ÿWPCæ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 0lH 0D´ ø 0J 0TJ 0^ž 0hü 0rd 0|Ö 0†R 0Ø 1uh 0dÝ U>AU*B)©DCÒ AMbís D3` B“v~° 0@.vÓn AOAÆ 0DV D/š BɘHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù-   D  E////Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌNovember€25,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ãÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ôÔ€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417(a)(4).Ì++++'ÿÿdxd dPtPtfHHÚ(ÿáÿáùE1À˜ýHHŽxЀxh'dH("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{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  inion Geneva ÒÒ  inion Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€#ŠÔÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FoXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œNASHVILLE›ÌÌœAUGUST›€SESSION,€œ1996›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ01C01„9601„CC„00017›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àAppellee,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœMONTGOMERY›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYERó ó›Ìœò òRICKY€L.€KELLY,ó ó›à àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Certified€Question€„€Search)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCIRCUIT›€COURT€OF€œMONTGOMERY€COUNTYó ó›ÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœTHOMAS€R.€MEEKS›à àà àà àœCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌ137€Franklin€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌClarksville,€TN€37042Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àKAREN€M.€YACUZZOÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€CARNEYÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€CLOUDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€$°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€$ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThis€is€a€direct€appeal€œfrom€a€guilty€plea€pursuant›€to€Rule€37(b)(2)€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€œProcedure.›€€In€his€plea€agreement,€the€DefendantÏœpleaded›€guilty€to€possession€of€cocaine€for€resale,€a€Class€B€Felony.€€œHe›Ïexpressly€reserved€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€ÏThe€certified€question€originates€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€motion€toÏsuppress€evidence€obtained€from€a€search€of€the€Defendantððs€automobile.€€WeÏaffirm€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àOn€February€23,€1995,€œOfficer›€Nichols,€with€the€Special€Operations€Unit€ofÏthe€Clarksville€Police€Department,€received€several€anonymous€telephone€callsÏpertaining€to€the€Defendant.€€The€same€person€made€three€separate€calls€to€theÏpolice.€€During€the€first€call,€the€caller€stated€that€the€Defendant,€Ricky€Kelly,€andÏa€œblack€male€passenger›€would€be€leaving€Clarksville,€Tennessee€and€drivingÏtowards€Dickson,€Tennessee€in€a€1980's€model€gray€Cadillac.€€The€caller€toldÏthe€officer€that€the€automobile€contained€œdrugs€and›€directed€the€officer€toÏRiverside€Drive,€in€Clarksville.€€A€few€minutes€after€œOfficer›€Nichols€left,€there€wasÏanother€call,€œwhich€the€secretary€answered,€but›€the€caller€insisted€on€speakingÏonly€to€œNichols.›ÌÌà àOfficer€Nichols€was€notified€and€returned€to€the€station.€€He€received€aÏthird€call€from€the€same€person,€who€stated€that€Ricky€Kelly€was€ð ðleaving€nowððÏand€going€towards€Dickson.€€Officer€Nichols€returned€to€Riverside€Drive€alongÏwith€œtwo€officers€in€another›€police€cruiser.€€Shortly€thereafter,€they€observed€aÏgray€œvehicle€traveling›€on€Riverside€Drive.€€The€officers€observed€the€vehicle€untilÏit€turned€onto€highway€48/13,€towards€Dickson.€€œÌÌà àOfficer€Nichols€knew€the€Defendant,€Ricky€Kelly,€prior€to€receiving€theÏanonymous€call.€€He€was€aware€that€the€Defendant€had€a€history€of€arrests€inÏClarksville,€that€he€had€a€reputation€for€dealing€drugs€there,€and€that€there€wasÏa€pending€criminal€case€from€a€drug€arrest€in€Dickson.›ÌÌà àSergeants€Atkins€and€Hagewood€were€in€the€cruiser€closer€to€theÏDefendant€and€observed€a€four„door€Oldsmobile€or€Cadillac€with€tintedÏwindows.€€The€number€of€persons€in€the€vehicle€was€unclear.€€œAt€the€direction€ofÏOfficer€Nichols,€who€was€following€behind€them€in€traffic,€€the›€officers€used€œtheir›Ïemergency€lights€to€stop€the€vehicle.€€The€Defendant€pulled€œthe€car€›€into€aÏservice€station.€€Apparently,€there€were€other€trucks€and€automobiles€betweenÏthe€officers€and€the€Defendantððs€vehicle.€€Another€automobile€also€wasÏattempting€to€pull€over,€but€Sergeant€Atkins€motioned€to€the€Defendant€to€pullÍover.€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€officer€had€his€service€revolver€in€hisÏhand€when€he€waved€the€vehicle€off€the€road.€€The€officer€testified€that€from€hisÏrecollection,€he€did€not€display€the€gun.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€stepped€out€of€his€vehicle€and€Sergeant€Atkins€asked€forÏhis€driverððs€license.€€The€Defendant€asked€why€he€had€been€stopped,€and€theÏofficer€said€they€were€investigating€a€drug€complaint€and€asked€whether€he€hadÏany€weapons€or€drugs€in€the€vehicle.€€Sergeant€Atkins€then€asked€whether€heÏcould€search€the€Defendant€and€the€œautomobile,›€and€œthe€Defendant€consented›Ïto€the€searches.€€The€officer€also€obtained€consent€from€the€other€person€in€theÏvehicle,€€the€owner€of€the€car.€€The€Defendant€was€placed€in€a€search€position,Ïpatted€down,€but€no€contraband€was€discovered.€€Officer€Nichols€arrived€andÏparticipated€in€the€search€of€the€vehicle.€€He€discovered€67€rocks€of€crackÏcocaine€in€a€plastic€bag€stuffed€under€the€seat.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€indicted€for€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€withÏintent€to€sell€and€one€count€of€possession€of€cocaine€with€intent€to€deliver.× ƒ) ××  ×€ÏPursuant€to€his€plea€agreement€entered€on€November€17,€1995,€the€secondÍcount€of€the€indictment€was€dismissed€and€this€certified€question€was€reservedÏfor€appellate€review.€ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€argues€that€the€initial€stop€of€the€œthe›€automobile€was€aÏseizure€violating€the€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€andÏArticle€I,€Section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€He€contends€that€the€stopÏwas€a€warrantless€seizure€based€on€exigent€circumstances€requiring€aÏshowing€of€probable€cause.€€Information€provided€by€the€anonymous€tip€andÏfurther€corroboration€by€the€investigating€officers€did€not€provide€probable€cause.€ÏTherefore,€the€Defendant€œargues€that›€the€subsequent€search€of€his€automobileÏand€the€cocaine€seized€was€obtained€illegally€and€that€the€evidence€should€beÏsuppressed.ÌÌà àThe€State€does€not€œargue›€that€stopping€the€Defendantððs€automobile€wasÏœnot€a›€seizure.€€It€counters€that€the€initial€restraint€of€the€Defendant€was€anÏinvestigatory€stop€of€the€vehicle,€not€rising€to€the€level€of€a€full„blown€arrest.€€TheÏState€asserts€that€reasonable€suspicion€is€the€proper€standard€to€evaluate€theÏcircumstances€leading€the€police€to€the€interaction€with€the€Defendant.ÌÌà àFirst,€the€Defendant€argues€that€the€police€officers€ð ðseizedðð€him€when€theyÏturned€on€their€emergency€lights€and€motioned€for€him€to€pull€off€the€road.€ÍAccording€to€òòTerry€v.€Ohioóó,€392€U.S.€1,€88€S.Ct.€1868,€€20€L.Ed.2d€889€(1968),Ïwhen€a€person€is€approached€by€a€police€officer€and€is€restrained€from€leaving,Ïthis€constitutes€a€seizure.€€392€U.S.€at€1,€88€S.Ct.€at€1877.€€Our€supreme€courtÏhas€applied€òòTerryóó€when€an€automobile€is€stopped€by€police.€€òòState€v.€Pulleyóó,Ï863€S.W.2d€29,€30€(Tenn.€1993).€€ð ðWhen€an€officer€turns€on€his€blue€lights,€he€orÏshe€has€clearly€initiated€a€stop.ðð€òòId.óó€€€€We€agree€that€the€police€œseized›€theÏDefendant.€€ÌÌà àAlthough€less€than€a€full„blown€arrest,€a€òòTerryóó€stop€is€subject€to€theÏconstitutional€protection€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€against€ð ðunreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures.ðð€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€at€20,€88€S.Ct.€At€1879.€€€InteractionsÏbetween€the€police€and€the€public€that€are€seizures€but€not€arrests,€are€judgedÏby€their€reasonableness,€rather€than€by€a€showing€of€probable€cause.€€òòId.óó€€TheÏreasonableness€of€the€intrusion€is€ð ðjudged€by€weighing€the€gravity€of€the€publicÏconcern,€the€degree€to€which€the€seizure€advances€that€concern,€and€theÏseverity€of€the€intrusion€into€individual€privacy.ððòò€Pulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€30€(òòcitingóóÏòòBrown€v.€Texasóó,€443€U.S.€47,€50,€99€S.Ct.€2637,€2640,€61€L.Ed.2d€357€(1979).ÌÌà àReasonable€suspicion€must€be€based€on€specific€and€articulable€facts,Ïthat€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.€atÏ21,€88€S.Ct.€at€1880;€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€30;€òòState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2dÍ293,€294€(Tenn.€1992);€òòState€v.€Seatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€129,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1995).€€Establishing€the€basis€for€reasonable€suspicion€is€not€limited€to€theÏpersonal€observations€of€the€investigating€officer,€and€has€been€extended€toÏinclude€information€supplied€by€another€person.€€òòAdams€v.€Williamsóó,€407€U.S.Ï143,€147,€92€S.Ct.€1921,€1924,€32€L.Ed.2d€612€(1972);€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€atÏ31.€€Ìà àHowever,€when€information€is€provided€by€another€source,€this€raisesÏheightened€concerns€about€the€reliability€of€the€information,€such€as€theÏpossibility€of€ð ðfalse€reports,€through€police€fabrication€or€from€vindictive€orÏunreliable€informants.ðð€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31.€€The€Defendant€firstÏchallenges€the€stop€on€the€ground€that€œ›œOfficer›€Nichols€directed€Sergeant€AtkinsÏto€stop€the€Defendantððs€vehicle,€and€because€Atkins€did€not€know€Ricky€Kelly,Ïthis€was€unreasonable.€€When€the€source€of€the€information€provided€is€a€policeÏofficer,€it€is€presumed€to€be€credible.€€òòSeatonóó,€914€S.W.2d€at€132.€€An€officerÏwithout€knowledge€of€the€details€may€conduct€an€investigative€stop€of€a€vehicleÏupon€the€request€of€another€officer.€òòId.óó€€€Sergeant€Atkins€made€the€stopÏreasonably,€based€on€œ›œOfficer›€œNicholsðð›€request.ÌÌà àBeyond€this,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€the€anonymous€tip€did€notÏprovide€€sufficient€reliability€to€support€probable€cause€to€stop€the€automobile.€ÏAs€we€have€stated,€an€investigative€stop€requires€only€a€showing€ofÍreasonable€suspicion€that€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€probable€cause.€€ForÏshowings€of€probable€cause€based€on€an€informantððs€tip,€our€supreme€courtÏhas€followed€the€former€federal€two„pronged€test€that€requires€proof€of€theÏinformantððs€basis€of€knowledge€and€credibility.€òòSeeóó€òòAguilar€v.€Texasóó,€378€U.S.Ï108,€84€S.Ct.€1509,€12€L.Ed.2d€723€(1964);€òòSpinelli€v.€United€Statesóó,€393€U.S.Ï410,€89€S.Ct.€584,€21€L.Ed.2d€637€(1969);€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,€778€S.W.2d€430,Ï436€(Tenn.€1989).€€The€òòAguilar„Spinellióó/òò€Jacuminóó€test€has€been€used€as€a€guideÏin€assessing€the€reliability€of€an€informantððs€tip€supporting€an€investigative€stopÏof€an€automobile.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31;€òòState€v.€Colemanóó,€791€S.W.2dÏ504,€505€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€(Tenn.€1990).€€ÌÌà àAlthough€it€is€difficult€to€assess€the€basis€of€knowledge€or€credibility€of€anÏanonymous€caller,€independent€corroboration€by€police€officers€can€cureÏdeficiencies€in€showing€the€reliability€of€the€tip.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€31„32;ÏòòColemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€at€507.€€Reasonable€suspicion€requires€a€lower€level€ofÏproof,€allowing€for€tips€that€are€less€reliable.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€32.€€ð ðTheÏultimate€question€when€confronted€with€an€anonymous€caller,€then,€is€how€muchÏcorroboration€is€necessary€to€show€sufficient€credibility€and€basis€of€knowledge.ðð€ÏòòId.óóÌÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIt€is€difficult€to€define€with€precision€the€quantity€of€corroborationÏnecessary€to€demonstrate€the€informantððs€veracity.€€Certainly,Ïmore€than€the€corroboration€of€a€few€minor€elements€of€the€storyÏis€necessary,€especially€if€those€elements€involve€non„suspectÏbehavior.€€It€is€equally€certain,€though,€that€the€police€need€notÏcorroborate€every€detail€of€an€informantððs€report€to€establishÏsufficient€evidence€of€his€veracity.Ò  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòState€v.€Moonóó,€841€S.W.2d€336,€341€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992)(òòquotingóó€òòUnitedóóÏòòStates€v.€Bushóó,€647€F.2d€357,€363€(3rd€Cir.€1981)).ÌÌà àIn€òòColemanóó,€a€police€officer€received€a€tip€from€a€confidential€informantÏwithout€a€history€of€proven€reliability.€€On€the€day€before€and€on€the€same€dayÏas€the€stop,€the€informant€relayed€that€a€woman€named€Carla€at€a€certain€timeÏwould€be€driving€on€a€certain€road,€in€a€particular€type€of€automobile,€to€a€certainÏdestination,€with€several€pounds€of€marijuana€in€the€car.€€After€a€period€ofÏobservation,€the€vehicle€was€spotted€as€the€informant€predicted.€The€officer€did€Ïa€license€check€of€the€vehicle,€which€named€Carla€Coleman€as€the€owner,€thenÏmade€the€stop.€€òòColemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€at€504„05.ÌÌà àThe€òòColemanóó€court€held€that€the€police€did€not€sufficiently€corroborate€theÏinformantððs€tip€to€support€a€constitutionally€permissible€stop.€òòId.óó€at€507.€€TheÏcourt€suggested€that€had€ð ðthe€officers€made€any€pre„stop€inquiry€as€to€theÏidentity€of€the€defendant€or€her€reputation€regarding€the€use€or€sale€of€illegalÏdrugs,ðð€such€independent€information€could€cure€ð ðdeficiencies€in€[the]€informantððsÍtip.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€506„07.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€œJames€E.€Sandersóó,›€No.€CCA01C01„9502„CC„00037,€Marshall€County,€slip€op.€at€œ9›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,ÏJan.€17,€1996).ÌÌà àòòPulleyóó€addressed€the€reliability€issue€for€an€anonymous€tip€that€initiatedÏan€investigative€stop€of€an€œautomobile.€›€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€32.€The€policeÏreceived€an€anonymous€call,€reporting€that€a€man,€known€to€the€police€officer,€Ïwas€driving€a€particular€automobile€in€a€certain€trailer€park€and€was€threateningÏto€shoot€someone.€€While€en€route€to€the€œdesignated€location,›€the€officer€receivedÏanother€urgent€call.€€The€Defendant€was€found€in€his€vehicle€and€was€stopped,Ïan€eighth€of€a€mile€from€the€trailer€park.€€òòId.óó€at€29„30.€€ÌÌà àUsing€the€òòJacuminóó€factors,€the€court€found€the€anonymous€tip€to€beÏsufficiently€reliable.€€Considering€the€basis€of€knowledge,€if€the€informant€reportsÏthe€incident€ð ðat€or€near€the€time€of€its€occurrence,ðð€it€is€likely€that€the€person€hasÏfirst„hand€knowledge.€€òòId.óó€at€32.€€Yet,€the€credibility€of€an€anonymous€informantÏis€more€difficult€to€demonstrate.€€Corroboration€of€the€informantððs€statements€can€Ïshow€the€credibility€of€information€that€inherently€cannot€be€verified€because€theÏcaller€is€anonymous.€€This€may€include€the€severity€of€the€suspected€behavior,Ïdirect€police€observation€of€the€predicted€events,€and€a€pre„stop€inquiry€into€theÏidentity€and€reputation€of€the€suspect.€€òòSeeóó€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€33;òò€State€v.ÍMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€532,€539€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€òòid.óó€Ï(Tenn.€1993);€òòColemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€at€506.€ÌÌà àWe€turn€now€to€the€primary€issue€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó;€whether€thereÏwas€sufficient€corroboration€of€the€anonymous€tip€to€support€a€reasonableÏsuspicion€of€illegal€activity.€€The€Clarksville€Police€Department€received€threeÏanonymous€phone€calls€within€fifteen€or€twenty€minutes€of€each€other.€€TheÏcaller€described€with€particularity€that€the€Defendant,€Ricky€Kelly,€was€ð ðleavingÏnowðð€from€Riverside€Drive€in€Clarksville€and€heading€towards€Dickson.€€TheÏcaller€also€described€the€vehicle€as€a€gray,€1980's€model€Cadillac€with€twoÏoccupants.€€Although€the€informant€did€not€reveal€how€the€information€wasÏknown,€it€was€contemporaneous€with€the€activity€observed€by€the€policeÏofficers.€€This€immediacy€is€sufficient€to€satisfy€the€basis€of€knowledge€prong.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€credibility€of€the€caller€could€not€be€directly€verified,€there€was€Ïindependent€corroboration€of€the€call.€€Prior€to€initiating€the€stop,€the€police€officersÏknew€the€Defendant.€€He€had€numerous€prior€arrests€in€Clarksville,€includingÏassault€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€€They€were€also€aware€œof€a€pending›Ïprosecution€in€Dickson€for€selling€drugs.€€The€Defendant€also€had€a€reputation€inÏthe€community€as€a€drug€dealer.€€It€is€such€background€information€about€theÏDefendant€that€the€òòColemanóó€court€had€criticized€as€lacking€in€that€case.€€òòSeeóóÍòòColemanóó,€791€œS.W.2d€at›€506.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€œ540.€€InÏaddition€to€generally€knowing€ð ðthe€defendant€or€[his]€reputation€regarding€the€useÏor€sale€of€illegal€drugs,ðð€òòColemanóó,€791€S.W.2d€at€506,€the€officers€were€aware€ofÏa€specific€criminal€proceeding€against€Ricky€Kelly€for€a€drug€offense€committed€inÏa€neighboring€county.€€›ÌÌà àAt€the€scene,€the€police€officers€observed€a€gray€1980's€Cadillac€travelingÏon€œRiverside€Drive›€and€œturning€on€highway€48/13›€towards€Dickson.€€There€wereÏtwo€occupants,€one€of€whom€œOfficer€Nichols€recognized€as›€Ricky€Kelly.€œTheÏother€was€a€black€male,€as€the€caller€described.€The€activity€observed€need€notÏbe€incriminating€to€prove€reliability.€€òòMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€539.€€In€òòColemanóó,Ïsimilar€circumstances€were€not€sufficient€to€support€a€reasonable€suspicion.€€YetÏhere,€the€details€of€the€call€were€corroborated€by€observation€and€the€policeÏknew€that€the€Defendant€was€involved€in€selling€drugs.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,Ï661€S.W.2d€854,€858„59€(Tenn.€1983).€An€otherwise€innocent€appearing€driveÏtowards€Dickson€became€more€suspicious,€considering€the€Defendant€hadÏbeen€prosecuted€for€selling€drugs€there.ÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ „ ÒÒ ` ÒÒ ž ÒÓÓWhat€becomes€apparent€from€reviewing€the€authorities€cited€inÏòòMoonóó€is€that€using€such€terms€as€ð ðincriminating,ðð€ð ðsuspicious,ððÏð ðinnocent,ðð€or€ð ðnon„suspectðð€is€only€of€value€in€the€context€ofÏthe€facts€and€circumstances€of€any€particular€case.€€That€is,Íactivity€which€may€be€viewed€as€innocent€in€one€case€mayÏbe€highly€suspicious€or€incriminating€in€another.€ÌÒ  ÒÒ ž ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌòòMarshallóó,€870€S.W.2d€at€540.ÌÌà àThe€facts€and€circumstances€of€the€case›€determine€whether€the€stop€wasÏreasonable.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€œ34.€€Although€the€reasonableness€of€theÏstop€in€òòPulleyóó€was€bolstered€by€the€presence€of€a€weapon,€investigative€stopsÏfor€possible€criminal€activity€other€than€those€involving€weapons€were€notÏspecifically€ruled€out.€€òòId.óó€at€33.€€›€In€assessing€the€stop€using€the€three€factors€inÏòòPulleyóó,€the€public€interest€served€was€the€interdiction€of€a€drug€sale.€€AlthoughÏthis€is€not€as€dangerous€as€a€weapons€offense,€a€brief€stop€of€€theÏDefendantððs€vehicle€was€a€minor€œintrusion,€particularly€considering€the€immediateÏand€urgent€nature€of€the€call.›€€òòSeeóó€òòId.óó€€Knowledge€of€the€Defendantððs€priorÏhistory€of€selling€drugs€and€the€corroboration€of€details€given€by€the€informantÏprovided€sufficient€reliability€to€justify€the€degree€of€action€taken€by€the€œofficers.€ÏOfficer€Nichols€conducted€a€sufficient€ð ðpre„stopðð€inquiry€about€the€Defendant,Ïconsidering€the€time„frame€in€which€the€events€occurred.€€›€œIn€this€context€aÏreasonable€officer€should€not€be€expected€to€ð ðignore€his€well„founded€doubtsððÏand€completely€disregard€the€call.€€òòPulleyóó,€863€S.W.2d€at€33€(òòquotingóó€òòUnitedóóÏòòStates€v.€McClinnhanóó,€660€F.2d€500,€503€(D.C.€Cir.€1981);€òòseeóó€òòTerryóó,€392€U.S.Ïat€23;€88€S.Ct.€at€1881.€€€From›€the€information€given€by€the€anonymous€caller,Íthe€subsequent€corroboration€of€each€item€of€information€enumerated€by€theÏinformant€and€the€prior€knowledge€of€the€Defendantððs€drug€involvement€inÏClarksville€and€Dickson,€we€conclude€that€the€police€officers€had€a€reasonableÏsuspicion€that€would€justify€the€stop€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€also€contends€that€the€searches€conducted€by€the€officersÏwere€unlawful.€€He€contends€that€the€searches€were€based€on€the€exigentÏcircumstances€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement,€and€because€there€was€noÏprobable€cause€to€support€the€searches,€they€were€invalid.€€The€DefendantÏcites€òòState€v.€Leveyeóó,€796€S.W.2d€948€(Tenn.€1990),€œto€support€his€argumentÏthat›€the€exigent€circumstances€exception€requires€probable€cause.€€WeÏœgenerally€agree›€with€œthat€contention,€but€we€find€the›€exigent€circumstancesÏexception€inapplicable€to€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€Defendant€was€requested€and€gave€his€oral€consent€to€search€hisÏperson€and€the€automobile.€€The€record€clearly€shows,€by€the€Defendantððs€ownÏtestimony,€that€he€consented€to€the€search€of€his€person.€€He€contends€that€heÏdid€not€give€consent€to€search€the€vehicle€because€he€was€not€the€owner,€butÏthe€evidence€shows€that€both€he€and€the€passenger€in€the€car€were€asked€toÏconsent€to€the€search.€€The€evidence€further€shows€that€the€passenger,€whoÏwas€the€owner€of€the€vehicle,€gave€his€consent€to€search€the€automobile.€€TheÍofficers€did€not€have€to€rely€on€a€showing€of€probable€cause€to€search€theÏvehicle€since€consent€was€given.€€Also,€because€the€initial€stop€of€the€vehicleÏwas€lawful,€the€subsequent€consent€to€search€was€obtained€validly.€€òòSeeóóÏòòJohnsonóó,€661€S.W.2d€at€859.ÌÌà àWe€œconclude›€that€the€police€officers€had€a€reasonable€suspicion€that€theÏDefendant€was€involved€in€a€drug€transaction€that€would€justify€a€briefÏinvestigatory€stop€of€the€œDefendant€and€his›€vehicle.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€inÏdenying€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€suppress€the€cocaine€discovered€in€theÏsearch.€€We€affirm€the€œjudgment€of›€the€trial€court.Ìà àÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌœJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE›