WPC UNV % 0(w@4& 05 0D 0J 0TS 0^ 0h 0rm 0| 0[ 0 1uq 0d U>J U* B) DC AM kv~x Bv D3 0@ AOY 0Dn D/ B(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ OPQERSETUVWXӀ;$3|xa(8(2$ !  X X `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd-"C << G  !  #d#       YYY FILED XJune11,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'` dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ellan Geneva  ellan Geneva &&&&'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\7u XXdd7  R#$"A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ JANUARY1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE, @ )@ ) NO.01C019704CR00140  Appellant,@ )@ ) DAVIDSONCOUNTY VS. @ )@ ) HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER,JUANE.McADAMS, @ ) JUDGE @ ) Appellee.@ ) (MotiontoSuppress)y FORTHEAPPELLANT:JOHNKNOXWALKUP AttorneyGeneralandReporter ELLENH.POLLACK AssistantAttorneyGeneralCordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493 VICTORS.JOHNSON,III DistrictAttorneyGeneral PAMELAS.ANDERSON AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral WashingtonSquare,Suite500222SecondAvenueNorthNashville,TN372011649 FORTHEAPPELLEE:RICHARDMcGEE 601WoodlandStreetNashville,TN37206 OPINIONFILED:򀀀REVERSEDANDREMANDEDJERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE  OPINION   TheStateofTennesseeappealstherulingofthetrialcourtgrantingthedefendantsmotiontosuppresscocainediscoveredduringasearchofhismotorvehicle.Thedefendantwasinitiallystoppedforatrafficviolation.Sincehedoesnotcontestthevalidityofthatinitialstop,thesoleissuepresentedforappealiswhetherthesearchofthevehicleviolatedthedefendantsconstitutionalrights.Wefindthatitdidnot;therefore,wereverseandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.  SUPPRESSIONHEARING   TheonlytestimonyatthesuppressionhearingwasgivenbyOfficerBrockParks.OfficerParkstestifiedondirectexaminationthathestoppedthedefendantforfailingtocometoacompletehaltataSTOPsign.Arecordscheckrevealedthedefendantsdriverslicensetoberevoked.Theofficerthen placed[thedefendant]underarrestandputhiminthebackofthepatrolcar.Withthedefendantsecured,OfficerParksconductedasearchofthepassengercompartmentofthevehicle.Thissearchyieldedabrownpaperbagcontainingapproximatelythirty(30)gramsofcocaine,whichwasfoundonthedriverssidefloorboard. Duringcrossexamination,OfficerParkstestimonywasextremelyconfusingastowhethertheofficermerelyintendedtoissueacitationbeforethecocainewasdiscovered,orwhetherthedefendanthadbeenarrestedpriortothediscoveryofcocaine.Nevertheless,theofficerspecificallyacknowledgedthathecouldnotallowthedefendanttodriveawaysincehislicensehadbeenrevoked. Thetrialcourtappearstohavebeenconcernedovertheofficersapparentpracticeofsearchingeveryvehiclestoppedforatrafficoffense.Apparentlyconcludingthatthesearchwasincidenttoacitation,andnotanarrest,thetrialcourtorallygrantedthemotiontosuppress. Thetrialcourtsubsequentlyissuedamemorandumopinionfindingthesearchwasconductedupontheofficerslearning thatthedefendanthadnodriverslicense.Thetrialcourtdidnotacknowledgeinhisfindingstheuncontrovertedtestimonythatthedefendantsdriverslicensehadactuallybeenrevoked. Thetrialcourtreachedthefollowingconclusions: `   (1)Thesearchofthedefendantsvehiclecouldnotbebasedonthe CarrollDoctrinewhichpermitswarrantlesssearchesbasedontheofficersbeliefthatthevehiclecontainedcontraband.(2)Thesearchwasnotaninventorysearchsincetheofficerstatedhedidnotplantoimpoundthevehicle.(3)Theplainviewdoctrinecouldnotapplysincepapersacksarecommoninautomobiles,andthecocaineitselfwasnotinplainview.(4)Thiswasnotacustodialarrestinwhichasearchordinarilyoccursorisneeded. Moreimportantly,asearchincidenttoarrestisa[sic]limitedtothepersonandimmediatesurroundingsofthepersonarrested.    Weagreewiththetrialcourtsfirstthree(3)conclusions,butdisagreewiththelast.  CUSTODIALARREST   Becausethedefendantdoesnotchallengethevalidityoftheinitialstop,wewillfirstconsiderwhethertherewasacustodialarrestandwhethertheofficerhadgroundstomakesuchanarrest. Generally,officersaretoissuecitationstodriverscommittingminortrafficinfractions,ratherthancontinuingtoholdthemincustody.Tenn.CodeAnn.407118(b)(1).However,anofficermaynotissueacitationtoapersonwhere thereisareasonablelikelihoodthattheoffensewouldcontinue...Tenn.CodeAnn.407118(c)(2).WhenOfficerParksdiscoveredthedefendantwasdrivingonarevokedlicense,itwasincumbentupontheofficertopreventthedefendantfromcontinuingtodrivehisvehicleonarevokedlicense.Acustodialarrestisappropriateunderthesecircumstances. Baseduponhisconfusingtestimony,itisatleastarguablethatOfficerParksbelievedthathehadtheoptionofgivingthedefendantamisdemeanorcitationandlettinghimcontinuedrivinginsteadofarrestinghim.Ifhehadsuchabelief,hewasinerror.Regardless,theofficerssubjectivebeliefisnotcontrolling.Statev.Evetts,670S.W.2d640,642(Tenn.Crim.App.1984),seealso,Whrenv.U.S.,517U.S.806;116S.Ct.1769;135L.Ed289andStatev.VineyardandCockburn,958S.W.2d730(TN1998).(Holdingofficessubjectivebeliefsormotivesirelevantifthereisanobjectivelyreasonablebasisforarrest.)Wefindthedefendanthadbeenlawfullyarrestedpriortothesearchofhisvehicle. Thevalidityofthearrestestablished,wemustexaminewhethertheofficerhadarighttosearchthedefendantsvehicle.  SEARCHOFTHEVEHICLE    OfficerParkssearchedthedefendantsvehiclewithoutawarrant,andwarrantlesssearchesarepresumedtobeunreasonable.Coolidgev.NewHampshire,403U.S.443,45455,91S.Ct.2022,2032,29L.Ed.2d564,576(1971);Statev.Watkins,827S.W.2d293,295(Tenn.1992).Thestate,therefore,wasrequiredtoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidenceinthesuppressionhearingthatthesearchandresultingseizurewerejustifiedpursuanttooneoftherecognizedexceptionstothewarrantrequirement.Coolidge,403U.S.at45455,91S.Ct.at2032,29L.Ed.2dat576;Statev.McClanahan,806S.W.2d219,220(Tenn.Crim.App.1991). Whenanofficermakesacustodialarrestofamotorvehicleoperator,theofficerhasfullauthoritytosearchthepassengercompartmentofthemotorvehiclecontemporaneouslytothearrest.NewYorkv.Belton,453U.S.454,460,101S.Ct.2860,2864,69L.Ed.2d768,775(1990);Watkins,827S.W.2dat29596.The contemporaneousrequirementofthesearchisnotdestroyedwhenadefendantisplacedinapatrolcar.UnitedStatesv.White,871F.2d41,44(6thCir.1989);Watkins,827S.W.2dat296.WhenOfficerParksmadeavalidcustodialarrestofthedefendant,hehadarighttosearchthepassengercompartmentofthedefendantsvehicle.Thecocainediscoveredasaresultofthissearchisadmissible. Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.       _________________________        JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGECONCUR: _________________________ JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE_________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE