’WPC0 6# UN %] 0(c4‹Ÿb® 0l¶ 0D"fnv 0J~w$Čģ 0Tō 0^H¦ 0h® 0r 0|ˆ 0† 0Š 1u 0X D3ē 0d B~ AM› ėč v~Ó AQQĘ¢ 0Dh 0D¬ D/š BvÓ<U>U*MB)wDC  AMć˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nL,Ī(ÖĆ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($””Œƒ*#½¬ @ d3|xB- ł-((3üŻ$¤¤Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó(#Ć$ņņŚ  Ś0Ś  Śóó2 ’’0Indent1Ō2ŌŌ3  Ō0DDD D D D  DDDDDDDD D!"#D$%D&!e'e()D*+,D-.e/[01D23Ӏ?B2" ’’0Indent2ą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2, ’’0Indent3ą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō26 ’’0Indent4ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2@ ’’0Indent5ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2J ’’0Indent6ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2T ’’0Indent7ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō2^ ’’0Indent8ą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąą0 ąŌ2ŌŌ3  Ō ’’?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)(0"’’$££Ņ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  ŅŅ  Ņ$$$$'’’dxdP ’’8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d* 3Cž’ << G’’ įŻ ƒ!ŻŌ€0ŌŻ  ŻŌ€1ŌŌ€1ŌÓ  ÓŌ YYY ŌFILEDŌ€1XŌĢĢņ ņOctober€1,€1997ĢĢCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ĢŌ€1ōŌAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHŚ(’į’āłFG(üHHŲ(d'`*+ ,-Cž’<< C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Æ$¢¢Ż ƒ!ŻŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó ó..'÷’ dxdü’P PdStyl{WP}01•ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆ ĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆĆŠ ŠŠHHŠŠ  ŠŠ2ŠŠ’’øę$’ŠŠHHŠŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ  ŠŠ ŠŠ ŠŃŃŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŃ € ŃŃ<Px–ČŃŅŅŅ443!#4ŅŅ$ *$ŅŅ$*$ŅŅ ’KK ŅŅ  Geneva ŅŅ  Geneva ŅÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßŃGenevaŃŃ ŃŅ  ion-F Geneva ŅŅ  ion-F Geneva Ņ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d22227Border 1dd* 3Cž’ << G’’Ż ƒ!ŻŌ . ŌŌ€0ŌŻ  Ż›Ņ 4 ŅŅ ° ŅŅ 4 ŅŅ „ ŅŃ\R AŲ'\ќŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŃ\R AŲ'\ŃŌ€1ŌŃ\R AŲ'\Ń›Ž ŽĢą ąņ ņIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ßR€&'3A1-j|Vž±` Å `€€@’RߛĢÓ ` ܆XDp”X Óą ąą ąą ą€€€€€€€€€€ą ą€€€€ąQ ąAT€JACKSONĢĢÓ` °‡XDp”XÓą ą€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ą ąąQ ąą ąJUNE€1997€SESSIONó óĢĢĢĢĢą ąÓ ` ®DÓņ ņĢÓ` cÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ą ąó ó)€ĢÓ ` ø cÓą ąą ą)€C.C.A.€No.€€02C01„9701„CC„00043€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļą ąAppellee,ą ą)Ģą ąą ą)€Henry€CountyĢV.€€€€€€€ą ą)Ģą ąą ą)€Honorable€Julian€P.€Guinn,€JudgeĢņ ņą ąó óą ą)ņ ņĢMICHAEL€RAY€GRICE,ó óą ą)€(Possession€of€Controlled€Substance)ą ąą ą)€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ļą ąAppellant.ą ą)ĢĢĢĢĢÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:ą ąFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ĢĢMichael€J.€Flanaganą ąJohn€Knox€WalkupĢDale€M.€Quilleną ąAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ĢAttorneys€at€LawĢ95€White€Bridge€Road,€#208ą ąDeborah€A.€TullisĢNashville,€TN€37205ą ąAssistant€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąCriminal€Justice€DivisionĢą ą450€James€Robertson€ParkwayĢą ąNashville,€TN€37243„0493ĢĢą ąRobert€š šGusšš€RadfordĢą ąDistrict€Attorney€GeneralĢĢą ąTodd€A.€RoseĢą ąAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralĢą ąP.O.€Box€94Ģą ąParis,€TN€38242ĢĢĢĢOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ĢĢĢņ ņAFFIRMEDĢó óĢĢņ ņPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óĢJudgeĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢĢŃ  ŃŃ7€–XXdģXXdģ7ŃŃ€ ŃÓ ` ø pÓņ ņŌ  Ōą ąą ąąQ ąO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óĢÓÓĢÓ ` °§XÓą ąThe€appellant,€Michael€Ray€Grice,€was€indicted€for€possession€of€aĻcontrolled€substance€with€intent€to€manufacture,€deliver,€or€sell;€unlawfulĻpossession€of€drug€paraphernalia;€and€unlawful€possession€of€a€weapon.€ĻHe€pled€guilty€to€the€indictment€reserving€the€right€to€appeal€as€a€certifiedĻquestion€of€law€the€trial€court's€denial€of€his€motion€to€suppress.€€œņņSeeóó€Tenn.›ĻR.€Crim.€P.€37(b)(2).€€€The€appellant€contends€that€the€police€lackedĻreasonable€suspicion€to€make€an€investigatory€stop€of€his€vehicle.€€HeĻargues€that€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€search€should€beĻsuppressed.€€Upon€review,€we€affirm.€€ĢĢņ ņÓ  ÓFACTS€ó óĢņ ņÓ  Óą ąĢą ąó óOn€the€night€of€the€appellant's€arrest,€the€Tennessee€Highway€PatrolĻand€Henry€County€Sheriff's€Department€were€conducting€a€saturation€projectĶto€deter€drunk€driving.€€The€saturation€entailed€making€occasional€drive„byĻinspections€of€local€taverns.€€Officers€Robert€Edwards€and€David€PowellĻmade€such€an€inspection€of€the€Doll€House€Tavern€in€Paris,€Tennessee,Ļaround€11:40€p.m.€€As€Officer€Edwards€entered€the€Doll€House€parking€lot,Ļhe€thought€he€saw€the€appellant€back€into€a€parked€vehicle.€€He€pulled€hisĻpatrol€car€up€behind€the€appellant's€vehicle€and€got€out€to€investigate.€ĻOfficer€Powell,€who€had€heard€Edwards€announce€his€intentions€over€theĻpolice€radio,€pulled€into€the€parking€lot€behind€Edwards.€€Officer€EdwardsĻinspected€the€car€that€he€thought€the€appellant€had€hit.€€He€concluded€thatĻhe€was€mistaken.€€He€then€instructed€the€appellant€to€wait€while€he€wentĻinside€the€tavern€to€make€sure€the€appellant€had€not€committed€any€crimeĻinside.€€As€Officer€Edwards€headed€inside,€Officer€Powell€approached€theĻappellant.€€He€noticed€the€appellant€had€an€odor€of€alcohol€about€hisĻperson.€€He€also€noticed€that€the€appellant's€eyes€were€bloodshot€and€thatĻhe€appeared€nervous.€€The€officer€requested€the€appellant€to€perform€aĻseries€of€field€sobriety€tests€to€determine€if€he€was€impaired.€€During€theĻadministration€of€these€tests,€Officer€Powell€noticed€a€bulge€in€the€upper€rightĻportion€of€the€appellant's€jacket.€€He€asked€the€appellant€for€permission€toĻsearch€his€person€and€his€vehicle.€€The€appellant€consented€to€the€search.€ĻOfficer€Powell€patted€the€appellant€down.€€He€recovered€a€.35€caliberĻhandgun€and€what€appeared€to€be€a€marijuana€cigarette.€€Officer€PowellĻplaced€the€appellant€under€arrest.€€The€appellant's€vehicle€was€searched.€€€AĶlarge€quantity€of€marijuana€wrapped€in€cellophane€and€a€set€of€scales€wereĻseized.€€ĢĢą ąThe€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€hisĻmotion€to€suppress€the€evidence€seized€from€his€vehicle€and€person.€€HeĻargues€that€the€initial€stop€was€not€based€on€reasonable€suspicion€and€wasĻillegal.€€We€disagree.ĢĢą ąStopping€an€automobile€and€detaining€its€occupants€constitute€aĻ"seizure"€within€the€meaning€of€the€federal€and€state€constitutions.€€ņņState€v.ĻBinionóó,€900€S.W.2d€702,€705€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Tennessee'sĻSupreme€Court€set€forth€the€appropriate€standard€for€determining€theĻconstitutionality€of€investigatory€stops€of€automobiles:ĢÓÓą8 ąA€police€officer€may€make€an€investigatory€stop€of€a€motorĻvehicle€when€the€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,€supportedĻby€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€hasĻbeen€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€In€determining€whether€aĻpolice€officer's€reasonable€suspicion€is€supported€by€specificĻand€articulable€facts,€a€court€must€consider€the€totality€of€theĻcircumstances.€€This€includes,€but€is€not€limited€to,€objectiveĻobservations,€information€obtained€from€other€police€officers€orĻagencies,€information€obtained€from€citizens,€and€the€pattern€ofĻoperation€of€certain€offenders.€€A€court€must€also€consider€theĻrational€inferences€and€deductions€that€a€trained€police€officerĻmay€draw€from€the€facts€and€circumstances€known€to€him.€€€ĢĢÓÓņņState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€ĢĢą ąIn€the€instant€case,€Officer€Edwards€testified€that€he€stopped€theĻappellant€because€he€thought€that€he€just€witnessed€the€appellant€back€intoĻa€parked€vehicle.€€This,€coupled€with€the€lateness€of€the€hour€and€the€factĻthat€the€Ń X Ńappellant€was€leaving€a€tavern,€gave€Officer€Edwards€reasonableĻsuspicion€to€suspect€that€the€appellant€had€just€committed€or€was€in€theĻprocess€of€committing€an€offense.€€Upon€investigation€he€determined€that€noĻcollision€had€occurred.€€Officer€Edwards€stated€that€he€told€the€appellant€toĻwait€while€he€established€that€the€appellant€had€not€committed€a€crimeĻinside€the€tavern.€€At€this€time,€Officer€Edwards€did€not€have€any€lawfulĻjustification€for€further€detaining€the€appellant.€€Officer€Edwards€did€not€haveĻreasonable€suspicion€to€suspect€the€appellant€had€committed€a€crime€insideĻthe€tavern.€€Any€evidence€he€might€have€found€inside€the€tavern€would€haveĻbeen€illegally€obtained€and€subject€to€suppression.€€However,€as€OfficerĻEdwards€left€to€go€inside€the€tavern,€Officer€Powell€approached€theĻappellant.€€He€testified€that€upon€exiting€his€patrol€car€he€went€directly€toĻquestion€the€appellant.€€At€this€point,€not€having€conferred€with€OfficerĻEdwards,€he€was€unsure€of€whether€the€appellant€had€or€had€not€committedĻany€crime.€€Therefore,€his€initial€questioning€of€the€appellant€was€supportedĻby€reasonable€suspicion.€€Once€in€a€lawful€position€to€briefly€detain€theĻappellant€for€questioning,€he€noticed€signs€of€intoxication.€€He€then€hadĻreasonable€suspicion€to€administer€field€sobriety€tests€on€the€appellant.€ĻDuring€the€testing,€the€appellant€consented€to€the€search€of€his€person€andĻvehicle.€€€ĢĢą ąWe€find€that,€through€a€series€of€transactions,€the€appellant€wasĻstopped€and€detained€based€upon€reasonable€suspicion.€€The€conduct€ofĻOfficer€Edwards,€after€determining€that€the€appellant€had€not€backed€into€aĻparked€car,€was€not€unreasonable€but€exceeded€constitutional€parameters.€ĻHowever,€we€find€that€each€officer,€based€on€the€totality€of€the€circumstancesĻknown€to€each€respective€officer,€had€reasonable€suspicion€based€uponĻarticulable€facts€to€detain€the€appellant.€€€During€this€lawful€detention,€theĻappellant€consented€to€the€search€of€his€person€and€vehicle.€€The€resultingĻsearch€and€seizure€was,€therefore,€constitutionally€proper.€€The€judgment€ofĻthe€trial€court€denying€the€appellant's€motion€to€suppress€is€affirmed.€€ĢĢą ą€ĢÓÓą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ą__________________________Ģą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąą ąPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeĢĢĢCONCUR:ĢĢĢĢĢ____________________________ĢDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeĢĢĢĢĢ____________________________ĢJOE€G.€RILEY,€Judge€€