WPC> v{r]ˤVG4)ӽw?nhuQA.O-Gm̯,~B F%}$<>@/v}M L%EgڑH lAw1 ng!SP z-fLtZL!]œ/1{k{qhOFz:S CKK}e](F[]<MFq`FRb }NjlonfS޸./D:Zn]ެ _pS:,3+ej0O ,19;)Og 0 0 0 0 0l 09 0 0 0!b" 0" 0}# 0R$ 0$% 0% 0& 00' 0<' 0' 0>( 0v( 0`f) 0`) 0`&* 0`* 0`* 08F+ 0~+ 02P, 0, 0:~- 0Y- 0_. 0 p. 0jz/ 00 B*h2 D/2 02 D/E4 0t4 06B5 0x5 0:6 0^6 07 0<8 0N?8U68 B8U>8 09 D39 D-9 0K":U*m: AS:: 0; 0DT< A<C=HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#$  0   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.wpt 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.wptꠔ-s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5PH, 1X3|xU 2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7J(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  XXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  XXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      (|G2à$ !.8K5dd8         0  2 0CommentB  (O$<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3y$ !.8K5dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y$ !.8K5dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  Rà$      1    _ԀOnappeal,thedefendantattemptedtoexpandthescopeofissuescertifiedforourreviewtoincludeaclaim  thattheofficerwhostoppedhimwasengagedinunlawfultailgatingdesignedtointimidatethedefendant.Wedecline t toconsiderthisclaim. !.8K5dd8     _   K58XXdd8@ttL$K5INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#K5L$ #Ԉ &    @  @` September17,2002Session L XXK5 #K5XX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JEROMED.MANNINGXXK5  J  AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSumnerCounty  J @@No.3762001JaneW._Wheatcraft_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200103128CCAR3CDFiledDecember20,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     JeromeD.Manningappealsacertifiedquestionoflawregardingapoliceofficersstopofhimwhich x  resultedinhisarrestforillegalpossessionofnarcotics.Becauseweagreewiththetrialcourtthat d reasonablesuspicionsupportedbyspecificand_articulable_Ԁfactsexistedforthestopandthatthe P scopeanddurationofthedetentionwerenotunreasonable,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. <  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtisAffirmed.  d   James_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.#K5X#XX.K5,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichThomasT._Woodall_ < andRobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined. ( Kenneth_Quillen_,Nashville,Tennessee(onappeal);andDaleM._Quillen_,Nashville,Tennessee(at  trial),fortheAppellant,JeromeD.Manning.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;KimR.Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; t LawrenceRayWhitley,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andDeeGay,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral, ` fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  H@@OO& OPINION #K5XX#XXK5 $"t! #K5XX9 #XXK5     ` OnOctober15,2001,thedefendant,JeromeD.Manning,pleadedguiltyinthe #L# SumnerCountyCriminalCourttoaClassBfelonydrugoffense,possessionofmorethanonehalf $8 $ gramofcocainewithintenttosell.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a)(4),(c)(1)(Supp.2001). %$!% HewassentencedonDecember10,2001,toatermofeightyearstobeservedoncommunity &"& correctionsandwasfined$2,000.Withthestate'sandtrialcourt'sagreement,thedefendant '"' specificallyreservedtherighttoappeala_dispositive_ԀquestionoflawpursuanttoCriminalProcedure (#( Rule37(b)(2)(1).Tenn.R._Crim_.P.37(b)(2)(1)( Anappeallies...fromanyjudgmentof )$) conviction...[_u]pon_Ԁapleaofguilty...if...DefendantenteredintoapleaagreementunderRule p*%* 11(e)butexplicitlyreservedwiththeconsentofthestateandofthecourttherighttoappeala \+&+ certifiedquestionoflawthatis_dispositive_Ԁofthecase.).Asrecitedinthejudgmentofconviction, H,', theissuereservedforreviewis whethertheinitialstopofthe[defendants]vehiclewassupported 4-(- _byareasonablesuspicionbasedonspecificandarticulablefactsand/orwhetherthedetentionand  seizurefromthe[defendant]wasexcessive.b #  1      ׀Weconcludethatthecertifiedquestionwasproperly  reserved.Wealsoconcludethatthestopofthedefendantsautomobilewasconstitutionally  permissibleandthattheevidenceseizedasaresultofthedetentionshouldnotbesuppressed. t    ` #K5XX #XXK5BeforeusisatranscriptofthedefendantsApril25,2001,preliminaryhearingand L  partialtranscriptsoftheJuly26andAugust3,2001,hearingsonhissuppressionmotion.Atthe 8  preliminaryhearing,HendersonvillepoliceofficerBrianWeekstestifiedthatonAugust19,2000, $ t hewasassignedtothemidnightpatrolshift.HewastravelingonSandersFerryRoad,andashe  ` approachedDrakesCreekMarina,hepulledintotheparkinglotofMr.BillsCatfishRestaurant  L  acrossfromthemarina.OfficerWeeksturnedaroundintheparkinglotandsawaLexusautomobile  8  pulloutofthemarinaandheadtowardMainStreet. $     ` OfficerWeekstestifiedthathefollowedtheLexus.AlthoughtheLexuswastraveling   withinthespeedlimit,itcrossedthecenterlineofthehighwaytwiceandcrossedtheoutsideline   onceontothegravelshoulder.OnbothoccasionswhentheLexuscrossedthecenterline,Officer   Weekssaidthatthe majorityofthecarwasonthewrongsideoftheroad.Becausethelake p boundedthenarrowroadonbothsides,OfficerWeekswaiteduntiltherewasasafesectionofthe \ highway,atMallardsRestaurant,beforestoppingtheLexus.OfficerWeekssaidthatitwashis H intentiontoadministerfieldsobrietyteststothedriveroftheLexus. 4    ` OfficerWeekssaidthatheapproachedthecaranddeterminedthatthedefendantwas  \ thedriverandloneoccupant.OfficerWeeksaskedthedefendantifhehadbeendrinking,andthe H defendantrespondedthathehadnot.OfficerWeekstheninquiredastothereasonforthe 4 defendantserraticdrivingandnoticedthatthedefendantkepthisrighthandinbetweentheseats   andoutofsight.OfficerWeeksaskedthedefendanttwicetoshowhisrighthand.Thedefendant   appeared bewilderedandkeptsaying, Huh?Afterthethirdrequest,OfficerWeekstestifiedthat  hesteppedbackandstartedtounholsterhisweaponbecausehe didntknowif[thedefendant]had  aweaponoranythingelseinthehand.Atthatpoint,thedefendantraisedhisrighthandandwas  holdingwhatappearedtoOfficerWeekstobeaplasticbagcontainingcrackcocaine.Thedefendant l slowlystartedtohandovertheitem,andtheofficer reachedinandgrabbeditfromhishand. X     ` OfficerWeeksagainsteppedbackandcalledforabackupunit.Thedefendantput 0"  theLexusintodriveandleftatahighrateofspeed.OfficerWeekspursuedthedefendant,whowas #l! travelingattimesinexcessof110milesperhourandpassingcarsonthewrongsideoftheroad. $X" Duringthechase,atireonOfficerWeekssvehiclewentflat,andhehadtostophispursuit.The $D # defendantwassubsequentlyarrestedinNashvilleandtransportedtotheHendersonvillePolice %0!$ Department.Thedefendantadmittedthattheplasticbagcontainedcrackcocaine,andheclaimed &"% thatheboughtitonthestreetinNashville.Thedefendantalsoadmittedhavingsoldcrackcocaine '#& butnotonaregularbasis.Thepoliceseizedapproximately$9,700incashfromthetrunkofthe  defendantsautomobile.     ` OfficerWeekstestifiedagaintothesamefactsatthehearingonthedefendants t suppressionmotion.Regardingmoneyseizedfromthedefendant,OfficerWeeksrecalledthatin ` additiontothecashintheLexus,approximately$1,100wasfoundonthedefendantspersonbya L  correctionalintakeofficer.ThedefensequestionedOfficerWeeksabouttheDepartmentof 8  TransportationsstudentmanualdealingwithDUIdetectionstandardsandhadtheofficerreadfrom $ t aonepageflowchartinthemanualthatoutlinedthreedetectionphases:(1)vehicleinmotion,(2)  ` personalcontact,and(3)prearrestscreening.#K5XX#XXK5ԀOfficerWeekstestifiedthathewasnotfamiliarwith  L  themanualbutthathehadbeentrainedinconductingdrivingundertheinfluencestops.The  8  defensepointedoutthattheofficerdidnotissueacitationtothedefendant;OfficerWeeksagreed $  explaining, Ididnthaveachance.Hedroveoff.      ` ThedefenseelicitedfromOfficerWeeksthatthedefendant,a20yearoldAfrican   American,wasdrivinga ratherexpensiveautomobile.AlthoughOfficerWeeksdidnotknowthe   percentagefiguresfortheAfricanAmericanpopulationinHendersonville,heagreedthatfew p AfricanAmericanslivedinthearea.Nevertheless,OfficerWeeksalsoinsistedthathedidnot \ determinethedefendantsraceuntilheapproachedtheLexusafterthestop. H    ` Thedefendanttestifiedatthesuppressionhearingthathewaspullingoutofthe  p marinawhenhefirstspottedOfficerWeeks.Shortlythereafter,thedefendantobservedapolice  \ vehiclefollowingbehindhimatadistanceofapproximatelyoneandonehalfcarlengths.The H defendantsaidthatthepolicecarfollowedhimfor1.4milesbeforeinitiatingthestop.The 4 defendantrecalledthatOfficerWeeksaskedhimifhehadbeendrinking.Thedefendanttestified   thathehadnotbeendrinkingandsotoldtheofficer.Theofficer,accordingtothedefendant,then   demanded, Letmeseeyourhands,threetimes.Thedefendantsawtheofficerreachingforhis  firearmatwhichtimethedefendantsaidthathepulleduphishands.Thedefendantwasholdinga  packetinhishand,andhetestifiedthattheofficer grabbeditfromhim.Thedefendantsaidthat  hewasfearfulofbeingshotsohe droveoff. l    ` Thedefendantflatlydeniedeithercrossingoverthecenterlinetwiceorcrossingonto D! thegravelshoulderoftheroad. 0"     ` ThetrialcourttookthematterunderadvisementandissuedaMemorandumOpinion $X" andOrderdenyingthemotiontosuppress.Thetrialcourtcreditedtheofficerstestimonythatthe $D # Lexusveeredoverthecenterlinetwiceandonceontothegravelshoulderandtheofficersaccount %0!$ ofthedefendantsbehaviorwhenaskedtoshowhisrighthand.Consideringthedefendantserratic &"% driving,whichsuggestedanintoxicateddriver,andthedangerousroadconditionsthatexisted,the '#& trialcourtconcludedthatOfficerWeekshadreasonablesuspiciontostopthedefendantsvehicle. (#' Thetrialcourtfurtherconcludedthatthescopeanddurationofthestopwerenotunreasonable. The )$( stop,thetrialcourtobserved, wasextremelyshort.Theofficeraskedthedefendanttwo |*%) questions,demandedthreetimestoseethedefendantsrighthand,andseizedthedrugs.The h+&* encounterwascutshortwhenthedefendantthenimmediatelyfled.Last,thedemandstoseethe  defendantshiddenhandwerejustified,accordingtothetrialcourt,becauseoftheofficerssafety  concerns.     ` Atrialcourtsfactualfindingsonamotiontosuppressareconclusiveonappeal ` unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthem.Statev.Binette,33S.W.3d215,217(Tenn.2000); L  Statev.Odom,928S.W.2d18,23(Tenn.1996).Thus,questionsofcredibility,theweightandvalue 8  oftheevidence,andtheresolutionofconflictingevidencearemattersentrustedtothetrialjudge, $ t andthiscourtmustupholdatrialcourtsfindingsoffactunlesstheevidenceintherecord  ` preponderatesagainstthem.Odom,928S.W.2dat23;seealsoTenn.R.App.P.13(d).The  L  applicationofthelawtothefacts,however,isaquestionthatanappellatecourtreviewsdenovo.  8  Statev.Keith,978S.W.2d861,864(Tenn.1998).Wereviewtheissueinthepresentappealwith $  thesestandardsinmind.          ` BoththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutionsprotectagainstunreasonable   searchesandseizures.U.S.Const.amendIV;Tenn.Const.art.1,7.Asearchorseizure   conductedwithoutawarrantispresumedunreasonable,therebyrequiringthestatetoprovebya p preponderanceoftheevidencethatthesearchorseizurewasconductedpursuanttoanexceptionto \ thewarrantrequirement.SeeSchnecklothv.Bustamonte,412U.S.218,219,93S.Ct.2041,2043 H (1973);Statev.Simpson,968S.W.2d776,780(Tenn.1998). 4 8#K5XX%&#XXK5     ` Oneexceptiontothewarrantrequirementexistswhenapoliceofficermakesan  \ investigatorystopbaseduponreasonablesuspicion,supportedbyspecificandarticulablefacts,that H acriminaloffensehasbeenorisabouttobecommitted.SeeTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1,20-21,88 4 S.Ct.1868,1880(1968);Statev.Bridges,963S.W.2d487,492(Tenn.1997).Probablecauseis   notrequiredforsuchan investigatorystop.Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.at21,88S.Ct.at1880.The   leadingcase,Delawarev.Prouse,440U.S.648,663,99S.Ct.1391,1401(1979),establishedthat  generallythepoliceareentitledtostopacarbrieflyforinvestigativepurposesiftheyhavea  reasonablesuspicion,baseduponspecificandarticulablefacts,thatanoffenseisbeingorisabout  tobecommitted.Areviewingcourtthenmusttakeintoaccountthetotalityofcircumstanceswhen l analyzingwhetheranofficerssuspicionis reasonableandsupportedbyspecificandarticulable X  facts.Statev.Yeargan,958S.W.2d626,632(Tenn.1997).Circumstancesrelevanttothat D! determinationinclude,butarenotlimitedto,theofficers personalobjectiveobservationsand the 0"  rationalinferencesanddeductionsthatatrainedofficermaydrawfromthefactsandcircumstances #l! knowntohim!inferencesanddeductionsthatmightwelleludeanuntrainedperson.Keith,978 $X" S.W.2dat867. $D #    ` Thereisnoquarrelthatthedefendantwas seizedforconstitutionalpurposeswhen &"% OfficerWeeksstoppedtheLexusatMallardsRestaurant.Thequestionbecomeswhetherthestop '#& wasconstitutionalbecauseitwasbottomedonareasonablesuspicionbyOfficerWeeks,supported (#' byspecificandarticulablefacts. )$(   |*%)    ` Atthehearingonhissuppressionmotion,thedefendantinsistedthathenevercrossed   overthecenterlineandnevercrossedoverthewhitelineontothegravelshoulderoftheroad.  HavinglostthatcredibilitydisputetoOfficerWeeks,thedefendantabandonsthatargumenton  appeal.Instead,heseekstopersuadethatlessthanperfectoperationofamotorvehicleisnot t suspiciousanddoesnotgiverisetoreasonablesuspicionforastop. `    ` Here,however,#K5XX;#XXK5Ԁtheofficerobservedmorethanagardenvarietyofimperfectdriving. 8  Thedefendantsvehicletwicecrossedthecenterlineintotheoppositelaneoftravelandalsocrossed $ t ontotherightgravelshoulderofthenarrowroad.AccordingtoOfficerWeeks,onbothoccasions  ` whentheLexuscrossedthecenterline,the majorityofthecarwasonthewrongsideoftheroad#K5XX9G#XXK5.  L  ThesecircumstancesdistinguishthiscasefromwhatthesupremecourtinBinetteregardedasminor  8  imperfectionsindriving.Binette,33S.W.3dat21820.See,e.g.,Statev.ChrisA.Jefferson,No. $  E200000429CCAR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Dec.8,2000)(reasonablesuspicion   supportedtrafficstopwhendefendantobserved cuttingazcontinuouslyfromdottedcenterline   toshoulderfogline);Statev.DonPalmerBlack,No.03C019812CR00424(Tenn.Crim.App.,   Knoxville,Dec.29,1999)(trafficstopupheldwhenofficerobserveddefendantweavingwithinlane   andswervingtwicetotherightalmosthittingthecurb);Statev.FloydLeeWilliamson,No.02C01 p 9803CC00085(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Apr.1,1999)(reasonablesuspicionexistedwhen \ officerobservedvehicledriftbackandforthwithinthelane,crossthecenterlineatleastonce,and H driveatslightlymorethanonehalfthespeedlimit). 4    ` OfficerWeeksinvestigatorystopinthiscase,weconclude,violatednoconstitutional  \ principlesorguarantees. H    ` Next,weaddressthedefendantscomplaintthateveniftheinitialstopwaslawful,   thedurationandscopeoftheseizureexceededreasonablelimits.Theconstitutionalparametersof   anencounterbetweenlawenforcementandamotoristwhohasbeenstoppedweresuccinctlyset  forthinStatev.Troxell,78S.W.3d866(Tenn.2002).#K5XX5I#XXK5    Becauseatrafficstopisaninvestigatorystop,theofficersactions l mustbe reasonablyrelatedinscopetothecircumstanceswhich X  justifiedtheinterferenceinthefirstplace,TerryvOhio,392U.S.1, D! 20,88S.Ct.1868,1879,20L.Ed.2d889(1968),andthedetention 0"   mustbetemporaryandlastnolongerthannecessarytoeffectuatethe #l! purposeofthestop,Floridav.Royer,460U.S.491,500,103S.Ct. $X" 1319,1325,75L.Ed.2d229(1983);StatevEngland19S.W.3dat $D # 76768.Moreover,theofficershouldemploytheleastintrusive %0!$ meansreasonablyavailabletoinvestigatehisorhersuspicionsina &"% shortperiodoftime.Floridav.Royer,460U.S.at500,103S.Ct.at '#& 1326.AsthisCourthassaid, theproperinquiryiswhetherduring (#' thedetention,the#K5XXP#XXK5policediligentlypursuedameansofinvestigation )$( thatwaslikelytoconfirmordispeltheirsuspicionsquickly.State |*%) v.Simpson,968S.W.2dat783(citationomitted).Otherwisea h+&* reasonabletrafficstopcanbecomeunreasonableandconstitutionally  invalid ifthetime,mannerorscopeoftheinvestigationexceedsthe  properparameters.   P PId.at871. `    ` Thedefendantinthiscasewouldhaveusholdthattheinitialdetentionshouldhave 8  terminatedonceOfficerWeeksobservedthedefendantsfaceandreceivedanegativeresponseto $ t thequestionwhetherthedefendanthadbeendrinking.Thedefendantwritesinhisbriefthat Officer  ` Weekshadnoreasontoaskdefendanttoexitthevehicleandthereforecontinueddetentionto  L  administerfieldsobrietytestswasunreasonable.  8     ` Inthefirstplace,OfficerWeeksdidnotaskthedefendanttoexithisvehicle.Officer   Weeksaskedthedefendanttoshowhisrighthand.OfficerWeeksmaywellhaveintendedtoask   thedefendanttostepoutoftheLexus,butbeforeOfficerWeekshadanopportunitytodoso,the   defendantdroveaway,therebyterminatingtheencounter.      ` Second,OfficerWeekswasstillinthemidstofinvestigatingthedefendantssobriety \ whenthedefendanthimselfterminatedthedetention.Thepurposeofthestop,inotherwords,had H notbeeneffectuated.OfficeWeeksreasonablyneededmorethanamonosyllabicresponsetohis 4 questionaboutdrinkingandabriefviewofthedefendantscountenancetomakeaninformed  p decisionthatfurtherinvestigationwasunnecessary.#K5XX U#XXK5ԀAstheinvestigationwasincomplete,wenever  \ reachthequestionwhetherthedurationandscopeofthedetentionwasunreasonable. H    ` Finally,thesafetyoftheofficerperformingthetrafficstopisalegitimate   consideration.Officersneednotjeopardizetheirownsafetyforthesakeofexpeditingalegitimate   investigation.SeeKnowlesv.Iowa,525U.S.113,119S.Ct.484(1998)(forthepurposeofofficer  safety,boththedriverandpassengermaybeorderedoutofavehicleinthecourseofaroutinetraffic  stop#K5XX]#XXK5);Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.at2326,88S.Ct.at188182(limitedpatdownsearchpermissible  uponashowingthatsuchactionisjustifiedtoprotecttheofficer).OfficerWeekstestifiedthathe l wasconcernedthatthedefendantmayhavebeenconcealingagunorotherweaponinhisrighthand. X  OfficerWeekswouldhavebeenfoolhardytocontinuehisinvestigationofthedefendantssobriety D! beforeensuringthatthedefendantdidnotposeanimmediatethreat. 0"     ` Forthereasonswehavediscussed,weconcludethatthetrialcourtcorrectlydenied $X" thedefendantsmotiontosuppress.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourt,accordingly,isaffirmed. $D #    `     h     ___________________________________ )$(    `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE#K5XXg`#D  D  D  D  D  D  D   |*%) ;XXK5