ÿWPCD  r¹QùjX•¶°Qðž&NkX%*òUÈô¯±WÎØÅa”ùðôÊØŸŒôð –CÇX_{_4IR"a=ÿá3äƒcá(_ë'ù囪ا^݉Þó¤Lîï.¬-ÉÏý:çRQE¤`Évë䜛گɔm 7{¢e°èQnbÏů‚RôØf%Æ[Å¢\ŽÛr¤}õÚÇW¨d!Z"u±¥=­²w„×úbÅÂÔ1m™ÍQïŠ`Y¦ Ê?8—o™q¸9LvªýËS¬RŒ¿M—‹ƒ/Aÿû…pu;'¡ãZ°ËP•O°•BÎ4Ðì/V¿”´[1…œÛ Õæò“T Ö4RÉ%Úúö×ZÂ6ñ[7=$Ïm$Ó“<¶ÇwE «,ãq|U»ùà{¾ðvÌ׉.?Ig'qnÙ- J•ãùÕäˆ(™Éow,ó׃÷ŽBËHÞÛùŠXQ§Š‘ù?Ô Î{Hz6»7ш'¬ >w“+OÙ÷® ,i¶ÄLørñÑóø YóáòÔ/l(8×ò¦ÈJÙÌK냸ÕRYñ@šAë8nA–ëöïÌç.͸`d-›K¸RºÕa‡<#¶>m͵ÝÙ ß›_‚¸ûÅ¿NyXíâ±ÔW#ÉÂUN‹ %Ù 0:ß b ^ ! w- 41 E T mV :m b§ :¯ Né :ë ë ë ë ë ë E% % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % B' ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô- ù-ì‘1î  J‰1ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ PlaisanceWhitehouse- ù- 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ 0Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ € Ñ dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ€6YÑà@hhìàÔ‡îÇëîXXÔÑ€v]ÑIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†XiJXîîÇël#ÔÔ‡»1$»XXiJԈРÓ# Ðà@ÂÂìàSeptember€22,€2004€SessionˆÐ öF ÐÔ#†XiJX»»1$ #ÔÔ‡»1$»XXiJÔÌà@  ìàò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€CHARLES€JACKSON,€JRó óˆÐ  f ÐÔ#†XiJX»»1$º#ÔÔ‡îÇëîXXiJÔÌà@ä ä ìàò òÔ#†XiJXîîÇëT#ÔDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Robertson€CountyˆÐ J š Ðà@” ” ìàNo.€03„0130€€€€€€John€H.€Ô_ÔGasawayÔ_Ô,€III,€JudgeˆÐ 4 „ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<ñ` A߈Ð òB  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àà  àà x àÌà@J J ìàNo.€M2003„02417„CCA„R3„CD€„€Filed€December€14,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ԈРë;  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¾` AßÐ ¿  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓDefendant,€Charles€Jackson,€Jr.,€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€possession€of€cocaine€of€over€0.5€gramsÐ · Ðwith€intent€to€sell,€a€Class€C€felony.€€The€trial€court€imposed€the€recommended€sentence€of€eightÐ  ð Ðyears€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offender.€€As€a€part€of€the€plea€agreement,€Defendant€reserved€twoÐ ‰Ù Ðcertified€questions€of€law€under€Rule€37(b)(2)(i)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÐ r Ðarguing€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€not€suppressing€items€found€during€a€search€of€his€vehicle.€€WeÐ [« Ðaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð D” ÐÌà@®®ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ f ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayes€óóand€òòJerryÐ é9 ÐL.€Smith,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð Ò" ÐÌLarry€B.€Felts,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Charles€Jackson,€Jr.Ð ¤ô ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Richard€H.€Ô_ÔDunavantÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ vÆ ÐGeneral;€John€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Dent€Ô_ÔMorrissÔ_Ô,€Assistant€DistrictÐ _ ¯ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð H!˜  ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ #j" ÐÌò òI.€€Suppression€Hearingó óÐ í$= $ ÐÌà  àAt€the€hearing€on€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress,€Officer€Terry€Plaisance€testified€that€heÐ À&"& Ðwas€patrolling€the€portion€of€Interstate€65€that€runs€through€White€House,€Tennessee,€when€heÐ ©'ù"' Ðnoticed€a€car€traveling€below€the€speed€limit.€€Officer€Plaisance€called€in€the€license€plate€numberÐ ’(â#( Ðof€the€vehicle€and€learned€that€the€driverððs€license€of€the€registered€owner,€Antonio€Smith,€wasÐ {)Ë$) Ðsuspended.€€The€dispatcher€also€relayed€a€physical€description€of€Mr.€Smith€based€on€his€driverððsÐ d*´%* Ðlicense.€€The€information€indicted€that€Mr.€Smith,€who€was€born€in€1978,€was€an€African„AmericanÐ M+&+ Ðmale,€with€black€hair€and€brown€eyes,€five€feet€nine€inches€tall,€and€weighing€two€hundred€and€twoÐ 6,†', Ðpounds.€Ð -o(- ÐÑ6YÑâ âÑ8€iJXXdédÈ8ÑÑ€Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àOfficer€Plaisance€pulled€his€car€into€the€left€lane€so€that€it€was€next€to€Defendantððs€vehicle.€Ð ° ÐOfficer€Plaisance€observed€that€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€appeared€to€match€Mr.€Smithððs€description,Ð ™é Ðand€he€initiated€a€stop€of€Defendantððs€vehicle.€€Officer€Plaisance€asked€Defendant€if€he€was€AntonioÐ ‚Ò ÐSmith,€and€Defendant€replied€that€his€name€was€Charles€Jackson.€€Officer€Plaisance€asked€forÐ k» ÐDefendantððs€driverððs€license€to€verify€his€identity.€€Defendant€handed€him€a€ð ðTennesseeÐ T¤ Ðidentification€card.ðð€€Officer€Plaisance€said€that€it€was€his€experience€that€a€driver€generally€carriesÐ =  Ðan€identification€card€when€his€or€her€driverððs€license€had€been€suspended€or€revoked.€€He€askedÐ & v ÐDefendant,€ð ðwhy€are€you€suspended?ðð€€Defendant€said€that€his€driverððs€license€had€been€suspendedÐ  _ Ðð ðfor€a€ticket€that€he€hadnððt€[sic]€taken€care€of€in€Florida.ððÐ ø H ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæMÓà  àOfficer€Plaisance€returned€to€his€vehicle€to€verify€the€status€of€Defendantððs€driverððs€licenseÐ ²   Ðand€to€request€a€back„up€patrol€car.€€After€the€other€officer€arrived,€Defendant€consented€to€a€searchÐ ›ë  Ðof€his€person€and€vehicle€which€led€to€the€discovery€of€the€drugs€upon€which€Defendantððs€convictionÐ „Ô  Ðwas€based.Ð m½  ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæÓà  àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Plaisance€conceded€that€he€could€not€tell€what€colorÐ 'w  ÐDefendantððs€eyes€were€at€that€time€of€the€night,€and€that€Defendant€was€thirty„eight€years€old.€Ð ` ÐOfficer€Plaisance€said€that€he€estimated€Defendantððs€weight€and€height€before€he€got€out€of€the€carÐ ùI Ðð ðfrom€experience€for€the€most€part.ððÐ â2 ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæÞÓà  àDefendant€testified€that€he€observed€Officer€Plaisance€pulling€up€to€his€vehicle€but€deniedÐ œì Ðthat€the€police€car€drew€even€with€Defendantððs€vehicle€so€that€Defendantððs€face€was€visible.€Ð …Õ ÐDefendant€said€that€he€was€six€feet,€two€inches€tall,€and€weighed€two€hundred€and€fifty€pounds.€Ð n¾ ÐAntonio€Smith€testified€that€he€had€brown,€not€black,€hair.Ð W§ ÐÓfæÓÌò òII.€€Trial€Courtððs€Findingsó óÐ a ÐÌÓfæÀÓà  àBased€upon€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€investigatory€stopÐ ´ Ðof€Defendantððs€vehicle€was€supported€by€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€the€vehicle€was€driven€byÐ í ÐAntonio€Smith€whose€driverððs€license€had€been€suspended.€€The€trial€court€continued:Ð †Ö ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæ„Óà8  àà ` àAfter€stopping€the€vehicle,€the€asking€of€the€driver€if€he€were€Antonio€Smith,Ð @  Ðthe€asking€of€the€driver€for€identification€when€the€officer€was€told€by€the€driver€heÐ )!y  Ðwas€Charles€Jackson,€the€checking€by€the€officer€of€the€validity€of€.€.€.€the€driverððsÐ "b! Ðoperatorððs€license€after€having€been€told€by€the€driver€that€his€operatorððs€license€wasÐ û"K" Ðin€a€suspended€status€are€all€actions€which€are€legally€justified.Ðä#4#Ð Ð  ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæÔÓà8  àà ` àThe€officer€had€a€right€to€do€each€of€those€things€to€act€upon€the€suspicionÐ ž%î % Ðthat€he€developed€after€he€learned€the€information€that€he€did€from€the€dispatch.€€So,Ð ‡&×!& Ðthe€motion€to€suppress€is€accordingly€denied.Ðp'À"'Ð Ð  ÐÓfæÓÌò òIII.€Standard€of€Reviewó óÐ *)z$) ÐÌÓfæ-Óà  àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€bindingÐ Í*&+ Ðupon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.Ð ¶+', ÐÑv]Ñâ âÑ8€iJXXdéXXdé8ÑÑ€ Ñâ âÑ  ÑRossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€839€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€prevailing€party€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimateÐ ° Ðview€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€drawn€from€that€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55Ð ™é ÐS.W.3d€515,€521€(Tenn.€2001).€€However,€this€Court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€conclusionsÐ ‚Ò Ðof€law.€€òòState€v.€Randolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€330,€333€(Tenn.€2002).€€The€application€of€the€law€to€the€factsÐ k» Ðfound€by€the€trial€court€are€questions€of€law€this€Court€reviews€òòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ T¤ Ð420,€423€(Tenn.€2000).Ð =  ÐÌò òIV.€€Certified€Question€of€LawÐ  _ ÐÌà  àó óDefendant€presents€the€following€two€certified€questions€on€appeal:Ð ã 3  ÐÌà  à1)€Whether€the€arresting€officer€had€probable€cause€or€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€theÐ µ  Ðvehicle€that€the€defendant€was€driving,€based€solely€on€a€radio€transmission€that€the€owner€of€theÐ žî  Ðvehicleððs€license€plate€had€a€suspended€license;€andÐ ‡×  ÐÌà  à2)€Whether€the€officer€had€probable€cause€to€ask€the€defendant€about€the€status€of€his€driverððsÐ Y©  Ðlicense,€after€the€officer€confirmed€that€the€defendant€was€not€the€owner€of€the€license€plate.Ð B’ ÐÌà  àBecause€this€appeal€comes€before€us€as€a€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)€ofÐ d Ðthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€we€must€first€determine€whether€the€proceduralÐ ýM Ðrequirements€have€been€met.€€Rule€37(b)€provides,€in€part,€that:Ð æ6 ÐÌà8  àAn€appeal€lies€from€any€order€or€judgment€in€a€criminal€proceeding€where€the€lawÐ ¸ Ðprovides€for€such€appeal,€and€from€any€judgment€of€conviction€.€.€.€upon€a€plea€ofÐ ¡ñ Ðguilty€[if]€.€.€.[the]€defendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€under€Rule€11(e)€butÐ ŠÚ Ðexplicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€State€and€of€the€court€the€right€to€appealÐ sà Ða€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case€and€the€followingÐ \¬ Ðrequirements€are€met:ÐE•Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(A)€The€judgment€of€conviction,€or€other€document€to€which€such€judgment€refersÐ g Ðthat€is€filed€before€the€notice€of€appeal,€must€contain€a€statement€of€the€certifiedÐ  P Ðquestion€of€law€reserved€by€the€defendant€for€appellate€review;Ðé 9Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(B)€The€question€of€law€must€be€stated€in€the€judgment€or€document€so€as€to€identifyÐ Ò!"  Ðclearly€the€scope€and€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved;л" !Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(C)€The€judgment€or€document€must€reflect€that€the€certified€question€was€expresslyÐ ¤#ô" Ðreserved€with€the€consent€of€the€State€and€the€trial€judge;€andÐ$Ý#Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(D)€The€judgment€or€document€must€reflect€that€the€defendant,€the€State,€and€the€trialÐ v%Æ $ Ðjudge€are€of€the€opinion€that€the€certified€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case€.€.€.€.Ð_&¯!%Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(b)(2);€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€record€showsÐ 1(#' Ðthat€all€of€the€procedural€requirements€of€Rule€37€have€been€met;€we€must€also€review€whether€theÐ )j$( Ðcertified€questions€presented€for€review€are€dispositive€of€the€case.Ð *S%) Ðâ âÐ ì*<&* Ðà  àA€dispositive€issue€is€one€where€the€appellate€court€ð ðmust€either€affirm€the€judgment€orÐ ° Ðâ âreverse€and€dismiss.ðð€€òòState€v.€Wilkesóó,€684€S.W.2d€663,€667€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€Ð ™é ÐCorrespondingly,€an€issue€is€not€dispositive€of€the€case€ð ðwhen€[the€appellate€court]€might€reverseÐ ‚Ò Ðand€remand€for€trial.ðð€€òòId.óó.€€òòBut€see€State€v.€Payneóó,€___€S.W.3d€___,€2004€WL€2453561€(Tenn.€2004)Ð k» Ð(Under€the€particular€facts€presented€in€the€defendantððs€certified€question€requesting€suppression€ofÐ T¤ Ðhis€statement€to€the€police,€the€supreme€court€affirmed€the€reversal€of€the€defendantððs€convictions,Ð =  Ðbut€reversed€the€dismissal€of€the€charges€and€remanded€for€proceedings€consistent€with€the€opinion.)€Ð & v ÐAlthough€the€parties€and€trial€court€certified€Defendantððs€issues€as€dispositive€of€the€case,€anÐ  _ Ðappellate€court€is€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€an€issue€is€dispositive.€€òòPrestonóó,Ð ø H Ð759€S.W.2d€at€651.€€Rather,€this€Court€must€make€an€independent€determination€of€the€dispositiveÐ á 1  Ðnature€of€the€issue€and€must€deny€appellate€review€if€the€court€determines€the€issue€is€notÐ Ê   Ðdispositive.€€òòId.óóÐ ³  ÐÌà  àDefendantððs€first€certified€question€challenges€the€legality€of€the€initial€investigatory€stop.€Ð …Õ  ЀThe€State€concedes€the€dispositive€nature€of€Defendantððs€first€question€and€agrees€that€its€entire€caseÐ n¾  Ðis€based€on€the€evidence€seized€during€the€search€conducted€during€the€investigatory€stop.€€EvidenceÐ W§  Ðseized€during€an€illegal€traffic€stop€is€subject€to€suppression.€€òòSee€State€v.€Norwoodóó,€938€S.W.2d€23,Ð @ Ð26€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€Ð )y ÐÌà  àThe€State€challenges€for€the€first€time€on€appeal,€however,€the€dispositive€nature€ofÐ ûK ÐDefendantððs€second€certified€question.€€Assuming€Officer€Plaisance€initially€had€reasonableÐ ä4 Ðsuspicion€to€initiate€an€investigatory€traffic€stop,€the€second€question€focuses€on€whether€OfficerÐ Í ÐPlaisanceððs€continued€questioning€of€Defendant€exceeded€the€permissible€scope€of€a€òòTerry€óóstop.€€òòSeeÐ ¶ ÐTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€889€(1968).€€ð ðA€reasonable€traffic€stop€canÐ Ÿï Ðbecome€unreasonable€and€constitutionally€invalid€ððif€the€time,€manner€or€scope€of€the€investigationÐ ˆØ Ðexceeds€the€proper€parameters.ðððð€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTroxellÔ_Ôóó,€78€S.W.3d€866,€871€(Tenn.€2002)€(quoting€òòUnitedÐ qÁ ÐStates€v.€Ô_ÔChildsÔ_Ôóó,€256€F.3d€559,€564€(7òòthóó€Cir.€2001)).Ð Zª ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€Officer€Plaisanceððs€conduct€during€the€stop,€the€State€contends€that€DefendantÐ ,| Ðconsented€to€the€search€which€led€to€the€discovery€of€the€incriminating€evidence.€€òòSee€State€v.Ð e ÐGarciaóó,€123€S.W.3d€335€(Tenn.€2003);€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€1998).€€The€courtÐ þN Ðin€òòGarcia€óóobserved€that€ð ððða€consent€to€search€that€is€preceded€by€an€illegal€seizure€is€not€ððfruit€ofÐ ç 7 Ðthe€poisonous€treeðð€if€the€consent€is€both:€1)€voluntary,€and€2)€not€an€exploitation€of€the€priorÐ Ð!   Ðillegality.ðð€€òòGarciaóó,€123€S.W.3d€at€346€(quoting€Wayne€LaFave,€3€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó€ðð€8.2(d)€atÐ ¹" ! Ð656€(3òòrdóó€ed.€1996)).€€The€òòGarciaóó€court€also€observed€ð ðthat€attenuation€issues€are€highly€factual.ðð€€òòId.óó,Ð ¢#ò" Ðciting€òòState€v.€Huddlestonóó,€924€S.W.2d€666,€674€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€question€of€the€validity€ofÐ ‹$Û# ÐDefendantððs€consent€to€search€was€not€litigated€in€the€trial€court,€and€the€trial€court€did€not€make€anyÐ t%Ä $ Ðfindings€of€fact€as€to€the€nature€of€Defendantððs€consent.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€both€ofÐ ]&­!% ÐDefendantððs€certified€questions,€as€presented€on€appeal,€are€dispositive€of€the€case.Ð F'–"& ÐÌÌÌÌò òV.€€Investigatory€Stopó óÐ Ó+#'+ Їà  àð ðIt€is€well„settled€that€an€automobile€stop€constitutes€a€seizure€within€the€meaning€of€bothÐ ° Ðthe€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€I,€section€7€of€the€TennesseeÐ ™é ÐConstitution.ðð€€òòState€v.€Harperóó,€31€S.W.3d€267,€271€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000)(citations€omitted).€Ð ‚Ò ÐA€person€is€clearly€seized€when€an€officer€turns€on€a€police€carððs€blue€lights€and€initiates€a€stop.€Ð k» ÐòòState€v.€Ô_ÔBinetteÔ_Ôóó,€33€S.W.3d€215,€218€(Tenn.€2000).€€Because€an€investigatory€stop€is€not€conductedÐ T¤ Ðpursuant€to€a€warrant,€it€is€presumed€unreasonable€unless€the€seizure€was€conducted€under€one€ofÐ =  Ðthe€limited€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔYearginÔ_Ôóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€630€(Tenn.Ð & v Ð1997).€€One€exception€permits€a€law€officer€to€conduct€a€brief€investigatory€stop€if€the€officer€hasÐ  _ Ða€reasonable€suspicion€based€upon€specific€and€articulable€facts€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€orÐ ø H Ðis€about€to€be€committed.€€òòTerry,€óó392€U.S.€at€21,€88€S.€Ct.€at€1880.€€In€determining€whether€anÐ á 1  Ðofficer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion€based€upon€specific€and€articulable€facts,€a€court€should€considerÐ Ê   Ðthe€totality€of€the€circumstances,€including,€but€not€limited€to,€ð ðthe€officerððs€personal€objectiveÐ ³  Ðobservations,€information€obtained€from€other€police€officers€or€agencies,€information€obtained€fromÐ œì  Ðcitizens,€and€the€pattern€of€operation€of€certain€offenders.ðð€€òòÔ_ÔYearginÔ_Ôóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€632.€€In€addition,Ð …Õ  Ðð ð[a]€court€must€also€consider€the€rational€inferences€and€deductions€that€a€trained€officer€may€drawÐ n¾  Ðfrom€the€facts€and€circumstances€known€to€him.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð W§  ÐÌà  àAn€investigatory€stop€ð ðbased€upon€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€a€driver€is€unlicensed€[is]Ð )y Ðconstitutionally€permissible.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€631,€citing€òòDelaware€v.€Ô_ÔProuseÔ_Ôóó,€440€U.S.€648,€663,€99€S.€Ct.Ð b Ð1391,€1401,€59€L.€Ed.€2d€660€(1979);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293€(Tenn.€1993)(AnÐ ûK Ðinvestigatory€stop€of€a€motor€vehicle€based€on€the€vehicleððs€description€is€permissible€when€theÐ ä4 Ðpolice€officer€knows€that€the€owner€of€the€vehicle€has€an€outstanding€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô.);€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔMcCullochÔ_Ô,Ð Í Ðóó906€S.W.2d€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).Ð ¶ ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔMcCullochÔ_Ôóó,€the€police€officer€spotted€the€defendant€driving€his€automobile.€€The€officerÐ ˆØ Ðthought€the€defendant€was€an€individual€whom€the€officer€had€recently€arrested€for€DUI€and€drivingÐ qÁ Ðon€a€revoked€license.€€€The€officer€radioed€for€information€about€the€vehicleððs€license€tag.€€HeÐ Zª Ðdiscovered€that€the€vehicle€was€not€registered€in€the€name€of€the€individual€he€believed€was€theÐ C“ Ðdriver,€and€that€the€tag€was€not€registered€to€that€vehicle.€€A€panel€of€this€court€concluded€that€theÐ ,| Ðpolice€officer€had€a€reasonable€suspicion€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts€to€stop€the€vehicle.€Ð e ÐòòId.óó€at€4.Ð þN ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€Officer€Plaisance€had€information€that€the€driverððs€license€of€theÐ Ð!   Ðowner€of€the€vehicle€in€question€was€suspended.€€The€dispatcher€provided€a€basic€description€of€theÐ ¹" ! Ðowner,€Antonio€Smith.€€Officer€Plaisance€observed€Defendant€as€he€drove€the€vehicle€andÐ ¢#ò" Ðdetermined€that€he€generally€fit€the€description€provided€by€the€dispatcher.€€Considering€the€totalityÐ ‹$Û# Ðof€the€circumstances,€we€find€that€Officer€Plaisance€had€the€requisite€reasonable€suspicion€based€onÐ t%Ä $ Ðspecific€and€articulable€facts€to€initiate€an€investigatory€stop€of€Defendantððs€vehicle.€€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àNext,€we€address€Defendantððs€argument€that€even€if€the€initial€stop€was€lawful,€the€durationÐ /(#' Ðand€scope€of€the€seizure€exceeded€permissible€limits.€€Defendant€argues€that€Officer€PlaisanceÐ )h$( Ðexceeded€the€scope€of€the€stop€when€he€asked€Defendant€for€his€driverððs€license€after€Defendant€toldÐ *Q%) Ðhim€he€was€not€Antonio€Smith.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àThe€constitutional€parameters€of€an€encounter€between€a€police€officer€and€a€motorist€wasÐ ° Ðset€forth€in€òòState€v.€Ô_ÔTroxellÔ_Ôóó,€78€S.W.3d€866€(Tenn.€2002).Ð ™é ÐÌà8  àBecause€a€traffic€stop€is€an€investigatory€stop,€the€officerððs€actions€must€beÐ k» Ðð ðreasonably€related€in€scope€to€the€circumstances€which€justified€the€interference€inÐ T¤ Ðthe€first€place,ðð€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€20,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€1879,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€889Ð =  Ð(1968),€and€the€detention€ð ðmust€be€temporary€and€last€no€longer€than€necessary€toÐ & v Ðeffectuate€the€purpose€of€the€stop.ðð€€òòFlorida€v.€Ô_ÔRoyerÔ_Ôóó,€460€U.S.€491,€500,€103€S.€Ct.Ð  _ Ð1319,€1325,€75€L.€Ed.€2d€229€(1983);€òòState€v.€Englandóó,€19€S.W.3d€at€767„68.€Ð ø H ÐMoreover,€the€officer€should€employ€the€least€intrusive€means€reasonably€availableÐ á 1  Ðto€investigate€his€or€her€suspicions€in€a€short€period€of€time.€€òòFlorida€v.€Ô_ÔRoyerÔ_Ôóó,€460Ð Ê   ÐU.S.€at€500,€103€S.€Ct.€at€1326.€€As€this€Court€has€said,€ð ðthe€proper€inquiry€isÐ ³  Ðwhether€during€the€detention,€the€police€diligently€pursued€a€means€of€investigationÐ œì  Ðthat€was€likely€to€confirm€or€dispel€their€suspicions€quickly.ðð€€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968Ð …Õ  ÐS.W.2d€at€783€(citation€omitted).€€Otherwise,€a€reasonable€traffic€stop€can€becomeÐ n¾  Ðunreasonable€and€constitutionally€invalid€ð ðif€the€time,€manner,€or€scope€of€theÐ W§  Ðinvestigation€exceeds€the€proper€parameters.ððÐ@Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€871.Ð b ÐÌà  àOne€of€the€lines€of€inquiry€a€police€officer€may€pursue€during€an€investigatory€stop€involvesÐ ä4 Ðverifying€the€driverððs€identity€and€compliance€with€licensing€requirements.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔProuseÔ_Ôóó,€440€U.S.Ð Í Ðat€663,€99€S.€Ct.€at€1401.€€ð ðIt€is€well€established€that€an€officer€may€ask€a€[person]€to€identify€himselfÐ ¶ Ðin€the€course€of€a€òòTerryóó€stopðð€based€on€reasonable€suspicion.€€òòÔ_ÔHiibelÔ_Ô€v.€Sixth€Judicial€District€ofÐ Ÿï ÐNevadaóó,€___€U.S.€___,€124€S.€Ct.€2451,€2459,€159€L.€Ed.€2d€292€(2004)(citing€òòUnited€State€v.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔHensleyÔ_Ôóó,€469€U.S.€221,€229,€105€S.€Ct.€675,€83€L.€Ed.€2d€604€(1985)).€€Ð qÁ ÐÌà  àReturning€to€the€situation€examined€in€òòÔ_ÔMcCullochÔ_Ôóó,€after€stopping€the€defendantððs€vehicle,Ð C“ Ðthe€police€officer€discovered€that€the€defendant€was€not€the€individual€he€believed€was€driving€theÐ ,| Ðvehicle.€€Nonetheless,€the€officer€asked€the€defendant€for€his€driverððs€license€and€learned€that€hisÐ e Ðlicense€was€revoked.€€The€defendant€argued€that€the€officer€had€no€authority€to€ask€for€his€driverððsÐ þN Ðlicense€once€he€determined€that€the€defendant€was€not€who€he€thought.€€This€Court€concluded€thatÐ ç 7 Ðthe€officerððs€actions€proper.€€òòÔ_ÔMcCullochÔ_Ôóó,€906€S.W.2d€at€5.€€The€court€observed€that€Tennessee€CodeÐ Ð!   ÐAnnotated€section€requires€that€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€licensee€shall€have€the€licenseeððs€license€in€immediateÐ ¹" ! Ðpossession€at€all€times€when€driving€a€motor€vehicle€and€shall€display€it€upon€demand€of€any€.€.€.Ð ¢#ò" Ðpolice€officer€of€the€state,€county€or€municipality.ðð€€òòId.óó€€òòSee€also€State€v.€Levittóó,€75€S.W.3d€159,€176„Ð ‹$Û# Ð77€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001)(Observing€that€a€motoristððs€refusal€to€show€his€driverððs€license€whenÐ t%Ä $ Ðrequested€to€do€so€by€a€police€officer€during€a€permissible€motor€vehicle€stop€is€sufficient€to€supportÐ ]&­!% Ða€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„50„351).Ð F'–"& ÐÌà  àBased€upon€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€Officer€Plaisanceððs€request€for€DefendantððsÐ )h$( Ðdriverððs€license€to€verify€his€identity€was€reasonable.€€When€Defendant€failed€to€produce€a€driverððsÐ *Q%) Ðlicense,€and€this€indicated€to€the€officer€that€Defendantððs€license€was€suspended,€Officer€PlaisanceÐ ê*:&* Ðhad€a€justifiable€reason€to€continue€his€inquiry.Ð Ó+#'+ Їà  àIn€summary,€we€find€under€the€facts€presented€in€this€case€that€the€stop€of€DefendantððsÐ ° Ðvehicle€and€Officer€Plaisanceððs€inquiries€to€verify€Defendantððs€identity€were€constitutionallyÐ ™é Ðpermissible.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.Ð ‚Ò ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ T¤ ÐÌà  àAfter€a€thorough€review,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ' w ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð â 2  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE