ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(7b?w@G4‡› 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 3œ v~Ï AQM Æž 0Dd 0D¨ D/ì BvÓ8˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL(Î(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- vwDxyzD{ |}Ó€‰ŒŒƒ*#äôí|A"|xŒ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ )Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€1,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¬‡XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò ò›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌ̜ـ*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|?=` Å `€€@ÿRß›JUNE€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9701„CC„00043Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHENRY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JULIAN€P.€GUINNó óÌò òMICHAEL€RAY€GRICE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àó ó(Possession€of€Controlled€Substance)ò òÌó óÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#„ÔDISSENTINGó ó€ò òOPINIONó óóóÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àÔ€#ŠÔI€respectfully€dissent€from€the€opinion€of€my€colleagues.€€Based€on€theÏtestimony€presented€at€the€suppression€hearing,€I€believe€that€the€detention€ofÏthe€œDefendant›€violated€his€protection€against€unreasonable€searches€andÏseizures€as€secured€by€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€ConstitutionÏand€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà àI€first€note€that€the€facts€and€circumstances€surrounding€a€stop,€search€orÏseizure€are€always€of€paramount€importance€in€determining€whether€actionsÏtaken€by€law€enforcement€authorities€are€reasonable€when€judged€byÏconstitutional€standards.€€òòSeeóó€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€21,€88€S.Ct.€1868,Í1880,€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968);€€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993);€ÏòòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€295€(Tenn.€œ1992).€›€Officers€must€exerciseÏð ðan€escalating€set€of€flexible€responses,€graduated€in€relation€to€the€amount€ofÏinformation€they€possess.€"€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€10,€88€S.Ct.€at€1874.€€WhereÏfactual€issues€are€involved€in€determining€a€motion€to€suppress,€our€rules€requireÏthe€trial€court€to€state€its€essential€findings€on€the€record.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(e).€ÏWhile€the€trial€judge€engaged€in€a€colloquy€with€defense€counsel€concerning€theÏmotion€to€suppress,€the€judge€made€no€specific€oral€or€written€findings€of€fact.€ÏTestimony€of€the€officers€at€the€motion€to€suppress€was€very€brief,€comprisingÏonly€twelve€pages€in€the€transcript.€€The€burden€was€on€the€State€ofÏTennessee€to€establish€the€legality€of€the€warrantless€search,€and€a€moreÏdetailed€presentation€of€the€facts€would€have€facilitated€appellate€review.ÌÌÌà àTennessee€Highway€Patrol€Sergeant€Edwards€testified€that€on€theÏevening€in€question€about€nine€state€troopers€and€the€sheriffððs€department€wereÏconducting€a€ð ðsaturationðð€in€Henry€County€and€were€ð ðchecking€the€taverns.ðð€€HeÏsaid€that€as€he€pulled€into€the€parking€lot€of€this€particular€tavern€he€observed€aÏpickup€truck€that€was€turning€around€in€the€parking€lot.€€He€said€that€it€appearedÏthat€the€truck€may€have€hit€a€vehicle€which€was€parked€approximately€one€footÏfrom€the€bumper€of€the€truck.€€When€asked€what€made€him€think€there€had€beenÍa€collision,€the€officer€stated€that€he€noticed€some€damage€on€the€front€of€theÏvehicle€which€was€close€to€the€back€bumper€of€the€pickup€truck.€€Edwards€saidÏthat€he€then€blocked€the€Defendantððs€truck€with€his€patrol€car€and€got€out€toÏspeak€to€the€Defendant.€€The€Defendant€got€out€of€his€truck€and€both€menÏwalked€to€the€rear€of€the€vehicle.€€The€officer€was€apparently€able€to€determineÏvery€quickly€that€there€had€not,€in€fact,€been€contact€between€the€two€vehicles.€ÏWhen€the€officer€was€asked€what€he€did€after€he€determined€that€the€DefendantÏhad€not€hit€the€other€vehicle,€the€officer€stated,€ð ðI€was€going€to€go€inside€andÏcontinue€our€search€or€investigation,€you€know,€inside€pertaining€to€this€vehicle€toÏmake€sure€that€they€hadnððt€had€a€problem€with€Mr.€Grice€on€the€inside.ðð€ÏSergeant€Edwards€testified€œthat€his€determination€that›€there€had€not€been€aÏcollision€was€made€before€the€deputies€started€interrogating€the€Defendant.ÏEdwards€stated€that€he€then€went€inside€the€tavern€and€left€the€second€officer,Ïa€deputy€sheriff,€talking€with€the€Defendant.€€œOnce›€inside€the€tavern,€SergeantÏEdwards€said€the€tavern€manager€told€him€that€there€was€no€problem€with€theÏDefendant€and€when€Edwards€went€back€outside,€the€other€officers€had€placedÏthe€Defendant€under€arrest.ÌÌà àOfficer€Powell,€the€deputy€sheriff,€testified€that€when€the€law€enforcementÏofficials€involved€pulled€into€the€tavern€in€question,€he€recalled€that€SergeantÏEdwards€said€that€it€appeared€as€though€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€had€hitÍanother€vehicle€ð ðdue€to€the€way€the€vehicles€were€positioned€when€we€pulledÏin.ðð€€He€said€that€Sergeant€Edwards€and€another€officer€approached€the€backÏof€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€to€see€if€he€had,€in€fact,€hit€the€other€vehicle€and€thatÏhe€(the€deputy)€approached€the€driver€of€the€pickup.€€He€said€that€as€he€spokeÏto€the€Defendant,€ð ðI€noticed€that€he€had€the€smell€of€alcohol€about€his€person.€ÏHis€eyes€were€bloodshot.€€Upon€my€approach,€he€exited€the€vehicle€andÏappeared€extremely€nervous€about€what€was€going€on.ðð€€He€said€that€whileÏSergeant€Edwards€entered€the€tavern,€he€requested€the€Defendant€to€performÏsome€field€sobriety€tests.€€It€was€during€the€administering€of€the€field€sobrietyÏtests€that€the€officer€noticed€the€bulge€in€the€Defendantððs€jacket€which€then€led€toÏthe€ensuing€searches.€ÌÌà àAs€Judge€Summers€notes,€an€investigative€detention€of€an€individualÏrequires€only€a€showing€of€reasonable€suspicion€rather€than€probable€cause.€ÏReasonable€suspicion€must€be€based€on€specific€and€articulable€factsÏindicating€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€òòTerryóó,Ï392€U.S.€at€21,€88€S.Ct.€at€1880;€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€30;€òòWatkinsóó,€827ÏS.W.2d€at€294.€€€The€articulated€fact€leading€to€Sergeant€œEdwardsðð›€blocking€theÏDefendantððs€truck€œwas›€that€the€back€bumper€of€the€truck€was€close€to€a€parkedÏvehicle€which€appeared€to€have€some€damage€on€it.€€A€deputy€sheriff€workingÍwith€Sergeant€Edwards€apparently€pulled€in€and€blocked€the€Defendantððs€truckÏfrom€behind.€ÌÌà àJudge€Summers€states€that€the€fact€that€the€officer€ð ðthoughtðð€that€he€hadÏjust€witnessed€the€Defendant€back€into€a€parked€vehicle,€coupled€with€theÏlateness€of€the€hour€and€the€fact€that€the€Defendant€was€leaving€a€tavern,Ïgave€the€officer€reasonable€suspicion€to€suspect€that€the€œDefendant›€had€justÏcommitted€or€was€in€the€process€of€committing€an€offense.€€Although€not€statedÏby€anyone€during€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€suppress,€the€ð ðcriminal€offenseððÏwhich€the€officer€suspected€the€Defendant€was€ð ðabout€to€commitðð€wasÏapparently€not€notifying€the€owner€or€operator€of€the€parked€vehicle€that€he€hadÏhit€it.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„104.€€While€the€officerððs€suspicion€certainlyÏcould€reasonably€have€led€him€to€examine€the€vehicle€he€ð ðthoughtðð€theÏDefendant€had€hit,€I€do€not€believe€that€his€suspicion€was€based€upon€specificÏand€articulable€facts€such€that€blocking€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€with€his€patrolÏcar€was€justified.€€Ìà àÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThe€reasonableness€of€a€stop€turns€on€the€facts€and€circumstances€ofÏeach€case.€€€In€particular,€the€Court€has€emphasized€(i)€the€publicÏinterest€served€by€the€seizure,€(ii)€the€nature€and€scope€of€the€intrusion,Ïand€(iii)€the€objective€facts€upon€which€the€law€enforcement€officerÏrelied€in€light€of€his€knowledge€and€experience.€€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€34€(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,Ï561,€100€S.Ct.€1870,€1881,€64€L.Ed.2d€497€(1980)€(Powell,€J.,€œconcurring)).›€ÏœHere,€Edwards›€suspected€that€a€collision€had€occurred€and€stopped€theÏDefendantððs€vehicle€ostensibly€to€protect€the€public€from€a€traffic€violation.€€HeÏbased€his€response€on€the€fact€that€he€saw€what€looked€like€damage€toÏanother€car€and€that€the€vehicles€were€close€together.€€œApparently,€Edwards›Ïalso€based€œhis€further›€ð ðinvestigationðð€on€a€factually€unsubstantiated€hunch€thatÏthere€had€been€trouble€with€the€Defendant€in€the€tavern.ÌÌœ›à àIn€any€event,€whatever€reasonable€suspicion€the€officer€had€certainlyÏdisappeared€when€he€quickly€determined€that€no€collision€had€occurred.€€EvenÏthough€Sergeant€Edwards€quickly€determined€that€no€collision€had€taken€place,Ïhe€said€that€he€immediately€went€inside€to€ð ðcontinue€our€search€or€investigation.ðð€ÏAs€Judge€Summers€states,€at€that€time€the€officer€did€not€have€any€lawfulÏjustification€to€œdetain›€the€Defendant€œfurther€and›€certainly€had€no€reasonableÏsuspicion€that€the€Defendant€had€committed€a€crime€inside€the€tavern.€€€SuchÏfurther€investigation€was€not€ð ðreasonably€related€in€scope€to€the€justification€forÏtheir€initiation,ðð€which€here€was€a€possible€minor€traffic€collision.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.Ïat€29,€88€S.Ct.€at€1884.€Thus,€any€further€detention€of€the€Defendant€amountedÏto€an€intrusion€that€exceeded€the€scope€of€a€constitutionally€permissible€stop.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Blumóó,€614€F.2d.€537,€€539€(6th.€Cir.€1980).€€JudgeÍSummers€concludes,€therefore,€that€any€evidence€which€might€have€been€foundÏinside€the€tavern€would€have€been€illegally€obtained€and€subject€toÏsuppression.€To€establish€that€a€defendant's€Fourth€Amendment€rights€haveÏbeen€implicated,€it€must€be€shown€that€the€state€infringed€upon€"an€expectationÏof€privacy€that€society€is€prepared€to€consider€reasonable."€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏJacobsenóó,€466€U.S.€109,€113,€104€S.Ct.€1652,€1656,€80€L.Ed.2d€85€(1984).€€€ÏBecause€the€Fourth€Amendment€protects€people€and€not€places,€I€believe€thatÏevidence€obtained€from€a€search€of€the€Defendant€should€be€suppressed,€notÏevidence€that€might€have€been€obtained€from€the€tavern.€€òòSeeóó€òòKatz€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€€389€U.S.€347,€351,€88€S.Ct.€507,€511,€19€L.Ed.2d€576,€582€œ(1967).›ÌÌà àJudge€Summers€concludes€that€when€Deputy€Powell€went€to€questionÏthe€Defendant,€he€had€not€conferred€with€Sergeant€Edwards€and€was€thusÏunsure€of€whether€the€Defendant€had€or€had€not€committed€any€crime.€€HeÏtherefore€concludes€that€his€questioning€of€the€Defendant€was€supported€byÏreasonable€suspicion.€€Sergeant€Edwards€testified€that€he€had€alreadyÏdetermined€that€no€collision€had€taken€place€before€the€deputies€startedÏquestioning€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àJudge€Summers€concludes€that€the€conduct€of€œSergeant›€Edwards,€afterÏdetermining€that€the€Defendant€had€not€backed€into€a€parked€car,€ð ðwas€notÍunreasonable€but€exceeded€constitutional€parameters.ðð€€Because€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€prohibit€only€òòunreasonableóó€searches€andÏseizures,€I€believe€if€the€officerððs€conduct€in€detaining€the€Defendant€was€notÏunreasonable,€then€it€was€not€constitutionally€prohibited.ÌÌà àBased€on€the€totality€of€the€facts€and€circumstances€that€I€glean€from€thisÏrecord,€I€believe€that€the€detention€and€subsequent€search€of€the€Defendant€doÏnot€pass€the€test€of€reasonableness€guaranteed€all€of€our€citizens€by€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€I€respectfully€dissent.Ìà àÌÓÓÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌ