ÿWPC „ëm¸ÔkÀzƒjøô4A“²ÚHì¾€ètoJZÞ㨌êwA1€H9÷>ì:¬* Ûö!γzÌrÙ»«¤WfÉ>ªAÖãÈ<¹§è%#úÐ褳+íUïÍ7–T¿ òÚòøœUñÁêIæ|Ãu¡G†’%°™"ƒu~õÕÔ•€qHQ·®py]ó{\äq0¶ÐË-®öòþZ¾ˆÈ¿¦h=–hy@쨶a­¼—¯Uß_îÀ]ƒÓaÖ\uéB¸]-D…¨Îÿî¼jçmô´Í6IgãE§oÙ‡ÙCŠì©Pr3`[l¢˜QN(BkÂl3¨z`„ŒŸ­QˆYè}Ò÷hê¦v#?t Û'l‡¶MšÝy€í*˜­Íðîã"DÝ’+æX$Ùµ=ؤ©BÖ—¶ot3Ÿ‚,¸.Ã[fèªÞ“A&´65ûÕeò.þ©”mã.B&4ëäwäË'&}ÂåXåHB^@öº·¡« Ýô+añ yéÒ[b) ŠE"ÙWk—ª4‡¿}úŽ§^8I=²t‚ñã{X}ÄÚµÀñ äÙmÞTx‡:gþð¸wš|V­ù,çÆdžÃeÉÂP_ù›Hæ•Ât œ³ðÌÒ_µÙœÑ ªb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U1N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz z Æ‘ ÆW Æ Æã 0D©NíU@ï~/E­UN¯ýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýb 0ë     Bøø 0¤ D5¹ D-î 0K ASfƹ 0¤ 0D# A«g˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»žo-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3j1, œ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  tÝ ƒRw$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€defendant's€name€is€spelled€as€it€appears€on€the€indictment.€€On€some€documents,€his€name€appears€asÐ ° ÐJames€ð ðÔ_ÔJensonÔ_Ô,ðð€Jr.€€Our€policy€is€to€use€the€name€as€it€appears€on€the€indictment.(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular - ù-(|G2w$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâÕò»»Ô d(|3G“$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G“$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Ý»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^Ý»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼^Ý»»»ÔÑ8€XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îCL^ÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼^Ý»îîCL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€October€29,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼^Ý»XX #ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€JAMES€DEWEY€JENSEN,€JR.Ô‡XX»¼^ÝÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€235041€€€€€€Stephen€M.€Ô_ÔBevilÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„00712„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€Hamilton€County€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€James€Dewey€Jensen,€Jr.,Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€of€a€seventh€offense€ofÐ xÈ  Ðdriving€under€the€influence,€theft€of€identity,€and€violation€of€the€Motor€Vehicle€Habitual€OffendersÐ d´ ÐAct.€€The€sole€issue€presented€by€the€defendant€in€this€appeal€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€inÐ P  Ðdenying€the€motion€to€suppress€evidence€obtained€as€a€result€of€the€vehicle€stop.€€We€affirm€theÐ <Œ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð (x ÐÓÖÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€RightÔ#†¼^Ý»XX‚#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔ;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ P ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^Ý»àX½#ÔÔ‡XX.¼^ÝÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòRobert€W.Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ä ÐÌJeffrey€S.€Ô_ÔSchaarschmidtÔ_Ô,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€James€Dewey€Jensen,€Jr.Ð œì ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Helena€Walton€Ô_ÔYarbroughÔ_Ô,€Assistant€AttorneyÐ tÄ ÐGeneral;€William€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Thomas€E.€Kimball,€Assistant€DistrictÐ `° ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð L œ ÐÌÓ!ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^Ý»XXP#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ #`" ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼^Ý»XX† #ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÓ  Óà  àDuring€the€suppression€hearing,€Officer€Donald€Bond€with€the€Hamilton€County€SheriffððsÐ è$8 $ ÐDepartment€testified€that€on€August€30,€2000,€the€police€dispatcher€advised€him€an€EMS€unitÐ Ô%$!% Ðreported€a€possible€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€driver€on€Lee€Highway€in€Hamilton€County.€€The€EMT,€Paul€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô,Ð À&"& Ðreported€he€was€driving€behind€a€yellow€automobile€which€had€crossed€the€center€line€several€times.Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÔ_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€reported€that€while€he€was€following€the€vehicle€in€his€ambulance,€the€vehicle€wentÐ ˜(è#( Ðâ âdown€a€dead€end€street€and€ran€over€a€mailbox.€€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€reported€the€vehicle€subsequentlyÐ „)Ô$)ý ÐÔ_Ôturned€onto€Blue€Bell€Avenue€where€the€automobile€entered€a€driveway,€and€two€people€exited€theÐ ° Ðvehicle.€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOfficer€Bond€testified€he€met€Boberhouser€at€the€intersection€of€Lee€Highway€and€Blue€BellÐ tÄ ÐAvenue.€€Boberhouser€parked€his€ambulance€on€one€side€of€the€intersection,€and€Officer€BondÐ `° Ðparked€his€patrol€car€on€the€other€side€of€the€intersection.€€When€Boberhouser€told€Officer€Bond€theÐ L œ Ðvehicle€had€entered€a€driveway,€Officer€Bond€said,€ð ðItððs€over€with.ðð€€Officer€Bond€testified€he€andÐ 8 ˆ ÐBoberhouser,€who€were€once€roommates,€then€discussed€other€topics€unrelated€to€the€incident.€Ð $ t ÐOfficer€Bond€believed€there€was€sufficient€room€for€a€vehicle€to€ð ðget€aroundðð€the€patrol€car€and€theÐ  ` Ðambulance€because€it€was€a€large€intersection.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Bond€testified€that€while€they€were€talking,€he€saw€headlights€coming€over€a€hillÐ Ô$  Ðtoward€them.€€The€red€lights€on€the€ambulance€were€flashing,€but€the€blue€lights€on€the€patrol€carÐ À  Ðwere€not€on€at€this€time.€€When€Boberhouser€saw€the€vehicle,€he€identified€it€as€the€vehicle€he€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðbeen€following.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOfficer€Bond€testified€the€defendant€pulled€up€to€the€intersection,€and€his€car€stalled.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€unsuccessfully€attempted€to€restart€the€vehicle.€€Officer€Bond€then€got€out€of€his€patrol€carÐ \¬ Ðand€asked€the€defendant€if€he€was€having€trouble€with€his€vehicle.€€The€defendant€answered,€ð ðYeah,Ð H˜ ÐI€cannot€get€my€vehicle€started.ðð€€Officer€Bond€testified€when€he€approached€the€vehicle,€he€smelledÐ 4„ Ðalcohol€on€the€defendant,€and€the€defendantððs€face€was€flushed.€€Officer€Bond€then€asked€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€to€step€out€of€the€vehicle.€€The€defendant€was€subsequently€arrested.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOn€cross„examination,€Officer€Bond€testified€he€activated€his€blue€lights€during€theÐ ä4 Ðencounter,€but€he€could€not€recall€when€he€did€this.€€He€stated€he€activated€his€blue€lights€either€whenÐ Ð  ÐBoberhouser€identified€the€vehicle€or€when€he€got€out€of€his€patrol€car€to€inspect€the€stalled€vehicle.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àDuring€the€suppression€hearing,€the€defendant€testified€that€as€he€approached€the€intersection,Ð ”ä Ðhe€saw€a€patrol€car€and€an€ambulance.€€He€stated€he€saw€the€lights€on€both€vehicles€flashing€andÐ €Ð Ðthought€an€accident€had€occurred.€€The€defendant€stated€he€could€not€drive€around€the€patrol€car€andÐ l¼ Ðthe€ambulance,€so€he€stopped€behind€the€vehicles.€€Officer€Bond€then€began€walking€toward€the€car.€Ð X ¨ ÐThe€defendant€testified€that€at€that€moment,€he€did€not€feel€free€to€leave.€€He€stated€the€vehicle€wasÐ D!” Ðloud€due€to€a€loose€manifold,€and€in€order€to€hear€Officer€Bond€speak,€he€turned€off€the€engine.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€to€suppress.€€The€trial€court€found€Officer€BondÐ $X" Ðdid€not€receive€information€from€an€anonymous€informant,€but€from€someone€he€personally€knew.Ð ô$D # ÐFurther,€the€trial€court€fully€accredited€Officer€Bondððs€testimony€as€to€the€events€and€found€theÐ à%0!$ Ðofficer€had€a€duty€to€inquire€about€the€stalled€vehicle€based€upon€public€safety€grounds.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óò òSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWÐ ° ÐÓ  Óó óÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€bindingÐ ˆØ Ðupon€this€court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐRossóó,€49€S.W.3d€833,€839€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€is€able€to€assess€theÐ `° Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€determine€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€the€evidence€and€resolveÐ L œ Ðany€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€prevailing€partyÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€the€evidence€and€all€reasonable€inferences€drawn€fromÐ $ t Ðthat€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Hicksóó,€55€S.W.3d€515,€521€(Tenn.€2001).€€However,€this€court€is€not€boundÐ  ` Ðby€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Randolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€330,€333€(Tenn.€2002).€€TheÐ ü L  Ðapplication€of€the€law€to€the€facts€found€by€the€trial€court€are€questions€of€law€that€this€court€reviewsÐ è 8  Ðòòde€novoóó.€€òòState€v.€Danielóó,€12€S.W.3d€420,€423€(Tenn.€2000).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€ofÐ Ô$  Ðestablishing€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€madeÐ À  Ðby€the€trial€court.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,€506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ô#†XXXX÷#ÔÔ#†¼^Ý»XXä #ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òSEARCH€AND€SEIZUREó óÐ pÀ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€Fourth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€states€the€following:Ð H˜ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà  àà ` àThe€right€of€the€people€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,Ð  p Ðand€effects,€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,€shall€not€beÐ  \ Ðviolated,€and€no€warrants€shall€issue,€but€upon€probable€cause,Ð øH Ðsupported€by€oath€or€affirmation,€and€particularly€describing€the€placeÐ ä4 Ðto€be€searched,€and€the€persons€or€things€to€be€seized.€€ÐÐ ` x` x ЀÌFurther,€Article€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à[t]hat€the€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers€andÐ €Ð Ðpossessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures;€and€thatÐ l¼ Ðgeneral€warrants,€whereby€an€officer€may€be€commanded€to€searchÐ X ¨ Ðsuspected€places,€without€evidence€of€the€fact€committed,€or€to€seizeÐ D!” Ðany€person€or€persons€not€named,€whose€offences€are€not€particularlyÐ 0"€  Ðdescribed€and€supported€by€evidence,€are€dangerous€to€liberty€andÐ #l! Ðought€not€to€be€granted.Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€purpose€and€intent€of€Article€I,€Section€7€is€identical€with€that€of€the€Fourth€Amendment,Ð à%0!$ Ðwhich€is€to€ð ðsafeguard€the€privacy€and€security€of€individuals€against€the€arbitrary€invasions€ofÐ Ì&"% Ðgovernment€officials.ðð€€òòRandolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€at€334€(Tenn.€2002)€(quoting€òòCamara€v.€MunicipalÐ ¸'#& ÐCourtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€528,€87€S.€Ct.€1727,€1730,€18€L.€Ed.€2d€930€(1967));€òòState€v.€Gonzalezóó,€52Ð ¤(ô#' ÐS.W.3d€90,€95€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2000).Ô#†¼^Ý»XX$#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àUnder€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€constitutions,€either€probable€cause€or€reasonableÐ ° Ðâ âsuspicion€will€justify€a€traffic€stop€despite€the€subjective€motivations€of€the€police€officer€involved.€Ð œì ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Whrenóó,€517€U.S.€806,€813,€116€S.€Ct.€1769,€1774,€135€L.€Ed.€2d€89€(1996);€òòStateÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€736€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€examining€the€validity€of€the€traffic€stop,€courtsÐ tÄ Ðmust€determine€whether€the€stop€was€reasonable€under€both€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€òòStateÐ `° Ðv.€Jennetteóó,€706€S.W.2d€614,€618€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€reasonableness€of€a€stop€is€measuredÐ L œ Ðobjectively€through€an€examination€of€the€totality€of€the€circumstances.€€òòOhio€v.€Robinetteóó,€519€U.S.Ð 8 ˆ Ð33,€39,€117€S.€Ct.€417,€421,€136€L.€Ed.€2d€347€(1996).Ð $ t ÐÌò òA.€€Ô‡XXXXÔConsensual€Encounteró óÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€first€issue€we€must€address€is€whether€a€ð ðstopðð€or€ð ðseizureðð€occurred€requiringÐ Ô$  Ðconstitutional€protections.€€After€reviewing€the€record,€we€conclude€the€encounter€between€OfficerÐ À  ÐBondò òÔ#†XXXXø/#ÔÔ#†¼^Ý»XXé+#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔó ó€and€the€defendant€was€a€consensual€encounter.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àWhen€a€police€officerððs€interaction€with€a€citizen€impermissibly€intrudes€upon€the€privacyÐ „Ô  Ðor€personal€security€of€the€citizen,€it€violates€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÐ pÀ ÐConstitution€and€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which€is€identical€in€intent€andÐ \¬ Ðpurpose€to€the€Fourth€Amendment.€€òòóóòòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€424.€€Not€every€encounter€between€policeÐ H˜ Ðofficers€and€citizens€is€a€ð ðseizure,ðð€however.€€òòRandolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€at€338.€€A€seizure€occurs€onlyÐ 4„ Ðwhen€an€officer€restrains€the€liberty€of€an€individual€by€means€of€physical€force€or€show€of€authority.€Ð  p ÐòòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.1,€19€n.16,€88€S.€Ct.€1868,€20€L.€Ed.€2d€889€(1968).€€€ÓÓò òó óThe€courts€have€heldÐ  \ Ðthe€Fourth€Amendment€permits€three€types€of€police„citizen€interactions:€(1)€a€full€scale€arrestÐ øH Ðsupported€by€probable€cause;€(2)€a€brief€investigatory€detention€supported€by€reasonable€suspicion;Ð ä4 Ðand€(3)€a€brief€police„citizen€encounter,€which€requires€no€objective€justification.€€òòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3dÐ Ð  Ðat€424.ò ò€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àó óA€law€enforcement€officer€does€not€violate€the€Fourth€Amendment€by€merely€approachingÐ ˜è Ða€person€in€a€public€place€and€posing€a€question.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Draytonóó,€___€U.S.€___,€___,€122Ð „Ô ÐS.€Ct.€2105,€2110,€153€L.€Ed.€2d.€242€(2002).€€Even€if€an€officer€has€no€basis€for€suspecting€a€crimeÐ pÀ Ðis€being€committed,€he€or€she€may€pose€questions€or€ask€for€identification,€provided€he€or€she€doesÐ \ ¬ Ðnot€induce€cooperation€by€coercive€means.€€òòId;€see€óóòòDanielóó,€12€S.W.3d€at€425òò.€€óóòòóóIn€order€to€determineÐ H!˜ Ðif€an€interaction€between€an€officer€and€an€individual€is€a€seizure€or€a€consensual€encounter,€the€courtÐ 4"„  Ðmust€consider€all€the€surrounding€circumstances€and€ascertain€whether€the€ð ðpolice€conduct€wouldÐ  #p! Ðhave€communicated€to€a€reasonable€person€that€the€person€was€not€free€to€decline€the€officerððsÐ  $\" Ðrequests€or€otherwise€terminate€the€encounter.ðð€€òòóóòòFlorida€v.€Bostickóó,€501€U.S.€429,€439,€111€S.€Ct.Ð ø$H # Ð2382,€115€L.€Ed.€2d€389€(1991).€Ô#†XXXXî1#ÔÔ#†¼^Ý»XXˆ1#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ ä%4!$ ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€trial€court€fully€accredited€Officer€Bondððs€testimony€at€the€suppressionÐ ¼' #& Ðhearing.€€Officer€Bond€testified€the€defendantððs€car€stalled€behind€the€ambulance€and€patrol€car;€heÐ ¨(ø#' Ðdid€not€do€anything€to€indicate€to€the€defendant€that€he€was€required€to€stop€his€vehicle.€€The€policeÐ ”)ä$( Ðofficer€also€testified€the€lights€on€both€the€patrol€car€and€the€ambulance€were€activated€when€heÐ €*Ð%) Ðapproached€the€defendantððs€vehicle.€€Although€activation€of€blue€lights€ordinarily€triggers€a€ð ðstopððÐ l+¼&* Ðor€ð ðseizure,ðð€see€òòRandolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€at€338,€it€is€not€unusual€for€a€police€officer€to€activate€theÐ ° Ðblue€lights€on€his€or€her€patrol€car€for€safety€purposes€when€on€the€side€of€a€road€or€at€an€accidentÐ œì Ðsite.€€Furthermore,€the€defendant€testified€he€stopped€because€he€thought€an€accident€had€occurred,Ð ˆØ Ðnot€because€he€thought€Officer€Bond€had€indicated€he€was€required€to€stop.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àOfficer€Bond€testified€that€he€walked€to€the€defendantððs€vehicle€because€he€thought€it€hadÐ L œ Ðstalled.€€Officer€Bond€then€asked€the€defendant€whether€he€was€having€problems€with€his€vehicle;Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€defendant€replied€that€the€car€would€not€start.€€When€describing€the€interaction€between€policeÐ $ t Ðofficers€and€citizens€on€public€highways,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€noted:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àBecause€of€the€extensive€regulation€of€motor€vehicles€and€traffic,€andÐ è 8  Ðalso€because€of€the€frequency€with€which€a€vehicle€can€becomeÐ Ô$  Ðdisabled€or€involved€in€an€accident€on€public€highways,€the€extent€ofÐ À  Ðpolice„citizen€contact€involving€automobiles€will€be€substantiallyÐ ¬ü  Ðgreater€than€police„citizen€contact€in€a€home€or€office.€€Some€suchÐ ˜è  Ðcontacts€will€occur€because€the€officer€may€believe€the€operator€hasÐ „Ô  Ðviolated€a€criminal€statute,€but€many€more€will€not€be€of€that€nature.€Ð pÀ ÐLocal€police€officers€.€.€.€frequently€investigate€vehicle€accidents€inÐ \¬ Ðwhich€there€is€no€claim€of€criminal€liability€and€engage€in€what,€forÐ H˜ Ðwant€of€a€better€term,€may€be€described€as€community€caretakingÐ 4„ Ðfunctions,€totally€divorced€from€the€detection,€investigation,€orÐ  p Ðacquisition€of€evidence€relating€to€the€violation€of€a€criminal€statute.Ð \` x` x ÐÌòòCady€v.€Dombrowskióó,€413€U.S.€433,€441,€93€S.€Ct.€2423,€2528,€37€L.€Ed.€2d€706€(1973).€€TheseÐ ä4 Ðcommunity€caretaking€or€public€safety€functions€do€not€involve€coercion€or€detention,€rather€a€policeÐ Ð  Ðofficer€may€initiate€a€conversation€with€a€citizen€and€ask€questions€as€long€as€the€citizen€is€willingÐ ¼  Ðto€answer€the€questions.€€òòState€v.€Hawkinsóó,€969€S.W.2d€936,€939€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€ThisÐ ¨ø Ðtype€of€encounter€is€a€consensual€encounter,€which€does€not€require€probable€cause€or€reasonableÐ ”ä Ðsuspicion.€€òòIdóó.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWhen€Officer€Bond€approached€the€defendant€and€questioned€him€regarding€the€stalledÐ X ¨ Ðautomobile,€he€was€engaged€in€a€ð ðcommunity€caretaking€function,ðð€which€was€ð ðtotally€divorcedÐ D!” Ðfrom€the€detection,€investigation,€or€acquisition€of€evidenceðð€relating€to€an€offense.€€òòóóòòCadyóó,€413€U.S.Ð 0"€  Ðat€441.€€The€police€officer€noticed€the€defendant€appeared€to€have€car€trouble€and€decided€to€helpÐ #l! Ðhim€instead€of€leaving€him€stranded€in€the€road€at€night.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€the€initial€contact€between€the€defendant€and€Officer€Bond€did€not€constituteÐ à%0!$ Ða€seizure,€but€rather€was€a€consensual€encounter,€requiring€neither€reasonable€suspicion€nor€probableÐ Ì&"% Ðcause€to€believe€the€defendant€was€engaged€in€criminal€activity.€€We€note€that€once€Officer€BondÐ ¸'#& Ðrequested€the€defendant€to€step€out€of€the€vehicle,€the€consensual€encounter€was€converted€into€aÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseizure€requiring€constitutional€protections,€and€a€reasonable€person€in€the€same€situation€couldÐ )à$( Ðreasonably€believe€he€or€she€would€not€be€free€to€leave.€€However,€Officer€Bond€testified€that€priorÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€requesting€the€defendant€to€step€out€of€his€vehicle,€he€smelled€alcohol€on€the€defendant,€and€theÐ h+¸&* Ðdefendantððs€face€was€flushed.€€We€conclude€these€observations,€combined€with€the€informationÐ ° ÐOfficer€Bond€received€from€the€EMT,€constituted€sufficient€cause€for€the€officer€to€briefly€detain€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€to€ascertain€whether€the€defendant€was€driving€under€the€influence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wilhoitóó,Ð ˆØ Ð962€S.W.2d€482,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð tÄ ÐÌò òB.€€òòTerryóó€Stopó óÐ L œ ÐÌà  àEven€if€the€initial€contact€between€Officer€Bond€and€the€defendant€constituted€a€ð ðstopððÐ $ t Ðinvoking€constitutional€examination,€we,€nevertheless,€conclude€it€was€a€proper€investigatory€stop.Ð  ` ÐÌÔ‡XXXXÔà  àA€policeman€may€make€an€investigatory€stop€when€the€officer€has€a€reasonable€suspicion,Ð è 8  Ðsupported€by€articulable€and€specific€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€to€beÐ Ô$  Ðcommitted.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€21;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòUnited€States€v.€Arvizuóó,€534€U.S.€266,€273,€122€S.€Ct.Ð À  Ð744,€750,€151€L.€Ed.€2d€740òòóó€(2002);€òòRandolphóó,€74€S.W.3d€at€334.€€òòóóFor€a€court€to€determine€whetherÐ ¬ü  Ða€policeman's€reasonable€suspicion€is€supported€by€articulable€and€specific€facts,€the€court€mustÐ ˜è  Ðconsider€the€totality€of€the€circumstances,€that€is,€the€entire€picture.€€òòArvizu,óó€534€U.S.€at€273,€òòò òó óóó122Ð „Ô  ÐS.€Ct.€at€750;€òòòòò òóóó óState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€783€(Tenn.€1998)òòóó.€€This€inquiry€includes€suchÐ pÀ Ðfactors€as€objective€observations,€information€obtained€from€other€officers€or€agencies,€informationÐ \¬ Ðobtained€from€citizens,€and€certain€offendersðð€patterns€of€operation.€€ò òó óòòSimpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€783;Ð H˜ ÐòòState€v.€Lawsonóó,€929€S.W.2d€406,€408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Ô#†XXXXqQ#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔWhile€an€officerððs€hunch€isÐ 4„ Ðinsufficient€to€justify€an€investigative€stop,€the€likelihood€of€criminal€activity€required€for€reasonableÐ  p Ðsuspicion€is€not€as€great€as€that€required€for€probable€cause€and€is€less€than€would€be€needed€toÐ  \ Ðsatisfy€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€standard.€€òòÔ#†XXXX‚V#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔUnited€States€v.€Sokolowóó,€490€U.S.€1,€7,€109€S.Ð øH ÐCt.€1581,€104€L.€Ed.€2d€1€(1989).Ô#†XXXX"X#ÔÔ‡XXXXÔ€€Ô#†XXXXÌX#ÔÔ#†¼^Ý»XXç;#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àAn€informantððs€tip€may€provide€the€specific€and€articulable€facts€required€to€establishÐ ¼  Ðreasonable€suspicion.€€òòState€v.€Keithóó,€978€S.W.2d€861,€866€(Tenn.€1998).€€Tennessee€courts€haveÐ ¨ø Ðdistinguished€ð ðcitizen€informantsðð€from€ð ðcriminal€informants.ðð€€òòState€v.€Stephensóó,€989€S.W.2d€290,Ð ”ä Ð291€(Tenn.€1999).€€Ô‡XXXXÔA€citizen€informant€acquires€his€or€her€information€through€first„hand€experienceÐ €Ð Ðand€acts€in€the€interest€of€public€safety.€€òòState€v.€Lukeóó,€995€S.W.2d€630,€636€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1998).€€Citizen€sources€are€presumed€reliable.€€òòóóòòState€v.€Melsonóó,€638€S.W.2d€342,€356€(Tenn.1982),Ð X ¨ Ðòòcert.€deniedóó,€459€U.S.€1137,€103€S.€Ct.€770,€74€L.€Ed.€2d€983€(1983).€€However,€where€the€informantÐ D!” Ðis€from€the€criminal€milieu,€application€of€the€two„prong€òòAguilar-Spinellióó€test€is€required.€€òòState€v.Ð 0"€  ÐCauleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€411,€417€(Tenn.€1993).€€€Ô#†XXXXùZ#ÔÔ#†¼^Ý»XX3Y#ÔòòóóÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔÐ #l! ÐÌà  àReasonable€suspicion€may€be€established€through€less€reliable€information€than€is€requiredÐ ô$D # Ðto€demonstrate€probable€cause.€€òòAlabama€v.€Whiteóó,€496€U.S.€325,€330,€110€S.€Ct.€2412,€2416,€110Ð à%0!$ ÐL.€Ed.€2d€301€(1990);€òòKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€866.€€Therefore,€the€two„prong€test€of€reliability€for€aÐ Ì&"% Ðcriminal€informantððs€tip€is€not€as€strictly€applied€if€the€tip€is€being€used€to€show€reasonable€suspicionÐ ¸'#& Ðfor€an€investigatory€stop€rather€than€probable€cause€for€a€search€and€seizure.€€òòKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð866.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€informant€was€Paul€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô,€an€EMT€and€former€roommate€ofÐ ° Ðâ âOfficer€Bond.€€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€followed€the€defendantððs€car€and€saw€it€cross€the€center€line€severalÐ œì Ðtimes€and€hit€a€mailbox.€€He€reported€these€events€to€the€dispatcher€while€following€the€vehicle€andÐ ˆØ Ðto€Officer€Bond€a€short€time€later.€€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€then€identified€the€vehicle€in€the€presence€of€OfficerÐ tÄ ÐBond.€€Therefore,€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€was€not€an€informant€from€the€criminal€milieu;€his€information€isÐ `° Ðpresumed€reliable.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€Officer€Bond€had€reasonable€suspicion€to€stop€the€defendantððs€vehicle€andÐ $ t Ðinvestigate€a€possible€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€offense€based€on€the€information€obtained€from€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô.€€EvenÐ  ` Ðthough€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€could€not€identify€the€defendant€as€the€person€who€drove€the€vehicle€heÐ ü L  Ðfollowed,€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€positively€identified€the€vehicle.€€This€information€established€sufficientÐ è 8  Ðcause€to€stop€the€vehicle.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àRegardless€of€the€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€offense€and€although€not€argued€by€the€parties,€Officer€Bond€also€hadÐ ¬ü  Ðsufficient€cause€to€stop€the€vehicle€based€on€information€from€Ô_ÔBoberhouserÔ_Ô€that€the€vehicle€hit€aÐ ˜è  Ðmailbox€and€left€the€scene.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„105€(ð ðThe€driver€of€any€vehicle€involvedÐ „Ô  Ðin€an€accident€resulting€only€in€damage€to€fixtures€or€other€property€legally€upon€or€adjacent€to€aÐ pÀ Ðhighway€.€.€.€or€any€other€premises€which€are€generally€frequented€by€the€public€at€large,€shall€takeÐ \¬ Ðreasonable€steps€to€locate€and€notify€the€owner€or€person€in€charge€of€such€property€of€such€fact€.€.Ð H˜ Ð.€.ðð).€€Unquestionably,€the€officer€had€sufficient€cause€to€stop€the€vehicle€identified€to€him€as€the€oneÐ 4„ Ðthat€hit€a€mailbox€and€did€not€stop.€€Furthermore,€the€fact€that€the€officer€may€not€have€subjectivelyÐ  p Ðthought€he€could€do€so,€or€did€not€stop€the€vehicle€for€this€reason,€is€not€determinative.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔWhrenÔ_Ôóó,Ð  \ Ð517€U.S.€at€813;€òòVineyardóó,€Ô#†¼^Ý»XXø]#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔ958€S.W.2d€at€736Ô#†¼^Ý»XXhk#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔ.Ð øH ÐÌà  àTherefore,€the€traffic€stop€was€valid,€and€the€trial€court€properly€denied€the€defendantððsÐ Ð  Ðmotion€to€suppress.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ¼  ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_______________________________________Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÔ#†¼^Ý»XX»k#ÔÔ‡XX»¼^ÝÔ