€police€officer€to€return€to€the€vehicle,Ð |Ì Ðespecially€when€the€only€persons€present€are€the€police€officer€and€the€occupants€of€the€vehicle€andÐ b² Ðwhen€the€officer€has€activated€the€emergency€lights.€€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThough€holding€that€the€activation€of€emergency€equipment,€coupled€with€the€ordering€ofÐ  d Ðan€occupant€to€return€to€his€or€her€vehicle,€constitutes€a€seizure,€we€are€cognizant€of€the€difficultÐ ú J Ðdecisions€police€officers€face€daily€in€the€exercise€of€their€duties.€€We€realize€that€when€officersÐ à 0 Ðdesire€to€question€citizens€without€reasonable€suspicion€to€do€so,€they€may€also€want€to€activate€theirÐ Æ   Ðemergency€equipment€for€their€own€safety€so€that€they€will€be€visible€to€others.€€Likewise,€officersÐ ¬ ü  Ðmay€want€to€keep€multiple€occupants€of€a€car€together€in€that€car€to€ensure€the€officers'€safety.€Ð ’â  ÐUnder€our€decision,€police€officers€who€wish€to€question€individuals€may€be€faced€with€theÐ xÈ  Ðunsettling€choice€of€whether€to€activate€their€emergency€equipment€for€their€safety€and€run€the€riskÐ ^®  Ðof€later€suppression€of€any€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€their€questioning€or€whether€to€foregoÐ D”  Ðquestioning€the€individuals€altogether.€€Such€a€dilemma€does€not,€however,€alter€our€result.€€We€mustÐ *z  Ðfollow€the€directives€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€as€interpreted€by€the€UnitedÐ ` ÐStates€Supreme€Court€and€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Under€those€directives,€the€test€forÐ öF Ðdetermining€whether€a€seizure€occurs€examines€the€circumstances€from€the€standpoint€of€the€citizen,Ð Ü, Ðnot€the€police€officer.€€òòSeeóó€òòChesternutóó,€486€U.S.€at€573;€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425.€€If€a€reasonableÐ Â Ðperson€would€not€feel€free€to€leave€due€to€an€officer's€show€of€authority,€that€constitutes€a€seizure,Ð ¨ø Ðregardless€of€why€the€officer€made€a€show€of€authority.€€€€€€€€€Ð ŽÞ ЀÌÓ  ÓREASONABLENESS€OF€SEIZURE€Ð Zª ÐÌÓ  Óà  àHaving€found€that€the€Defendant€was€seized,€calling€into€play€the€protections€of€the€UnitedÐ &v ÐStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€we€must€now€determine€whether€that€seizure€was€reasonable.€Ð  \ ÐUnder€both€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€a€search€or€seizure€conducted€withoutÐ òB Ða€warrant€is€presumed€unreasonable.€€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403€U.S.€443,€454„55€(1971);Ð Ø( ÐòòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€780;€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.€1992).€€Therefore,Ð ¾ Ðevidence€seized€as€a€result€of€a€search€or€seizure€conducted€without€a€warrant€must€be€suppressedÐ ¤ô Ðunless€òòóóthe€State€proves€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€the€search€was€reasonable.€€òòId.óó€€Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àGenerally,€for€the€seizure€of€an€automobile€and€occupants€to€be€reasonable,€there€must€beÐ V"¦! Ðsome€type€of€individualized€suspicion€of€wrongdoing€justifying€the€seizure.€€It€has€been€deemedÐ <#Œ" Ðreasonable€to€seize€an€automobile€and€its€occupants€if€an€officer€has€probable€cause€to€believe€thatÐ "$r# Ða€criminal€offense€has€occurred€or€that€a€traffic€violation€has€occurred.€€òòSeeóó€òòWrenóó,€517€U.S.€at€810;Ð %X $ ÐòòProuseóó€440€U.S.€at€655,€659;€òòVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€734.€€If€the€officer€has€probable€cause€toÐ î%>!% Ðbelieve€that€a€violation€of€the€traffic€code€has€occurred,€the€seizure€will€be€upheld€even€if€it€is€aÐ Ô&$"& Ðcomplete€pretext€for€the€officer's€subjective€motivations€in€making€the€stop.€€òòWrenóó,€517€U.S.€at€813„Ð º' #' Ð17;€òòVineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€734„35.€€Similarly,€it€has€been€deemed€reasonable€to€temporarily€seizeÐ  (ð#( Ðan€automobile€and€occupants€for€investigation€in€the€absence€of€probable€cause€if€a€police€officerÐ †)Ö$) Ðhas€reasonable€suspicion,€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€the€occupants€have€beenÐ l*¼%* Ðâ âinvolved€in€or€are€about€to€be€involved€in€criminal€activity.€€òòSeeóó€òòOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.Ð R+¢&+ Ð690,€693€(1996);€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€30€(1968);€òòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€780;€òòVineyardóó,€958Ð ° ÐS.W.2d€at€734.Ð –æ Ðâ âÌà  àThe€State€urges€us€to€conclude€that€the€seizure€was€justified€(A)€because€Officer€Wright€hadÐ b² Ðprobable€cause€to€believe€that€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€in€which€the€Defendant€was€riding€violatedÐ H˜ Ða€provision€of€the€traffic€code€by€failing€to€give€a€signal€when€turning€and€(B)€because€OfficerÐ . ~ ÐWright€had€reasonable€suspicion,€based€on€the€information€from€the€informant,€that€the€DefendantÐ  d Ðhad€been€involved€in€criminal€activity.€€We€reject€both€contentions.Ð ú J ÐÌA.€€PROBABLE€CAUSEÐ Æ   ÐÌà  àThe€relevant€section€of€our€traffic€code€governing€turning€movements€provides€as€follows:Ð ’â  ÐÌà8  àTurning€movements.€„„€(a)€òòNo€person€shall€turn€a€vehicle€at€an€intersectionóó€unless€theÐ ^®  Ðvehicle€is€in€proper€position€upon€the€roadway€as€required€in€ðð€55„8„140,€or€turn€aÐ D”  Ðvehicle€to€enter€a€private€road€or€driveway,€or€otherwise€turn€a€vehicle€from€a€directÐ *z  Ðcourse€or€move€right€or€left€upon€a€roadway,€unless€and€until€such€movement€can€beÐ ` Ðmade€with€reasonable€safety.€€No€person€shall€so€turn€any€vehicle€òòwithout€giving€anÐ öF Ðappropriate€signalóó€in€the€manner€provided€in€ðððð€55„8„143€and€55„8„144€òòin€the€eventÐ Ü, Ðany€other€traffic€may€be€affected€by€such€movementóó.ÐÂÐ Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„8„142€(emphasis€added).€€Similarly,€another€section,€entitled€"Signals€forÐ ŽÞ Ðturns,"€provides:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àEvery€driver€who€intends€to€start,€stop€or€turn,€or€partly€turn€from€a€direct€line,€shallÐ @ Ðfirst€see€that€such€movement€can€be€made€in€safety,€and€òòwhenever€the€operation€ofÐ &v Ðany€other€vehicle€may€be€affected€by€such€movementóó,€shall€give€a€signal€required€inÐ  \ Ðthis€section,€plainly€visible€to€the€driver€of€such€other€vehicle€of€the€intention€to€makeÐ òB Ðsuch€movement.ÐØ(Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€ðð€55„8„143(a)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€a€turn€signal€is€only€required€by€law€when€anotherÐ ¤ô Ðvehicle€may€be€affected€by€the€turn.Ð Š Ú ÐÌà  àHere,€Rayburn€testified€that€there€was€no€traffic€directly€behind€or€around€his€vehicle.€€HeÐ V"¦! Ðfurther€testified€that€the€officer's€vehicle€would€not€have€been€affected€by€the€turn.€€Officer€WrightÐ <#Œ" Ðalso€testified€that€he€was€not€affected€by€Rayburn's€turn.€€Because€no€other€vehicles€could€have€beenÐ "$r# Ðaffected€by€Rayburn's€movement,€Rayburn€did€not€violate€any€provision€of€the€traffic€code€by€failingÐ %X $ Ðto€give€a€signal.€€It€follows€that€Officer€Wright,€by€reason€of€his€observations,€did€not€have€probableÐ î%>!% Ðcause€to€believe€that€a€traffic€violation€had€occurred.€€Therefore,€Officer€Wright€did€not€haveÐ Ô&$"& Ðprobable€cause€to€seize€the€Defendant€and€Rayburn€in€Rayburn's€vehicle.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€RonaldÐ º' #' ÐWayne€Smithóó,€No.M1999„01439„CCA„R3„CD,€1999€WL€1103492,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð  (ð#( ÐNashville,€Dec.€7,€1999).Ð †)Ö$) ÐÌÓ  ÓB.€€REASONABLE€SUSPICIONÐ R+¢&+ ÐÓ  ÓÐ 8,ˆ', Ðà  àLikewise,€Officer€Wright€did€not€have€reasonable€suspicion€to€believe€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ ° Ðinvolved€in€criminal€activity,€thereby€making€the€seizure€lawful.€€It€is€well€established€that€the€factsÐ –æ Ðforming€the€basis€for€the€officerððs€probable€cause€or€reasonable€suspicion€need€not€rest€upon€theÐ |Ì Ðpersonal€knowledge€or€observation€of€the€officer.€€òòSeeóó€òòAdams€v.€Williamsóó,€407€U.S.143,€147€(1972);Ð b² ÐòòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€780.€€However,€when€a€seizure€is€based€on€the€tip€of€an€informant,€theÐ H˜ Ðdanger€of€false€reports€becomes€a€concern.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31.€€Consequently,€we€must€applyÐ . ~ Ðtests€for€determining€the€reliability€of€an€informantððs€tip.€€òòId.óó€€Under€Tennessee€law,€to€establishÐ  d Ðprobable€cause€based€on€an€informantððs€tip,€there€must€be€a€showing€of€both€the€informantððsÐ ú J Ðcredibility€and€his€or€her€basis€of€knowledge.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€436€(Tenn.Ð à 0 Ð1989).€€Although€reasonable€suspicion€ð ðrequires€ðða€lower€quantum€of€proof€than€probable€cause,ððððÐ Æ   Ðthese€òòJacuminóó€factors€are€useful€in€considering€the€reliability€of€an€informantððs€tip€for€establishingÐ ¬ ü  Ðreasonable€suspicion€as€well€as€probable€cause.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31€(citation€omitted).€€TheÐ ’â  Ðdifference€is€that€reasonable€suspicion€may€be€established€by€tips€that€are€less€reliable.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó;€òòStateÐ xÈ  Ðv.€Kellyóó,€948€S.W.2d€757,€761€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Our€supreme€court€has€maintained€thatÐ ^®  Ðð ðwhile€independent€police€corroboration€could€make€up€deficiencies€in€either€prong€[of€the€test€forÐ D”  Ðreliability],€each€prong€represents€an€independently€important€consideration€that€ððmust€be€separatelyÐ *z  Ðconsidered€and€satisfied€in€some€way.ðððð€òòJacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€436€(citation€omitted).Ð ` ÐÌà  àIn€examining€independent€police€corroboration€of€an€informant's€tip,Ð Ü, ÐÌà8  à[i]t€is€difficult€to€define€with€precision€the€quantity€of€corroboration€necessary€toÐ ¨ø Ðdemonstrate€the€informant's€veracity€[or€basis€of€knowledge].€€Certainly,€more€thanÐ ŽÞ Ðthe€corroboration€of€a€few€minor€elements€of€the€story€is€necessary,€especially€ifÐ tÄ Ðthose€elements€involve€non„suspect€behavior.€€It€is€equally€certain,€though,€that€theÐ Zª Ðpolice€need€not€corroborate€every€detail€of€an€informant's€report€to€establishÐ @ Ðsufficient€evidence€of€his€veracity€[or€basis€of€knowledge].Ð&vÐ Ð  ÐÌòòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)€(quoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Bushóó,€647Ð òB ÐF.2d€357,€363€(3rd€Cir.€1981)).€€€€Ð Ø( ÐÌà  àHere,€there€was€limited€evidence€as€to€the€informant's€credibility,€but€absolutely€no€evidenceÐ ¤ô Ðas€to€the€informant's€basis€of€knowledge.€€Lt.€Cagle€testified€that€he€had€recruited€the€informant€toÐ Š Ú Ðwork€for€the€police,€that€the€informant€had€provided€information€in€the€past,€and€that€the€informationÐ p!À  Ðhad€been€reliable.€€Lt.€Cagle€did€not,€however,€reveal€how€the€informant€knew€the€Defendant€wasÐ V"¦! Ðgoing€to€buy€cocaine.€€Had€Officer€Wright€corroborated€more€of€the€information€provided€by€theÐ <#Œ" Ðinformant,€then€perhaps€he€would€have€had€reasonable€suspicion€to€seize€the€Defendant,€but€he€didÐ "$r# Ðnot€do€so.€€The€only€information€corroborated€was€that€the€Defendant€was€in€a€blue€Taurus€withÐ %X $ Ðdamage€to€the€driver's€side,€with€another€individual.€€This€information,€standing€alone,€wasÐ î%>!% Ðcompletely€innocent.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€504,€506€€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989)€(statingÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€the€fact€that€a€car€identified€by€an€informant€was€registered€in€the€name€of€the€person€implicatedÐ º' #' Ðby€the€informant€was€"innocent€in€and€of€itself").€€Officer€Wright€testified€that€he€knew€theÐ  (ð#( ÐDefendant€and€that€he€was€familiar€with€the€blue€Taurus€as€a€vehicle€that€would€contain€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐDefendant.€€Officer€Wright€did€not€see€the€Defendant€in€the€Taurus€in€the€area€of€Franklin€where€theÐ l*¼%* Ðinformant€said€the€Defendant€was€going€to€purchase€cocaine.€€Also,€Officer€Wright€did€not€see€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐDefendant€until€an€hour€after€he€had€been€informed€that€the€Defendant€was€"en€route"€to€purchaseÐ 8,ˆ', Ðcocaine.€€Upon€these€facts,€we€cannot€find€that€the€informant's€information€was€sufficientlyÐ ° Ðcorroborated.€€Because€the€State€failed€to€establish€òòbothóó€the€informant's€credibility€and€his€basis€ofÐ –æ Ðknowledge,€we€conclude€that€the€informant's€tip€did€not€provide€Officer€Wright€with€reasonableÐ |Ì Ðsuspicion€to€believe€that€the€Defendant€had€been€involved€in€criminal€activity.€€Therefore,€the€seizureÐ b² Ðof€the€Defendant€violated€both€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€and€the€fruits€of€thatÐ H˜ Ðseizure€must€be€suppressed.€Ð . ~ ÐÌà@hh%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÐ ú J ÐÌà  àWe€hold€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€to€suppress€the€evidence€obtained€against€theÐ Æ   ÐDefendant.€€All€of€the€evidence€against€the€Defendant,€including€the€drugs€found€in€Rayburn'sÐ ¬ ü  Ðvehicle,€the€drugs€found€in€the€police€vehicle,€and€the€conversation€secretly€recorded€inside€theÐ ’â  Ðpolice€cruiser,€was€obtained€in€violation€of€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€unreasonableÐ xÈ  Ðsearches€and€seizures.€€Therefore,€we€reverse€the€Defendant's€conviction€for€simple€possession€ofÐ ^®  Ðcocaine€and€remand€for€further€proceedings.Ð D”  ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à_______________________________________Ð ¨ø Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE