ÿWPC …U:V %–n­¦ 04S‡‡w4¥ 0J¹ 0T 0^W 0hµ 0r 0| 0† 0‘ 1u! 0d– U6ú U*0 B)Z DCƒ AMÆ ÷v~  BˆvÓ¥ D3x 0@« AOëÆ: 0D D/D Bs<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX3|x—«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓŠ‹Ó€—Úƒç"ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òDecember€5,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'` dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÞ ÞÌÌÌÙ€€ÙßR€"#!A1-j|·:` Å `€€@ÿRßà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÌà@ àMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌó óÌÌà€ àÌÒèyXI’ÒÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àó óÌÌ€€€€€Appellee,ÌV.ÌÌò òJAMES€OLIVER€GRAYLESSÌÌ€€€€€ó óAppellant,ÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:ÌÌKenneth€L.€MillerÌAttorney€at€LawÌ30€Second€Street,€N.W.ÌPost€Office€Box€191ÌCleveland,€Tn.€37364„0191ÌÌ€ÉÌ)€C.C.A.€No.03C01„9510„CC„00311Ì)Ì)€Bradley€CountyÌ)Ì)€Hon.€R.€Steven€Bebb,€JudgeÌ)Ì)(Certified€Question€of€Law)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€General€andÌHunt€S.€BrownÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€Tn.€37243€€ÌÌJerry€N.€EstesÌDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌandÌJoe€A.€ReyhanskyÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌP.O.€Box€1351ÌCleveland,€Tn.€37364„1351ÉÒÒ€€€€€OPINION€FILED:€______________________€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€€ò òAFFIRMED€ó óÌÌÌÌÌò ò€€€€€CHARLES€LEEó ó,€Ì€€€€€Special€JudgeÇÑ7€2BXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÌÌÌÌÓÓÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌ€€€€€€€The€defendant,€James€Oliver€Grayless,€entered€a€guilty€plea€in€theÏCriminal€Court€of€Bradley€County€for€Driving€Under€the€Influence€SecondÏOffense.€He€received€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€daysÏwith€forty€five€days€to€serve€and€was€placed€on€probation€for€the€balance€ofÏhis€sentence.€In€addition€to€this€he€was€ordered€to€pay€a€five€hundred€dollarÏfine.€€The€defendant€appeals€as€of€right€upon€a€certified€question€of€searchÏand€seizure€law€that€is€dispositive€of€his€case.€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(b);€Tenn.€R.ÏCrim.€P.€37(b).€ÌÌ€€€€€€€The€defendant€contends€that€the€officer's€approach€to€his€truck€andÏsubsequent€request€to€exit€his€vehicle€violated€rights€under€the€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€ðð€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution.€€He€argues€that€because€the€initial€approach€andÏrequest€were€unconstitutional,€the€officer's€subsequent€observations€of€himÏas€well€as€the€results€of€any€tests€performed€should€have€been€suppressed.ÏThe€state€responds€that€the€approach€and€request€of€the€officer€wereÍpredicated€upon€reasonable€suspicions€based€upon€specific€and€articulableÏfacts€which€would€justify€an€investigatory€stop.€ÌÌà àWe€find€no€violation€of€the€defendant's€constitutional€rights€and€affirmÏthe€conviction.ÌÔ&  ÔÌà@ àPROCEDURAL€HISTORYÌÌà àThe€defendant€moved€to€suppress€certain€evidence€prior€to€enteringÏhis€plea.€€The€triÔ'  Ôal€court€overruled€his€motion.€€Unfortunately,€no€verbatimÏtranscript€of€the€suppression€hearing€exists.€€On€June€8,€1995,€the€defendantÏentered€his€guilty€plea€reserving€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€ofÏlaw.€€A€judgment€of€conviction€was€entered€on€June€8,€1995,€and€theÏdefendant€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€on€June€9,€1995.€€On€October€9,€1995,Ïthe€defendant€filed€a€"Narrative€Bill€of€Exceptions"€€which€outlined€hisÏversion€of€the€proof€adduced€at€the€suppression€hearing.€€This€version€wasÏapproved€by€the€trial€judge€and€the€state€and€reads€as€follows:€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÌÓÓà àDeputy€Jerry€Johnson€testified€that€on€April€12,€1994,€atÏ4:40am€his€dispatcher€advised€him€to€respond€to€a€disturbance€call€atÏ1955€Woodlawn€Street.€€While€en„route€he€was€further€advised€byÏcommunications€that€the€person€causing€the€disturbance€was€leavingÏthe€area€in€a€blue€Ford€Ranger€pickup€truck.€€A€short€time€later€OfficerÏJohnson€observed€a€vehicle€matching€the€description€on€Dalton€PikeÏtraveling€away€from€the€direction€of€Woodlawn€Street.€€The€vehicleÏpulled€into€the€parking€lot€of€Oakley's€Video.€€Officer€Johnson€pulledÏinto€the€parking€lot,€approached€the€vehicle€and€asked€the€driver€toÍexit€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Johnson€had€observed€no€traffic€violation€andÏapproached€the€vehicle€solely€based€on€the€report€of€a€disturbanceÏhe€had€received€over€his€radio.€€Officer€Johnson€did€not€know€whoÏhad€reported€the€disturbance.€€Upon€questioning€James€Grayless,ÏOfficer€Johnson€noticed€the€odor€an€alcoholic€beverage.€€HeÏadministered€three€field€sobriety€tests€to€Mr.€Grayless.€€He€then€placedÏMr.€Grayless€under€arrest€for€driving€Under€the€Influence€and€laterÏadministered€a€breathalyzer€test.Ìà àJames€Grayless€testified€that€he€did€not€commit€any€trafficÏviolation€in€Officer€Johnson's€presence.€€He€pulled€into€the€parking€lotÏof€Oakley's€Video€to€use€a€pay€telephone.€€Officer€JohnsonÏapproached€his€vehicle€and€asked€him€to€step€out.€€Officer€JohnsonÏthen€asked€him€if€he€had€been€drinking€and€asked€him€to€submit€toÏsome€field€sobriety€tests.Ìà àThese€were€the€only€two€witnesses€who€testified€at€theÏsuppression€motion.€€The€Trial€Court€overruled€the€motions€toÏsuppress.ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÓÓÌà àHowever,€upon€further€review,€the€trial€judge€entered€an€order€datedÏOctober€9,€1995,€€formally€overruling€the€defendant's€motion€to€suppress€andÏsupplementing€the€statement€of€the€evidence€filed€by€the€defendant.€€InÏpertinent€part€it€reads€as€follows:ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àWhile€the€Court€finds€no€fault€with€the€basic€outline€of€facts€byÏcounsel€in€the€Bill€of€Exceptions,€the€Court€believes€the€officer€hadÏbeen€dispatched€to€a€felonious€assault,€received€a€second€dispatchÏadvising€a€description€of€the€suspect€vehicle;€that€a€short€time€laterÏnear€5:00AM,€the€officer€saw€a€vehicle€matching€the€description€of€theÏsuspect€vehicle,€pull€quickly€into€the€parking€lot€of€a€video€store€thatÏwas€closed.€€The€officer€approached€the€vehicle€to€check€out€theÏreport,€noticed€the€defendant€smelled€of€an€intoxicant,€administeredÏfield€sobriety€tests€and€arrested€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€Court€finds€that€the€officer€had€an€obligation€to€chekc€[sic]€Ïout€the€dispatch€of€a€felonious€asault€[sic]€by€stopping€the€suspectÏvehicle;€however,€there€was€no€stop€in€this€case.€€The€officer€had€anÏobligation€to€make€further€investigation€under€the€circumstances€andÏfinds€no€violation€of€the€defendant's€constitutional€rights.ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌÌÓÓà àThe€state€urges€this€court€to€dismiss€the€defendant's€appeal€for€failureÏto€comply€with€Rule€24(c)€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ÌÌ€€€€€€€When€an€appellant€desires€to€include€a€statement€of€the€evidence€andÏproceedings€in€the€appellate€record,€the€narrative€statement€is€required€to€beÏfiled€with€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€"within€90€days€after€filing€the€notice€ofÏappeal."€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(c).€If€for€some€reason€the€statement€of€theÏevidence€cannot€be€filed€timely,€it€is€the€duty€of€the€appellant€to€move€thisÏCourt€for€the€entry€of€an€order€permitting€the€appellant€to€file€a€delayedÏstatement€of€the€evidence.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blevinsóó,€736€S.W.2d€120,€122€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1987).€Absent€such€authorization€this€Court€may€dismiss€theÏappellant's€appeal€or€elect€to€disregard€the€transcript.€òòIdóó.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.Ï26(b).€ÌÌ€€€€€€€In€òòDavis€v.€Sadleróó,€612€S.W.2d€160€(Tenn.€1981),€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court€ruled€that€the€Court€of€Appeals€and€this€Court€should€permitÏthe€late€filing€of€a€transcript€or€statement€of€the€evidence€when€(a)€it€does€notÏprejudice€either€party€to€the€proceeding,€and€(b)€a€good„faith€effort€wasÏmade€to€timely€file€the€transcript.€Since€the€order€overruling€the€defendant'sÏmotion€to€suppress€was€not€formally€entered€until€October€9,€1995,€and€theÏState€of€Tennessee€has€not€been€prejudiced€by€any€delay,€we€suspend€theÏtime€constraints€of€Rule€24(c)€and€treat€the€statement€of€the€evidence€asÍhaving€been€timely€filed.ÌÌà@ àI.€€STATEMENT€OF€THE€EVIDENCEÌÌà àThe€defendant€urges€this€court€to€disregard€the€supplemental€orderÏfiled€by€the€trial€court€on€October€9,€1995,€as€a€part€of€the€statement€of€theÏevidence.€€Ironically,€he€wishes€us€to€disregard€that€which€has€saved€himÏfrom€a€possible€dismissal€under€our€rules.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€24(c).€€We€believeÏthe€trial€court€has€acted€properly.ÌÌà àTennessee€Rules€of€Appellant€Procedure€24(e)€reads€in€pertinentÏpart:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒCorrection€or€Modification€of€the€Record.€If€any€matter€properlyÏincludable€is€omitted€from€the€record,€is€improperly€included,€or€isÏmisstated€therein,€the€record€may€be€corrected€or€modified€to€conformÏto€the€truth.€Any€differences€regarding€whether€the€record€accuratelyÏdiscloses€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court€shall€be€submitted€to€andÏsettled€by€the€trial€court€regardless€of€whether€the€record€has€beenÏtransmitted€to€the€appellate€court.€òòAbsent€extraordinaryÏcircumstances,€the€determination€of€the€trial€court€is€conclusiveóó.€IfÏnecessary,€the€appellate€or€trial€court€may€direct€that€a€supplementalÏrecord€be€certified€and€transmitted.(emphasis€added)ÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü Òà àÌà àThe€purpose€for€allowing€correction€or€modification€of€the€record€is€"toÏconvey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€record€of€what€transpired€in€the€trialÏcourt."€T.R.A.P.€24(g);€òòState€v.€Causbyóó,€706€S.W.2d€628€(Tenn.€1986).€€WhoÏbetter€can€convey€a€fair,€accurate€and€complete€description€of€whatÏtranspired€in€the€trial€court€than€the€trial€judge?€€It€is€his€responsibility€toÏmake€finding€of€facts.€€When€a€trial€court€makes€a€finding€of€fact€after€aÏhearing€on€the€merits,€the€factual€findings€are€binding€on€the€appellate€courtÏunless€there€is€evidence€which€preponderates€against€the€trial€court'sÏfinding.€òòState€v.€Aucoinóó,€756€S.W.2d€705,€710€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòStateÏv.€Johnsonóó,€717€S.W.2d€298,€304„05€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€ÌÌà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.€€However,€even€if€we€exclude€the€trialÏjudges's€supplement€to€the€record€from€our€consideration,€we€reach€theÏsame€result.ÌÌà@ àII.€€SUPPRESSION€ISSUESÌÌà àA€review€of€the€brief€submitted€by€the€defendant€and€the€stateÏdemonstrates€the€confusion€which€arise€in€cases€similar€to€this.€€Each€usesÏcatch€words€such€as€"stop,"€"arrest,"€"probable€cause,"€"reasonableÏsuspicion,"€and€"seized";€then€attempts€are€made€to€illustrate€how€factuallyÏthis€case€falls€or€does€not€fall€into€the€category€and€why€the€law€relating€toÏthe€category€should€or€should€not€be€applied€to€the€situation.Ì€Ìà àThe€better€approach€is€to€determine€whether€the€conduct€of€the€policeÏofficer€was€reasonable€considering€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€TheÏFourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€prohibits€onlyÏunreasonable€intrusions€by€the€police€into€the€lives€of€our€citizens.€€If€theÏconduct€was€reasonable,€there€is€no€violation€of€any€constitutional€rights.ÌÌà àThe€defendant's€version€of€the€facts€are€that€a€police€officer€had€beenÏadvised€of€a€disturbance€at€1955€Woodlawn€Street€at€4:55€A.M.€€WhileÏenroute€he€was€advised€the€person€causing€the€disturbance€was€leaving€theÏarea€in€a€blue€Ford€Ranger€pick€up€truck.€€Shortly€thereafter,€the€officerÏobserved€a€vehicle€matching€the€description€traveling€away€from€WoodlawnÏand€pull€into€a€parking€lot.€€The€officer€approached€the€vehicle€and€asked€theÏoccupant€to€exit.€€After€the€occupant€stepped€from€the€truck,€the€officerÏnoticed€the€odor€of€alcoholic€beverage,€administered€three€field€sobrietyÏtests€and€then€placed€the€occupant€under€arrest€for€driving€under€theÏinfluence€of€an€intoxicant.ÌÌà àUnder€these€circumstances,€was€it€reasonable€for€the€officer€toÏapproach€the€vehicle€and€ask€the€occupant€to€exit?€€The€answer€is€yes.ÌÌà àThe€question€of€reasonableness€in€the€context€of€this€case€has€mostÏrecently€been€considered€by€our€Supreme€Court€in€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863ÍS.W.2d€29€(Tenn.€1993).€€Pulley€examined€the€various€degrees€of€policeÏintrusion€and€what€is€necessary€to€establish€whether€police€action€would€beÏreasonable.€€In€conclusion€the€Court€found€"[T]he€reasonableness€of€a€stopÏturns€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€of€each€case."€In€particular,€the€CourtÏemphasized€(i)€the€public€interest€served€by€the€seizure,€(ii)€the€nature€andÏscope€of€the€intrusion,€and€(iii)€the€objective€facts€upon€which€the€lawÏenforcement€officer€relied€in€light€of€his€knowledge€and€experience.€òòIdóó.Ïquoting€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,€561€(1980).€€WeÏtherefore€examine€the€facts€of€this€case€in€the€context€of€the€holding€in€òòStateÏv.€€Pulleyóó.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà ààH` ` ` ààH` ` ` ààH` ` ` ààH` ` ` ààH` ` ` ààH` ` ` àÓ  ÓA.€€THE€PUBLIC€INTEREST€SERVED€BY€THE€SEIZUREÓ  ÓÌà àAccording€to€the€defendant's€version€of€the€facts,€the€police€officerÏwho€requested€he€exit€his€vehicle€was€Ô'  Ôinvestigating€a€disturbance€call.€€TheÏpolice€have€a€duty€to€investigate€such€calls.€€The€facts€of€this€case€are€similarÏto€those€of€òòHigh€v.€Stateóó,€217€S.W.2d€774€(Tenn.€1949).€€In€High€the€police€ofÏthe€town€of€Gallatin€received€information€from€a€passing€motorist€that€thereÏwas€a€disturbance€several€blocks€down€the€street.€They€went€to€the€place€ofÏdisturbance€and€saw€a€vehicle€matching€the€description€provided€themÏpulling€away€from€the€scene€of€the€disturbance.€They€stopped€him€and€foundÏthat€he€was€drunk.€€The€defendant€was€subsequently€convicted€of€drivingÏunder€the€influence.ÌÌà àIn€commenting€on€the€duty€of€a€law€enforcement€officer€to€investigateÏdisturbance€calls€the€Court€said:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ€'The€policeman,€above€all€officers,€requires€the€protection€of€arms....ÏHe€is€a€watchman,€both€by€day€and€night,€in€our€cities,€to€seek€forÏprobable€offenders€and€offenses,€and€to€arrest€parties€guilty,€as€theÏguardian€of€the€homes€and€business€houses€of€our€people€living€inÏcities,€charged€with€watching€for€offenders,€both€by€day€and€night,€andÏòòespecially€at€nightóó.€He€is€entitled€to€the€utmost€liberality€in€theÏconstruction€of€the€statute€in€his€favor.'€Ìà@ àÌ€€€€€€€A€policeman€is€the€protector€of€the€municipality€which€he€serves,Ïand€common€prudence€demanded€that€these€officers€undertake€toÏinvestigate€this€report€given€to€them€for€the€safety€of€the€town.'Ï(quoting€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€155€Tenn.€40,€42,€290€S.W.€4,€and€òòState€v.ÏRogersóó,€84€Tenn.€510,€515)€(emphasis€added).ÓÓÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌà àAfter€declaring€the€conduct€of€the€police€to€be€reasonable€under€theÏcircumstance,€the€Court€affirmed€the€defendant's€conviction.€€AlthoughÏdecided€almost€fifty€years€ago€and€certainly€not€to€the€analytical€depth€asÏfound€in€òòState€v.Pulleyóó,€the€principles€are€the€same.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.ÏBlankenshipóó,€757€S.W.2d€354€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)€relying€on€òòHighóó.ÌÌà àOf€course€the€nature€of€the€disturbance€call€has€a€direct€bearing€uponÏthe€public€interest€served.€€One€would€expect€the€response€to€a€barking€dogÏdisturbance€call€to€be€different€than€the€response€to€a€fight€or€assaultÏdisturbance€call.€€The€record€submitted€by€the€defendant€does€not€reveal€ifÏthe€officer€was€made€aware€of€the€nature€of€the€disturbance.€€He€did€know,Ïhowever,€that€the€nature€of€the€call€involved€human€interaction€and€theÏperpetrator€was€departing€the€scene.€€Human€interaction€disturbance€callsÍare€fraught€with€the€possibility€of€danger€and/or€bodily€injury€especially€in€theÏearly€morning€hours.€€A€reasonable€officer€could€conclude€that€he€wasÏenroute€to€a€possible€domestic€violence€or€similar€call.€€In€such€instances€heÏcertainly€would€be€expected€to€ascertain€at€least€the€identity€of€any€allegedÏperpetrator€or€participants€in€the€disturbance.€€It€would€be€reasonable€for€theÏofficer€to€ask€a€person€sitting€in€a€parked€vehicle€which€matched€theÏdescription€of€one€fleeing€from€the€scene€to€exit€in€order€to€ascertain€his€orÏher€identity€or€further€very€brief€questioning.Ìà àÌà àCertainly€if€the€call€received€by€the€officer€involved€the€report€of€aÏfelonious€assault,€as€found€by€the€trial€judge,€not€only€would€he€be€expectedÏto€investigate€more€fully,€but€would€also€be€expected€to€take€measuresÏnecessary€to€protect€himself.€€òòSeeóó€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1€(1968).ÌÌà àUnder€either€circumstance€the€public€interest€was€served€by€theÏinvestigating€officer€in€this€matter.ÌÌÔ&  Ôà@ àB.€€THE€NATURE€AND€SCOPE€OF€THE€INTRUSIONÌÌà àThe€nature€and€scope€of€this€intrusion€was€slight.€€The€defendant€wasÏrequired€to€take€no€action€other€than€Ô'  Ôto€depart€an€automobile€which€wasÏparked€on€a€public€parking€lot.€€A€police€officer€may€approach€a€car€parkedÏin€a€public€place€and€ask€for€driver€identification€and€proof€of€vehicleÍregistration,€without€any€reasonable€suspicion€of€illegal€activity.€òòPulleyóó,Ïòòsupraóó,€citing€òòState€v.€Butleróó,€795€S.W.2d€680,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€ÏAlthough€not€entirely€clear€from€the€record,€we€may€assume€that€theÏdefendant€had€intended€to€exit€his€automobile€even€before€the€officer€arrivedÏon€the€scene€since€his€stated€purpose€was€to€use€a€pay€telephone.€TheÏinconvenience,€if€any€at€all,€to€the€defendant€was€minimal.€€€ÌÓÓÔ&  ÔÌÌà àC.€€€€€€à0 àTHE€OBJECTIVE€FACTS€UPON€WHICH€THE€LAWÌÓ  ÓENFORCEMENT€OFFICER€RELIED€IN€LIGHT€OF€ÌHIS€KNOWLEDGE€AND€EXPERIENCEÌÓ  ÓÓÓÌà àThe€final€area€of€analysis€has€led€to€some€confusion€in€cases€of€thisÏnature€especially€as€it€relates€to€anonymous€reports€of€criminal€activity.€€InÏ"probable€cause"€analysis,€€to€justify€an€arrest€the€law€of€this€state€is€clearÏand€rÔ'  Ôequires€a€showing€of€both€the€informant's€credibility€and€his€or€herÏbasis€of€knowledge.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,€436€(Tenn.Ï1989).€€However,€the€law€in€those€situations€less€intrusive€than€a€full„scaleÏarrest€is€not€as€clear.€€Prior€to€òòPulleyóó€it€appeared€the€òòJacuminóó€two€prong€testÏof€reliability€applied€to€investigatory€stops.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791ÏS.W.2d€504€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).€€However,€in€òòPulleyóó€our€SupremeÏCourt€found€the€òòJacuminóó€factors€useful€but€not€mandated€in€considering€theÏreasonableness€of€police€action.€ÌÌà àOur€Supreme€Court€rejected€the€"totality€of€circumstances€test"Íadopted€in€òòIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,€103€S.€Ct.€2317,€76€L.€Ed.€2d€527Ï(1983),€in€favor€of€the€two„pronged€standard,€originally€set€forth€in€òòAguilar€v.ÏTexasóó,€378€U.S.€108,€84€S.€Ct.€1509,€12€L.€Ed.€2d€723€(1964),€and€òòSpinelli€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€393€U.S.€410,€89€S.€Ct.€584,€21€L.€Ed.€2d€637€(1969)€€as€itÏrelates€to€a€full€scale€arrests.€òòJacuminóó,€òòsupraóó€at€436.€€However,€the€"totality€ofÏcircumstances€test"€remains€the€standard€to€be€applied€to€investigatory€stopsÏsuch€as€the€case€under€consideration.€òòSee€generallyóó€òòState€v.€James€E.ÏSandersóó,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.,€No.€01C01„9502„CC„00037€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏNashville,€January€17,€1996);€òòState€v.€David€W.€Crowderóó,€1996€Tenn.€Crim.,ÏNo.€03C01„9412„CR„00437€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€March€21,€1996);ÏòòState€v.€Kenneth€M.€Seatonóó,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.,€No.€03C01„9501„CR„00020Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€October€12,€1995);€òòState€v.€Dennis€Keith€andÏTimothy€Collinsóó,€1995€Tenn.€Crim.,€No.€03C01„9501„CR„00020€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€November€15,€1995).ÌÌà àAs€such€we€hold€that€the€request€of€the€officer€to€the€defendant€to€doÏthat€which€he€was€already€about€to€do€was€reasonable€considering€theÏtotality€of€the€circumstance€of€this€case.ÌÔ&  ÔÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€conviction.ÌÌÓÓÌÒ À ÒÒ Ü ÒÔ' Ü Ô_____________________________ÌCharles€Lee,€Special€JudgeÌÒ  ÒÒ Ü ÒÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge