’WPCˆ 7Et†ŗčČĒĮVa¾;ķéI(ŸżdŹ–’>b“øT}ļĢ”é‘č­²‹ $ ,“Ūć/|±QćŻĮr&ØĘ龙¦½ł…Ž/)‡»˜źżd+<›„æ„:–«:ΜĶļĻm«Ė<)§ÉégĢSXŠÜ‘™ ¦Ż ōŁŲ)«ē9‰ž¹±b@tsÓz1čür*¦’<$鶤­ē@—’ĀĦlZkŒ)‰—lš°€®)†:ŽäMT¦8UlbNŌÆŌh‹·’æuńģ(»–¦æN5=ݬ£ˆ7įå Pu(śE •œ/ŌjM‚¦bóR›H*«ę„m•Ž™¼H«E1A+{gCNĒOw…ž»åńtn`8&žē¼!µjIłŪ¤€ļR0 ų`Ÿ Ģ@ėįӎmcCģ‚fY}cŒj'ĻÓÉmڟÆs”-¬‰‚Č\­Ļ6ęėĆ%åų@!Ś(š!°¾±šCu”~[µNŅobgÖ#Ž•eh0)fMA”5paÓšKĒRwM¢˜BU~ZÖ9īŸ#§ļżE{ÕB†ŚĮʓ‚¤Ŗq#ÉóæŒ “•@!ŗS< YćĶ:Ęvé0¹”cD£Aż„8ϐQįóéwD’Š1q¬č»b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkŅå· m¹ #ĮŠ ‘ ʙ Ę_ Ę% Ęė U@±NńóóE r                       b}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} 0ė………… Bpp 0¤ D31 D-d 0K‘‘ ASÜĘ/ 0¤õ 0D™ A«Ż»…()ā (`£Ŗ$””Ń€.ŃŃ8€½­»»d»»d8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  Ó(ķ€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'ĄįĄįĄįĄį€X„3|x ˜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’U‹’ĄĄĄ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ĪįA Z‹(Times New Roman  Ń e Ń hŃ Š ŃŃ\R3Ų' Letter\Ń- ł-(|G2ųŁ$¤¤Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€óŒ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Żą  ąņņŚ  Ś0Ś  ŚóóŌ€ō™“ņ»»Ō d(|3y($££Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€óŒ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻVVVV'’’dxd)!ČČČČdxdx( ±ž$’’ņ ņFigure€Ś  Ś1Ś  Śó ó^_X`YEž’<<C’’ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y($¢¢Ż ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€óŒ»»dd8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  Ż($$””ņ ņŚ  Ś1Ś  Śó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8’’’’’’’’’’C’’ HKKKKŻ ƒ£Ŗ!ŻŃ€.ŃŃ8€óŒ»»ddČ8ŃŃ ż ŃÓ  ÓŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ  ŃŃ  ŃŌ€¼óŒ»»»ŌŃ8€é+XXdš»»d8ŃŃ€ļOŃŃ€&Ńą@ttģąŌ‡ī£OóŒŌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆŠ ° Šą@WW$ģąAT€KNOXVILLEŌ#†¼óŒ»īī£O.#ԈŠ Ü, ŠÓ  Óą @ ąą @` ąMay€2000€SessionŠ X ŠŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌĢņ ņŌ#†¼óŒ»XXé+0#ŌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEņņóó€v.€ANN€ELIZABETH€MARTINņņóóŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌó óŠ  ` ŠĢą@@½½ģąņ ņDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyŠ  h Šą@@ųųģąNo.€218646€€€€€€Stephen€M.€Ō_ŌBevilŌ_Ō,€Presiding€JudgeŠ  X ŠĢĢą@@ģģ*ģąßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` Aߊ Ų(  ŠĢą@@TTģąNo.€E1999„01361„CCA„R3„CDŠ ×'  ŠSeptember€8,€Ō_Ō2000Ō_ŌŠ Ē  ŠßA€V) °°` dE<¶` Aߊ ·  Šó óĢÓ  ÓDefendant€Ann€Elizabeth€Martin€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,€first€offense.€€In€thisŠ ¶ Šappeal€as€of€right€she€argues€(1)€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€suppress€blood€test€resultsŠ ¦ö Šbecause€of€statutory€and€constitutional€infirmities€in€the€implied€consent€form;€and€(2)Ō#†¼óŒ»XXé+¬#ŌŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌ€the€stop€ofŠ –ę Šher€vehicle€and€subsequent€arrest€are€unconstitutional€because€the€arresting€officer€did€not€have€aŠ †Ö Šreasonable€Ō_ŌarticulableŌ_Ō€suspicion€warranting€a€traffic€stop.Ō#†¼óŒ»XXé+‚#ŌŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌ€€Held:€the€implied€consent€form€compliesŠ vĘ Šwith€the€statutory€requirements.€€However,€the€officer€who€arrested€Defendant€did€not€have€aŠ f¶ Šreasonable€Ō_ŌarticulableŌ_Ō€suspicion€warranting€a€traffic€stop.€€Defendant's€conviction€is€reversed,€andŠ V¦ Šthe€case€is€remanded€for€dismissal€of€the€charge.Š F– ŠÓ ÓĢņ ņTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversedó óŠ &v ŠĢņņÓ  ÓŌ#†¼óŒ»ąXé+ø#ŌŌ‡Xé+X.¼óŒŌThomas€T.€Ō_ŌWoodallŌ_Ō,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€ņņJohn€Everett€Williamsóó€andŠ V ŠņņAlan€E.€Glenn,€JJ.,óó€joined.Š öF ŠŌ#†¼óŒ»XXé+ #ŌŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌĢJerry€H.€Summers€and€Jimmy€F.€Rodgers,€Jr.,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€AnnŠ Ö& ŠElizabeth€Martin.Š Ę  ŠĢPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Patricia€C.€Ō_ŌKussmanŌ_Ō,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Š ¦"ö! ŠWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Christopher€D.€Poole,€Assistant€District€AttorneyŠ –#ę" ŠGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Š †$Ö# ŠŌ#†¼óŒ»XXé+% #ŌŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌÓć ÓĢą@@OO&ģąņ ņOPINIONó óŌ#†¼óŒ»XXé+P #ŌŌ‡Xé+X»¼óŒŌŠ f&¶!% ŠĢņņóóŌ#†¼óŒ»XXé+Ā #ŌÓ  ÓŌ€Xé+X»¼óŒŌą  ąThe€Defendant,€Ann€Elizabeth€Martin,€was€convicted€after€a€bench€trial€in€Hamilton€CountyŠ F(–#' Šof€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant,€first€offense,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€CodeŠ 6)†$( ŠAnnotated€šš€55„10„401.€€She€was€sentenced€to€eleven€(11)€months,€twenty„nine€(29)€days,€finedŠ &*v%) Š$360€dollars,€ordered€to€attend€Ō_ŌDUIŌ_Ō€school,€and€her€driver's€license€was€suspended€for€one€year.€€TheŠ +f&* Štrial€court€also€suspended€all€but€forty„eight€(48)€hours€of€her€jail€sentence.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€rightŠ ,V'+ ŠDefendant€raises€two€issues€for€review:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€did€not€suppressŠ ö,F(, Šblood€test€results€because€of€statutory€and€constitutional€infirmities€in€the€implied€consent€form;€andŠ ę-6)-ż ŠŃļOŃā āŃe°Ńā āŃ  ŃŌ_Ō(2)€whether€the€arresting€officer€had€a€reasonable€articulable€suspicion€to€make€a€traffic€stop€whenŠ e Šhe€observed€Defendant's€vehicle€briefly€cross€the€solid€white€line€to€the€right€of€the€lane€ofŠ Uš ŠDefendant's€travel.€€We€think€that€the€implied€consent€form€satisfies€the€statutory€requirements.€€WeŠ Eą Šdo€not€address€Defendantššs€constitutional€challenge€because€Defendant€has€provided€no€citations€toŠ 5Š Šauthority€in€support€thereof€and€no€legal€argument.€€However,€we€conclude€that€the€arresting€officerŠ %Ą Šdid€not€have€reasonable€articulable€suspicion€for€stopping€Defendant's€vehicle.€€We€reverseŠ  ° ŠDefendant's€conviction€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€remand€the€case€to€the€Hamilton€CountyŠ    ŠCriminal€Court€for€dismissal€of€the€charge.Š õ  ŠĢÓ  Óņ ņI.€€Factsó óŠ Õ p  ŠÓ“ÓĢą  ąIn€the€early€morning€hours€of€April€13,€1997,€Ann€Elizabeth€Martin€was€operating€a€1996Š µP  ŠGMC€van€on€Lee€Highway€in€Chattanooga.€Lee€Highway€is€a€divided€highway€with€two€lanes€of€Š „@  Štravel€in€either€direction.€€Officer€Robert€Starnes€of€the€Hamilton€County€Sheriffššs€Department€wasŠ •0  Šin€the€vicinity€at€the€time,€and€he€testified€that€he€observed€Defendantššs€vehicle€at€3:14€AM€justŠ …  Šsouth€of€the€junction€of€Lee€Highway€and€Highway€153.€€The€€vehicle€was€proceeding€northboundŠ u Šon€Lee€Highway,€and€Starnes€watched€Defendantššs€vehicle€move€from€the€right„side€travel€lane€toŠ e Ša€merge€lane€on€the€far€right„hand€side€of€the€road.€€After€Defendantššs€vehicle€was€in€the€merge€lane€Š Uš ŠŅ°ŅҰŅthe€tires€on€the€right€side€of€the€road€crossed€over€the€solid€white€line€onto€the€pavedŠ Eą Športion€of€the€road€over€the€traveled€portion€of€the€roadway€which€attracted€myŠ 5Š Šattention€to€the€vehicle.€€The€vehicle€then€came€back€into€the€merge€lane€to€get€ontoŠ %Ą Š153€and€weaved€over€or€crossed€over€into€the€slow€lane,€which€would€be€the€outerŠ ° Šmost€lane€of€Lee€Highway€on€the€northbound€side.€€Then€at€this€time€I€activated€myŠ   Švideo€camera€inside€my€patrol€unit€and€proceeded€to€record€the€rest€of€theŠ õ Šinformation€as€far€as€the€vehicleššs€driving.€€Š å€ ŠŅ°%ŅҰŅDefendantššs€vehicle€crossed€the€bridge€going€over€€Highway€153,€and€made€a€left„hand€turn€acrossŠ Õp Šthe€southbound€lanes€into€a€parking€lot.€€Š Å` ŠĢą  ąAt€a€point€immediately€prior€to€Defendantššs€turn€into€the€parking€lot,€Officer€StarnesŠ „@ Šactivated€his€blue€lights.€€Defendant€came€to€a€stop€in€the€parking€lot,€and€Officer€Starnes€exited€hisŠ •0 Švehicle€to€talk€with€Defendant.€€After€asking€Defendant€to€exit€the€vehicle€Starnes€believed€thatŠ …  ŠDefendant€was€intoxicated,€and€the€video€tape€from€Starnesšš€vehicle€shows€that€Starnes€administeredŠ u! Šseveral€field€sobriety€tests.€€Starnes€then€concluded€that€Defendant€was€intoxicated€based€onŠ e"  ŠDefendantššs€performance€on€the€field€sobriety€tests,€Defendantššs€demeanor,€and€DefendantššsŠ U#š! Šconversation€with€Starnes.€€After€Defendant€was€placed€under€arrest,€Defendant€consented€to€a€bloodŠ E$ą" Šalcohol€test,€and€Starnes€transported€Defendant€to€Erlanger€Medical€Center€for€the€drawing€of€blood.€Š 5%Š # ŠThe€blood€was€later€tested€and€found€to€have€a€.15%€blood€alcohol€level.Š %&Ą!$ ŠĢą  ąDefendant€testified€that€Officer€Starnes€activated€his€blue€lights€when€she€was€on€the€bridgeŠ ( #& Šcrossing€Highway€153,€and€she€turned€left€off€Lee€Highway€at€the€next€available€turn€for€a€parkingŠ õ($' Šlot.€€Although€Defendant€acknowledged€that€she€initially€refused€to€consent€to€a€blood€alcohol€test,Š å)€%( Šshe€testified€that€she€changed€her€mind€because€she€wanted€to€do€whatever€Officer€Starnes€wantedŠ Õ*p&) Šher€to€do.€€She€testified€that€Officer€Starnes€informed€her€that€if€she€did€not€consent€that€she€wouldŠ Å+`'* Šautomatically€lose€her€driverššs€license€for€a€yearš!šbut€that€the€officer€did€not€inform€her€of€otherŠ e Šconsequences€of€a€refusal.€€She€also€testified€that€she€did€not€read€the€implied€consent€form€whenŠ Uš Šshe€signed€it.Š Eą ŠĢą  ąThe€video„tape€from€Officer€Starnesšš€vehicle€started€with€a€rear€view€of€Defendantššs€van€asŠ %Ą Šthe€officer€followed€Defendant.€€The€van€was€in€the€right„hand€travel€lane,€and€a€car€passedŠ  ° ŠDefendant€in€the€left„hand€lane.€€When€the€car€was€clear€of€Defendantššs€van,€Defendantššs€left€turnŠ    Šsignal€was€activated,€and€Defendant€changed€lanes.€€Defendantššs€left€turn€signal€remained€on,€andŠ õ  Šshortly€thereafter€Defendantššs€brake€lights€came€on,€and€Defendant€began€to€enter€a€left€turn€lane.€Š å € ŠAs€Defendant€began€to€enter€the€left€turn€lane,€an€š šLTšš€designation€appeared€at€the€bottom€of€theŠ Õ p  Švideo€screen,€reflecting€the€fact€that€Officer€Starnes€had€activated€his€blue€lights.€€DefendantššsŠ Å `  Švehicle€completed€the€left€turn€and€came€to€a€stop€in€what€appears€to€be€the€entryway€to€a€parkingŠ µP  Šlot.€€The€video€does€not€display€any€traffic€violations€by€Defendant.Š „@  ŠĢą  ąDefendant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€in€which€Defendant€challenged,€inter€alia,€the€stop€ofŠ …  ŠDefendant's€vehicle.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€and€stated:Š u ŠĢҰŅҰŅHad€this€been€a€very€heavily€traffic€road€(sic)€and€maybe€a€car€had€gone€past€her€andŠ Uš Šbecause€of€the€size€of€the€vehicle€possible€had€caused€her€to€swerve€on€the€side€of€theŠ Eą Šroad€in€order€to€avoid€that€vehicle,€that€would€explain€it,€but€this€is€3:14€in€theŠ 5Š Šmorning€in€an€area€that€isš!šI€think€the€Court€can€take€notice€of€the€fact€there€areš!štheŠ %Ą ŠRock€&€County€Club€is€not€too€far€away€as€well€as€other€drinking€establishments€inŠ ° Šthe€Lee€Highway€area.€€At€3:14€in€the€morning€and€thereššs€no€other€traffic€to€forceŠ   Šoff€the€side€of€the€road,€to€see€her€swerve€on€the€side€of€the€road,€to€run€across€theŠ õ Šwhite€line€there€on€the€shoulder€of€the€road€and€then€get€back€in€the€lane€and€then€goŠ å€ Šover€to€the€left„hand€side€of€the€lane€without€any€cause,€I€think€although€it€would€notŠ Õp Šrise€to€the€level€of€probable€cause€would€certainly€rise€to€the€level€in€the€officerššsŠ Å` Šopinion€who€is€experienced€in€the€DUI€task€force€to€have€an€articulable€suspicion€asŠ µP Što€why€sheššs€driving€the€way€she€is€and€at€that€time€of€the€morning€as€I€said€whenŠ „@ Šthose€places,€drinking€establishments€in€that€area€certainly€would€rise€to€the€level€ofŠ •0 Šan€articulable€suspicion€that€maybe€she€is€doing€that€because€she€is€operating€theŠ …  Švehicle€under€the€influence€.€.€.€but€I€do€find€then€based€for€those€reasons€that€he€didŠ u! Šhave€an€articulable€suspicion€to€stop€her€to€inquire€further€as€to€why€she€wasŠ e"  Šoperating€the€vehicle€in€that€manner.Š U#š! ŠŅ°d)ŅҰV)ŅĢą  ąThe€trial€court€also€denied€Defendantššs€motion€to€suppress€the€results€of€the€blood€alcoholŠ 5%Š # Štest.Š %&Ą!$ ŠĢņ ņÓ  ÓII.€€Analysisó óŠ ( #& ŠÓ1ÓĢą  ąDefendant€first€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€refused€to€suppress€the€results€ofŠ å)€%( ŠDefendantššs€blood€test.€€Defendant€argues€that€the€implied€consent€form€was€€invalid€and€vague,Š Õ*p&) Šfailed€to€appraise€Defendant€of€the€consequences€if€Defendant€did€not€consent€to€the€blood€test,€andŠ Å+`'* Šdid€not€tell€Defendant€that€she€had€a€statutory€right€to€obtain€a€blood€sample€for€her€own€testing.€Š e ŠDefendant€argues€that€as€a€result€the€implied€consent€form€did€not€comply€with€the€requirements€ofŠ Uš ŠTennessee€Code€Annotated€šš€55„10„406(a),€and€does€not€pass€constitutional€muster.€€We€disagree.€Š Eą ŠĢą  ąThis€Court€must€uphold€a€trial€courtššs€findings€of€fact€resulting€from€a€suppression€hearingŠ %Ą Šunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€ņņState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€Š  ° ŠThe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialŠ    Šcourtššs€findings.€€ņņState€v.€Hartsóó,€7€S.W.3d€78,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Questions€of€credibilityŠ õ  Šof€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidenceŠ å € Šare€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€ņņOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€However,€theŠ Õ p  Šapplication€of€the€law€to€the€facts€is€a€question€of€law€which€is€reviewed€de€novo€on€appeal.€€ņņHartsóó,Š Å `  Š7€S.W.3d€at€84.Š µP  ŠĢą  ąTennessee€Code€Annotated€šš€55„10„406(a)€provides€in€part:€Š •0  ŠĢҰŅҰŅ(a)(1)€Any€person€who€drives€any€motor€vehicle€in€the€state€is€deemed€to€have€givenŠ u Šconsent€to€a€test€for€the€purpose€of€determining€the€alcoholic€or€drug€content€of€thatŠ e Špersonššs€blood€.€.€.€.€Š Uš ŠĢ(2)€Any€law€enforcement€officer€who€requests€that€the€driver€of€a€motor€vehicleŠ 5Š Šsubmit€to€a€test€pursuant€to€this€section€for€the€purpose€of€determining€the€alcoholicŠ %Ą Šor€drug€content€of€the€driverššs€blood€shall,€prior€to€conducting€such€test,€advise€theŠ ° Šdriver€that€refusal€to€submit€to€such€test€will€result€in€the€suspension€of€the€driverššsŠ   Šoperatorššs€license€by€the€court.€€The€court€having€jurisdiction€of€the€offense€forŠ õ Šwhich€such€driver€was€placed€under€arrest€shall€not€have€the€authority€to€suspend€theŠ å€ Šlicense€of€a€driver€who€refused€to€submit€to€the€test€if€such€driver€was€not€advised€ofŠ Õp Šthe€consequences€of€such€a€refusal.Š Å` ŠĢҰ)8ŅҰ8ŅTenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€55„10„406€(1998).Š „@ ŠĢą  ąHere,€Defendant€first€argues€that€the€consent€form€signed€by€Defendant€was€inadequate€Š …  Šunder€the€terms€of€šš55„10„406.€€Defendantššs€argument€turns€on€the€use€of€the€word€š šconsequencesššŠ u! Šin€šš406(a)(2).€€Defendant€reasons€that€the€suspension€of€oneššs€license€under€šš€406(a)(2)€is€but€oneŠ e"  Šš šconsequence,šš€and€thus€the€use€of€the€plural€š šconsequencesšš€means€than€an€officer€must€advise€aŠ U#š! ŠDUI€suspect€of€all€the€possible€consequences€of€refusing€to€take€a€blood€test,€i.e.€the€payment€of€aŠ E$ą" Šfee€to€reinstate€a€suspended€license,€and€the€fact€that€a€refusal€to€take€the€test€could€be€admissibleŠ 5%Š # Šin€a€criminal€proceeding€as€an€inference€of€intoxication.Š %&Ą!$ ŠĢą  ąAlthough€Defendant€presents€a€novel€argument,€we€point€out€that€the€sentence€in€questionŠ ( #& Šš!šš šThe€court€having€jurisdiction€of€the€offense€for€which€such€driver€was€placed€under€arrest€shallŠ õ($' Šnot€have€the€authority€to€suspend€the€license€of€a€driver€who€refused€to€submit€to€the€test€if€suchŠ å)€%( Šdriver€was€not€advised€of€the€consequences€of€such€a€refusalššš!šdņņóóoes€not€describe€š šconsequencesšš€inŠ Õ*p&) Šthe€abstract.€€ņņId.ó󀚚€406(a)(2).€€The€use€of€š šconsequencesšš€in€this€sentence€refers€to€the€consequencesŠ Å+`'* Šflowing€from€a€refusal€take€a€blood€test€as€described€in€the€preceding€sentenceš!šnamely€prosecutionŠ e Šunder€this€code€section€and€the€suspension€a€defendantššs€license€if€found€guilty.€€ņņId.óó€€The€use€of€theŠ Uš Šplural€š šconsequencesšš€in€this€sentence€does€not€require€an€officer€to€advise€a€defendant€of€all€theŠ Eą Špossible€consequences€of€refusing€to€take€the€test.€€The€plain€language€of€the€statute€requires€onlyŠ 5Š Šthat€an€officer€advise€a€suspect€that€if€the€suspect€refuses€he€may€have€his€license€suspended.€€ņņSeeóóŠ %Ą ŠņņState€v.€John€George€Kainóó,€No.€03C01„9901„CR„00032,€2000€WL€157944,€at€*€4,€Hamilton€CountyŠ  ° Š(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€15,€2000)€ņņperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000)€(š šA€common€senseŠ    Šreading€of€this€statute€is€that€the€word€š šconsequencesšš€.€.€.€refers€to€suspension€of€the€operatorššsŠ õ  Šlicense,€which€is€required€by€the€first€sentence€of€this€section.šš).€€The€implied€consent€form€hereŠ å € Šcontained€language€that€informed€Defendant€that€her€license€would€be€suspended€if€she€refused€toŠ Õ p  Šconsent€to€a€blood€test.€€Defendant€signed€the€form.€€Defendant€also€testified€that€Officer€StarnesŠ Å `  Šinformed€her€that€she€would€lose€her€license€for€a€year€if€she€refused€to€take€the€test.€€Defendant€isŠ µP  Šnot€entitled€to€relief€on€this€basis.Š „@  ŠĢą  ąDefendant€next€argues€that€her€consent€did€not€constitute€a€š švoluntary,€knowing,€andŠ …  Šintelligentšš€waiver€of€her€constitutional€rights€because€the€consent€form€failed€to€advise€her€of€allŠ u Šthe€possible€consequences€from€a€ņņrefusalóó€to€take€a€blood€test.€€Specifically,€Defendant€argues€thatŠ e Šshe€should€have€been€informed€that€she€would€have€to€pay€a€fee€to€reinstate€her€license€if€it€wereŠ Uš Šsuspended,€that€her€refusal€would€affect€her€ability€to€obtain€a€restricted€license€(a€limited„use€licenseŠ Eą Šfor€employment€only),€and€that€a€refusal€to€submit€to€the€test€could€be€used€against€her€in€a€criminalŠ 5Š Šproceeding€as€evidence€of€intoxication.€€Similarly,€Defendant€also€argues€that€her€consent€was€notŠ %Ą Ša€š švoluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligentšš€waiver€of€her€constitutional€rights€because€the€form€failedŠ ° Što€advise€her€regarding€all€the€possible€consequences€from€ņņsubmittingóó€to€a€blood€test.€€Specifically,Š   ŠDefendant€contends€that€she€should€have€been€informed€that€(1)€a€test€result€showing€.10%€bloodŠ õ Šalcohol€content€or€higher€would€be€presumptive€proof€of€intoxication€in€a€criminal€proceeding;€(2)Š å€ Šthe€test€results,€no€matter€the€percentage,€could€be€used€as€evidence€in€a€criminal€proceeding,€(3)€ifŠ Õp Šshe€were€to€commit€subsequent€DUI€offenses€the€test€results€could€be€used€to€enhance€punishment,Š Å` Šand€(4)€she€was€entitled€to€have€an€additional€blood€sample€taken€to€be€tested€by€a€licensed€medicalŠ µP Šlaboratory€of€her€choice.Š „@ ŠĢą  ąWhat€is€notably€absent€from€Defendantššs€argument€is€any€reference€to€specific€constitutionalŠ …  Šrights€or€constitutional€language.€€Defendant€does€not€point€out€what€rights€of€Defendantššs€have€beenŠ u! Šinfringed€upon.€€Nor€does€Defendant€pinpoint€what€portions€of€the€constitution€might€require€a€moreŠ e"  Šexpansive€description€of€consequences€in€the€consent€form.€€As€a€result,€these€challenges€are€waived.€Š U#š! ŠTenn.€Ct.€Crim.€App.€R.€10(b);€ņņState€v.€Killebrewóó,€760€S.W.2d€228,€231€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Š E$ą" ŠĢą  ąDefendantššs€second€issue€alleges€that€the€trial€court's€denial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€as€toŠ %&Ą!$ Šthe€initial€stop€of€the€vehicle€was€in€error.€€Defendant€contends€that€Officer€Starnes€did€not€have€aŠ '°"% Šreasonable€articulable€suspicion€that€a€crime€had€been€committed€or€was€about€to€be€committed,€norŠ ( #& Šdid€Defendant€commit€any€traffic€infraction€in€the€officerššs€presence.€€Defendant€thus€reasons€thatŠ õ($' Šthe€vehicle€stop,€and€Defendant's€subsequent€arrest,€are€illegal.€€We€agree.Š å)€%( Šā āŠ Õ*p&) Šą  ąThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€š š[t]he€right€of€the€peopleŠ e Šā āto€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effects,€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures,Š Uš Šshall€not€be€violated,€and€no€warrants€shall€issue,€but€upon€probable€cause€.€.€.€.šš€€U.S.€Const.€amend.Š Eą ŠIV.€€Similarly,€article€I,€section€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guarantees€that€š šthe€people€shall€beŠ 5Š Šsecure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers€and€possessions,€from€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€.Š %Ą Š.€.€.šš€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€šš€7.€€Ō‡X±„ XXXé+ŌThese€constitutional€provisions€are€designed€to€safeguard€the€privacyŠ  ° Šand€security€of€individuals€against€arbitrary€invasions€of€government€officials.€€ņņState€v.€Keithóó,€978Š  ° ŠS.W.2d€861,€869€(Tenn.€1998)€(quoting€ņņCamara€v.€Municipal€Courtóó,€387€U.S.€523,€528€(1967).€€€TheŠ  œ ŠFourth€Amendment€protects€people,€not€places,€and€thus€the€amendment€protects€persons€against€Š ķ ˆ Šstate€action€whenever€a€person€has€a€reasonable€expectation€of€privacy.€€ņņKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389Š Ł t  ŠU.S.€347,€361€(1967)€(Harlan,€J.,€dissenting).€€Ō#†Xé+X XX±„ŁV#ŌUnless€it€falls€within€a€specifically€established€andŠ Å `  Šwell€delineated€exception,€a€search€or€seizure€conducted€without€a€warrant€is€per€se€unreasonable.€Š Å`  ŠņņKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€865.€€ņņóóEvidence€discovered€as€a€result€of€a€warrantless€search€or€seizure€is€subjectŠ µP  Što€suppression€unless€the€prosecution€demonstrates€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€theŠ „@  Šsearch€or€seizure€was€conducted€pursuant€to€an€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€ņņId.óó€ņņóóŠ •0  ŠĢą  ąOne€established€and€well€recognized€exception€to€the€warrant€requirement€is€the€seizureŠ u Šknown€as€the€investigatory€automobile€stop.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņOrnelas€v.€United€Statesóó,€517€U.S.690,€693€Š e Š(1996);€ņņKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€866;€ņņState€v.€Watkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€293,€294€(Tenn.€1992).€€A€policeŠ Uš Šofficer€may€make€an€investigatory€stop€of€a€motor€vehicle€when€the€officer€has€a€reasonableŠ Eą Šsuspicion,€supported€by€specific€and€articulable€facts,€that€a€criminal€offense€has€been€or€is€about€toŠ 5Š Šbe€committed.€€ņņOrnelasóó,€517€U.S.€at€690;€ņņKeithóó,€978€S.W.2d€at€866;€ņņWatkinsóó,€827€S.W.2d€at€294.€Š %Ą ŠThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€noted€that€š š[a]rticulating€precisely€what€ššreasonable€suspicionššŠ ° Šand€ššprobable€causešš€mean€is€not€possible.€€They€are€commonsense,€non„technical€conceptions€thatŠ   Šdeal€with€the€factual€and€practical€considerations€of€everyday€life€on€which€reasonable€and€prudentŠ õ Šmen,€not€legal€technicians,€act.šš€€ņņOrnelasóó,€590€U.S.€at€695€(quoting€ņņIllinois€v.€Gatesóó,€462€U.S.€213,Š å€ Š231€(1983)).€€A€minor€traffic€violation€also€constitutes€probable€cause€for€an€investigatory€stop€evenŠ Õp Šwhen€the€violation€is€a€pretext.€€ņņState€v.€Vineyardóó,€958€S.W.2d€730,€€(Tenn.€1997).€€A€vehicle€isŠ Å` Šseized€and€an€investigatory€stop€commences€when€a€law€enforcement€officer€activates€the€š šblueŠ µP Šlightsšš€on€the€police€vehicle.€€ņņState€v.€Yearganóó,€958€S.W.2d€626,€635€(Tenn.€1997)€(citationsŠ „@ Šomitted).€Š • 0 ŠĢą  ąThis€Court€must€uphold€a€trial€courtššs€findings€of€fact€resulting€from€a€suppression€hearingŠ u"  Šunless€the€evidence€preponderates€against€them.€€ņņState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€Š e#! ŠThe€burden€is€on€the€defendant€to€demonstrate€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialŠ U$š" Šcourtššs€findings.€€ņņState€v.€Hartsóó,€7€S.W.3d€78,€84€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Questions€of€credibilityŠ E%ą # Šof€the€witnesses,€the€weight€and€value€of€the€evidence,€and€resolution€of€conflicts€in€the€evidenceŠ 5&Š!$ Šare€matters€entrusted€to€the€trial€judge€as€the€trier€of€fact.€€ņņOdomóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€23.€€However,€theŠ %'Ą"% Šapplication€of€the€law€to€the€facts€is€a€question€of€law€which€is€reviewed€de€novo€on€appeal.€€ņņHartsóó,Š (°#& Š7€S.W.3d€at€84.Š ) $' ŠĢą  ąHere,€the€stop€of€Defendantššs€van€was€based€entirely€on€Officer€Starnesšš€observations;€theŠ å*€&) Švideo€unit€on€Officer€Starnesšš€patrol€vehicle€did€not€record€any€illegal€or€suspicious€actions€byŠ Õ+p'* ŠŃ&Ńā āŃŠ°ŃŃTRY,3Ų' LetterXą3Ų' Letter 3Ų' Letter’3Ų'TŃā āŃ  ŃDefendantššs€van.€€Officer€Starnes€testified€that€the€reason€his€attention€was€drawn€to€the€vehicle€wasŠ e Šbecause€the€van€entered€a€š šmergešš€laneš!šessentially€a€turn€laneš!šbriefly€crossed€over€the€white€solidŠ Uš Šline€at€the€right€shoulder€of€the€turn€lane,€and€then€exited€the€turn€lane€to€the€left€and€resumed€travelŠ Eą Šin€the€right„hand€lane€of€Lee€Highway.€€The€Officer€did€not€testify€as€to€any€other€suspicious€activityŠ 5Š Šby€the€van.Š %Ą ŠĢą  ąOfficer€Starnesšš€stop€of€Defendantššs€van€may€only€be€upheld€provided€that€Officer€StarnesŠ    Šhad€a€reasonable€articulable€suspicion€that€a€crime€had€been€or€was€about€to€be€committed€or€ifŠ õ  ŠOfficer€Starnes€had€evidence€that€Defendant€committed€a€traffic€violation.€€As€to€reasonableŠ å € Šsuspicion,€we€do€not€think€that€facts€here€demonstrate€a€reasonable€articulable€suspicion€that€a€crimeŠ Õ p  Šhas€been€or€is€about€to€be€committed.€€It€is€perfectly€plausible€that€a€motorist€may€initiate€a€rightŠ Å `  Šturn,€realize€that€he€or€she€does€not€want€to€make€the€turn,€and€resume€travel€in€the€correct€laneŠ µP  Šhaving,€ever€so€briefly,€crossed€the€solid€line€on€the€right„side€shoulder.€€The€fact€that€there€are€bars,Š „@  Šclubs,€or€other€commercial€enterprises€that€serve€alcohol€in€the€immediate€vicinity€does€not€changeŠ •0  Šthis€result.€€Reasonable€suspicion€justifying€the€stop€of€a€vehicle€does€not€spring€into€existenceŠ …  Šsimply€because€a€vehicle€is€operated€legally,€but€not€perfectly,€near€an€establishment€that€servesŠ u Šalcohol.Š e ŠĢą  ąWe€also€note€that€the€suspicious€activity€observed€by€Officer€Starnes€does€not€constitute,€inŠ Eą Šand€of€itself,€a€traffic€violation.€€Motorists€are€liable€to€change€their€mind€when€driving,€and€thus€itŠ 5Š Šis€not€unusual€for€a€vehicle€to€enter€a€turn€lane€and€then€return€to€a€travel€lane€without€making€a€turn.€Š %Ą ŠNor€do€we€think€that€a€vehicle€that€briefly€crosses€the€solid€white€line€on€the€shoulder€is€committingŠ ° Ša€traffic€violation.€€Our€laws€provide€that€š š[w]henever€any€roadway€has€been€divided€into€two€(2)Š   Šor€more€lanes€for€traffic€.€.€.€.€€A€vehicle€shall€be€ņņdrivenóó€as€nearly€as€practicable€entirely€within€aŠ õ Šsingle€lane,šš€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€šš€55„8„123(a)€(1997)€(emphasis€added),€but€we€do€not€think€that€aŠ å€ Šmomentary€drift€out€of€a€lane€constitutes€ņņdrivingóó€a€vehicle€outside€of€a€single€lane.€€ņņSeeóó€ņņUnited€StatesŠ Õp Šv.€Freemanóó,€209€F.3d€464,€466€(6ņņthóó€Cir.€2000)€(weaving€into€emergency€lane€one€time€for€a€few€feetŠ Å` Šnot€a€violation€of€šš€55„8„123).€€ņņCompareóó€ņņState€v.€Guy€Binetteóó,€No.€03C01„9802„CR„00075,€1999Š µP ŠWL€427606,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€28,€1999)€ņņperm.€to€appeal€grantedóóŠ „@ Š(Tenn€1999)€(reasonable€suspicion€present€when€video€unit€on€police€cruiser€videotaped€repeatedŠ •0 Šweaving€within€lane€of€travel€for€distance€of€more€than€two€miles).€€Š …  Šą  ąĢą  ąIn€sum,€if€we€allow€Defendant's€conviction€to€stand,€law€enforcement€officers€will€have€aŠ e"  Šreasonable€articulable€suspicion€to€stop€any€vehicle€in€the€vicinity€of€drinking€establishments€duringŠ U#š! Šlate€hours€of€the€night€if€the€vehicle€is€operated€in€less€than€perfect€fashion„„even€if€the€operation€ofŠ E$ą" Šthe€vehicle€is€in€compliance€with€our€traffic€laws.€€We€feel€that€the€United€States€Constitution€andŠ 5%Š # Šthe€Constitution€of€Tennessee€require€more.€€In€hindsightš!šwhich€we€are€not€permitted€to€use€as€aŠ %&Ą!$ Šbasis€for€our€decision€in€this€type€of€caseš!šthe€stop€resulted€in€the€removal€of€a€driver€where€theŠ '°"% Ševidence€indicated€she€was€intoxicated.€€As€unpleasant€as€our€conclusion€today€may€be€to€some,Š ( #& Šhowever,€the€result€reached€in€this€case€is€required€by€our€constitutions,€wherein€š šthe€end€does€notŠ õ($' Šjustify€the€means.šš€€Defendant's€conviction€is€reversed.€€The€case€is€remanded€to€the€HamiltonŠ å)€%( ŠCounty€Criminal€Court,€and€the€charge€against€Defendant€shall€be€dismissed.Š Õ*p&) ŠĢą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ą___________________________________€Š µ,P(+ Šą  ąą ` ąą ø ąą  ąą h ąą Ą ąą  ąTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE