ÿWPC” O«þ+3{·JfR²Û™\H2C9‹˜¨äé¨42DDŽÔÍ™ŠäS%‡ºÖg¢¦«Ï°8$§X Y–Óÿz„P_¡˜1EE ~Ò°PÀ²žiG³Ä5Äœ3/¾T¿ÿdÉKú÷—ëc‡Òh‚uDÛ½é¥ÔÄ‰ë­ 7ѶÛúŠ´L^ ÀwÅOB~Hůe ~ëjͳã"ÌpØ÷z³ž×é¹=D™Ãô”Úœ0û¾yÍl«ÍfLsб¯—’@«íôO9>73CeÍh>Ú;$ÎX"(÷!†i^yÐkŽ17oÄbé}¹=òf[é>ÖiÖšd¶cc›æ!“¢ù8ÈÍ;TAZ:\ œfQ ësoªR„›è‹ªeBjLñä– _<µäÙÜ-(ìÑZ»tÖÖmLñc±«Åù‘ÙyĬD¤ØÃÁŸé77¸´£©#/ªWÁë®úÃÎÐ68±Ž!>d]ò@Uu $Ù»–·{Â+_â¼?#ò»RØ‚ftNæGœX™˜"€Î<»LBrú‰ç,}~ӕ蹡i¡K2`=•ûá÷Q¿ÕãAtŒZa@?´Æ.]ùûÚ ž@„¹Ï÷xGÛxQP#½Ë"YïÄÖð‘ëèb %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*UNxUNÆ^  z Òš wl 4p „ “ Æ• Æ[ Æ! Æç m­ NÄ #ÁÆ Æ E‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡b‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰‰ 0ë‘‘‘‘ B|| 0¤™ D3= D-p 0K ASèÆ; 0¤ 0D¥ A«é»(ƒð Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÜ^-s  ˜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.wpt3j1,¡3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0- ù-(|G2øŽ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¸ò»»Ô d(|3ÿc$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿc$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€N1XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î œî»¼ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼»îî œ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àSeptember€24,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XN1X»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXN1#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€Ô_ÔDIANNAÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHELTONÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHORDÔ_ÔÔ‡XN1X»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„13035,€36€€€€€€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„00070„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐOctober€30,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Ô_ÔDiannaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHeltonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHordÔ_Ô,€pled€guilty€to€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€on€aÐ xÈ  Ðrevoked€license.€€As€part€of€her€plea€agreement,€she€expressly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€trialÐ d´ Ðcourt€and€the€State€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€ofÐ P  ÐCriminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô).€€The€certified€question€of€law€stems€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÐ <Œ Ðthe€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÓ9ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼»àXN1æ#ÔÔ‡XN1X.¼ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòAlan€E.Ð Ø( ÐGlenn,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌGeorge€H.€Waters,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€and€Julie€A.€Rice,€Knoxville,Ð œì ÐTennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ô_ÔDiannaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHeltonÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔHordÔ_Ô.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€G.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð `° ÐMike€Flynn,€District€Attorney€General;€and€William€Reed,€€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ L œ Ðthe€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÓ‡ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXN1¶#ÔòòóóÔ‡XN1X»¼ÔÐ #`" ÐÓ  ÓÓÓÔ#†¼»XXN1w #ÔÔ€XN1X»¼ÔòòÔ‡XN1XXXN1ÔóóÌÓÓà  àThe€Defendant€argues€one€issue€in€this€appeal:€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€overruling€theÐ Ô%$!% ÐDefendantððs€motion€to€suppress€because€the€stop€of€her€vehicle€by€the€police€violated€herÐ À&"& Ðconstitutional€right€to€be€free€from€an€unreasonable€seizure.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àOn€July€27,€2000,€at€around€12:00€a.m.,€Ô_ÔBlountÔ_Ô€County€Deputy€Sheriff€Alan€Russell€wasÐ „)Ô$) Ðdispatched€to€investigate€a€complaint€about€a€prowler€around€a€barn.€€Deputy€Russell€drove€to€theÐ p*À%* Ðscene,€which€consisted€of€an€upper€and€lower€driveway€with€mobile€homes€along€each€and€a€barnÐ \+¬&+ Ðin€between.€€Upon€pulling€into€the€upper€driveway,€Officer€Dawn€Ô_ÔMaynorÔ_Ô,€a€trainee€who€was€ridingÐ H,˜', Ðwith€Deputy€Russell,€saw€a€man€near€the€barn.€€The€man€fled,€and€the€officers€pursued€on€foot.€Ð 4-„(-ý7 ÐÔ_ÔWhen€they€caught€the€man,€they€began€talking€to€him,€trying€to€ascertain€what€he€was€doing€in€theÐ ° Ðarea.€€During€the€conversation,€Deputy€Russell€saw€a€car€driving€across€the€grassy€area€near€the€barnÐ œì Ðfrom€where€the€man€had€just€fled.€€Russell€chased€the€car€on€foot€and€shone€his€flashlight€in€theÐ ˆØ Ðwindow.€€After€the€car€reached€the€public€road,€it€stopped,€and€Russell€determined€the€driver€to€beÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendant.€€At€that€point,€the€Deputy€developed€further€suspicions€that€led€to€the€DefendantÐ `° Ðbeing€arrested€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€the€evidence€that€was€obtained€as€a€result€of€theÐ $ t Ðstop.€€The€Defendant€asserted€that€Deputy€Russellððs€stop€of€her€car€violated€her€rights€againstÐ  ` Ðunreasonable€searches€and€seizures€pursuant€to€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€andÐ ü L  Ðthe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€because€Deputy€Russell€had€neitherÐ è 8  Ðprobable€cause€nor€a€reasonable€suspicion€to€believe€that€she€was€engaged€in€criminal€conduct.€€TheÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€court€overruled€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress,€and€she€pleaded€guilty€to€driving€under€theÐ À  Ðinfluence€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€However,€she€expressly€reserved€the€right€to€appeal€aÐ ¬ü  Ðcertified€question€of€law.€€The€judgment€entered€in€the€trial€court€states€the€question€as€ð ð[w]hetherÐ ˜è  Ðthe€officerððs€conduct€violated€the€Defendantððs€rights€under€Article€I,€Section€7€[of€the€TennesseeÐ „Ô  ÐConstitution]€or€the€Fourth€Amendment€[to€the€United€States€Constitution]€when€the€officer€initiallyÐ pÀ Ðcaused€the€Defendant€to€stop€her€moving€vehicle€and€encounter€the€officer.ðð€€The€judgment€furtherÐ \¬ Ðsets€forth€the€reasons€relied€on€by€the€Defendant€at€the€suppression€hearing€and€the€reasons€why€theÐ H˜ Ðissue€is€dispositive€of€the€case.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àÔ#†XN1XXXN1 #ÔÔ‡XN1XXXN1ÔTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)€provides€that€an€appeal€lies€from€anyÐ  \ Ðjudgment€of€conviction€entered€pursuant€to€a€plea€of€guilty€or€nolo€contendere€ifÐ øH Ðà8  à(i)€Defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€under€Rule€11(e)€but€explicitly€reservedÐ ä4 Ðwith€the€consent€of€the€state€and€of€the€court€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€questionÐ Ð  Ðof€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case;€orм Ð Ð  Ðà8  à.€.€.€Ð¨øÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(iv)€Defendant€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€court€the€right€to€appeal€aÐ ”ä Ðcertified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.ЀÐÐ Ð  ÐÌIn€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988),€our€supreme€court€set€forth€the€followingÐ X ¨ Ðprerequisites€for€appellate€review€of€certified€questions€pursuant€to€this€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure:Ð D!” ÐÔ#†XN1XXXN1ë#ÔÔ‡XN1XXXN1Ôà8  àRegardless€of€what€has€appeared€in€prior€petitions,€orders,€colloquy€in€open€court€orÐ 0"€  Ðotherwise,€the€final€order€or€judgment€from€which€the€time€begins€to€run€to€pursueÐ #l! Ða€T.R.A.P.€3€appeal€must€contain€a€statement€of€the€dispositive€certified€question€ofÐ $X" Ðlaw€reserved€by€defendant€for€appellate€review€and€the€question€of€law€must€be€statedÐ ô$D # Ðso€as€to€clearly€identify€the€scope€and€the€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved.€€ForÐ à%0!$ Ðexample,€where€questions€of€law€involve€the€validity€of€searches€and€theÐ Ì&"% Ðadmissibility€of€statements€and€confessions,€etc.,€the€reasons€relied€upon€byÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€in€the€trial€court€at€the€suppression€hearing€must€be€identified€in€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðstatement€of€the€certified€question€of€law€and€review€by€the€appellate€courts€will€beÐ )à$( Ðlimited€to€those€passed€upon€by€the€trial€judge€and€stated€in€the€certified€question,Ð |*Ì%) Ðabsent€a€constitutional€requirement€otherwise.€€Without€an€explicit€statement€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðcertified€question,€neither€the€defendant,€the€State€nor€the€trial€judge€can€make€aÐ ° Ðmeaningful€determination€of€whether€the€issue€sought€to€be€reviewed€is€dispositiveÐ œì Ðof€the€case.€.€.€.€Also,€the€order€must€state€that€the€certified€question€was€expresslyÐ ˆØ Ðreserved€as€part€of€a€plea€agreement,€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€consented€toÐ tÄ Ðthe€reservation€and€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judge€are€of€the€opinion€that€theÐ `° Ðquestion€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€.€.€.€No€issue€beyond€the€scope€of€the€certifiedÐ L œ Ðquestion€will€be€considered.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€650;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,€937€S.W.2d€834,€836„37€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Irwinóó,€962Ð  ` ÐS.W.2d€477,€478„79€(Tenn.€1998).Ô#†XN1XXXN1#ÔÔ‡XN1XXXN1Ô€€The€prerequisites€for€the€consideration€of€the€merits€of€a€certifiedÐ ü L  Ðquestion€of€law€as€required€by€òòPrestonóó€having€been€met,€we€begin€our€analysis€of€whether€DeputyÐ è 8  ÐRussellððs€stop€of€the€Defendantððs€car€was€unconstitutional€and€whether€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ Ô$  Ðdenying€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ð À  ÐÌà  àWe€must€first€determine€whether€the€detention€of€the€Defendant€by€Deputy€Russell€amountedÐ ˜è  Ðto€a€seizure.€€If€so,€we€must€then€determine€whether€Deputy€Russell€possessed€an€articulable,Ð „Ô  Ðreasonable€suspicion€for€an€investigatory€stop€under€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€889,€88Ð pÀ ÐS.€Ct.€1868€(1968),€and€its€progeny.€€In€òòTerryóó,€the€Supreme€Court€stated€that€not€every€encounterÐ \¬ Ðbetween€a€policeman€and€a€citizen€is€a€seizure.€€òòóó392€U.S.€at€19€n.16.€€ð ðOnly€when€the€officer,€byÐ H˜ Ðmeans€of€physical€force€or€show€of€authority,€has€in€some€way€restrained€the€liberty€of€a€citizen€mayÐ 4„ Ðwe€conclude€that€a€ððseizureðð€has€occurred.ðð€€òòId.óó€€In€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendenhallóó,€446€U.S.€544,€64Ð  p ÐL.€Ed.€2d€497,€100€S.€Ct.€1870€(1980),€the€Supreme€Court€stated,€ð ða€person€has€been€ððseizedðð€withinÐ  \ Ðthe€meaning€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€only€if,€in€view€of€all€of€the€circumstances€surrounding€theÐ øH Ðincident,€a€reasonable€person€would€have€believed€that€he€was€not€free€to€leave.ðð€€446€U.S.€at€554.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€deputy€observed€the€Defendantððs€car€driving€across€the€grassy€area€in€frontÐ ¼  Ðof€the€barn€from€where€the€subject€he€was€detaining€had€just€fled.€€He€ran€after€the€vehicle,€shiningÐ ¨ø Ðhis€flashlight€in€the€window€in€order€to€have€the€Defendant€stop€her€car.€€At€that€point,€the€DefendantÐ ”ä Ðstopped€her€vehicle,€and€Deputy€Russell€inquired€about€who€she€was€and€what€she€was€doing€there.Ô#†XN1XXXN18&#ԀР€Ð ÐWe€conclude€that€the€stop€of€the€Defendantððs€vehicle€was€a€seizure€under€both€the€United€States€andÐ l¼ ÐTennessee€Constitutions.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àNext,€we€must€determine€whether€Ô‡XN1XXXN1ÔDeputy€Russell€possessed€an€articulable,€reasonableÐ 0"€  Ðsuspicion€for€an€investigatory€stop€under€òòTerry€v.€OhioóóÔ#†XN1XXXN1®/#Ô.€€Police€may€constitutionally€initiate€anÐ #l! Ðinvestigatory€stop€of€an€automobile€if€they€have€reasonable€suspicion,€supported€by€specific€andÐ $X" Ðarticulable€facts,€that€the€occupant€of€the€vehicle€has€either€committed€a€criminal€offense€or€is€aboutÐ ô$D # Ðto€commit€a€criminal€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€780€(Tenn.€1998).€€WhenÐ à%0!$ Ðevaluating€whether€a€police€officerððs€reasonable€suspicion€is€supported€by€specific€and€articulableÐ Ì&"% Ðfacts,€a€court€must€consider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,Ð ¸'#& Ð294€(Tenn.€1992).€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àDeputy€Russell€had€received€an€order€from€dispatch€around€midnight€to€investigate€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðpresence€of€a€prowler€in€an€area€containing€a€barn€and€several€mobile€homes.€€Upon€arriving€at€theÐ h+¸&* Ðscene,€his€trainee€observed€a€man€near€the€barn.€€The€man€immediately€fled,€and€both€officers€gaveÐ ° Ðpursuit€on€foot.€€Ultimately€the€officers€caught€the€subject€and€were€asking€him€what€he€was€doing,Ð œì Ðwhen€Deputy€Russell€noticed€a€car€driving€across€the€grassy€area€from€where€their€subject€had€fled.€Ð ˆØ ÐGiven€the€totality€of€the€circumstances€ð"ð€the€late€hour,€the€report€of€a€prowler,€the€flight€of€the€maleÐ tÄ Ðsubject,€and€the€appearance€of€the€Defendantððs€car€driving€across€the€grass€where€the€officers€hadÐ `° Ðjust€chased€the€subject€ð"ð€we€conclude€that€Deputy€Russellððs€suspicion€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ L œ Ðinvolved€in€some€sort€of€criminal€activity€was€reasonable.€€As€the€trial€judge€stated,€the€officers€mayÐ 8 ˆ Ðhave€been€derelict€in€their€duty€had€they€not€stopped€the€vehicle.€€Therefore,€the€stop€of€theÐ $ t ÐDefendant€was€not€a€violation€of€her€rights€under€either€the€United€States€Constitution€or€theÐ  ` ÐTennessee€Constitution,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€err€by€overruling€her€motion€to€suppress€theÐ ü L  Ðevidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€stop.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð À  Ðà  àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð „Ô  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE